Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Fetal Rights & Forced Medical Treatment: Your Opinion?

Page 5 of 14 [ 224 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 ... 14  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 88
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

10 Mar 2010, 7:54 pm

JetLag wrote:
]A person is a person because of that person's unique essence. The child growing in the womb certainly does not have the nature of a fish, a reptile, or a bird; but rather he or she has a human nature.


A fetus (and also a new-born) does not have enough prefrontal cortex to be a person.

After birth, the brain grows at a furious rate and in a few months an infant has enough brain-works to be a person.

There is a good evolutionary reason for this. If the brain were too large at birth the skull containing it could not pass through the mother's birth canal. Humans are born relatively under developed relative to their fully grown state. We come half-baked from the oven, so to speak.

ruveyn



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

10 Mar 2010, 10:03 pm

A fetus is human (adj.) in the same way that your liver is human.

A fetus is not a human (noun), and neither is your liver. Until it can think, it's just a collection of tissues that's a bit more complex.



leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

10 Mar 2010, 11:10 pm

LKL wrote:
Until [a fetus] can think, it's just a collection of tissues that's a bit more complex.


Are you suggesting that means it is worthy of less care, concern, protection or whatever else than the liver we each need in order to remain alive?


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

10 Mar 2010, 11:33 pm

leejosepho wrote:
LKL wrote:
Until [a fetus] can think, it's just a collection of tissues that's a bit more complex.


Are you suggesting that means it is worthy of less care, concern, protection or whatever else than the liver we each need in order to remain alive?


Naturally.



PLA
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Sweden

11 Mar 2010, 7:32 am

leejosepho wrote:
LKL wrote:
Until [a fetus] can think, it's just a collection of tissues that's a bit more complex.


Are you suggesting that means it is worthy of less care, concern, protection or whatever else than the liver we each need in order to remain alive?

The bold makes a case.


_________________
I can make a statement true by placing it first in this signature.

"Everyone loves the dolphin. A bitter shark - emerging from it's cold depths - doesn't stand a chance." This is hyperbol.

"Run, Jump, Fall, Limp off, Try Harder."


leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

11 Mar 2010, 2:49 pm

PLA wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
LKL wrote:
Until [a fetus] can think, it's just a collection of tissues that's a bit more complex.


Are you suggesting that means it is worthy of less care, concern, protection or whatever else than the liver we each need in order to remain alive?

The bold makes a case.


So then, should it not be said mankind overall needs the fetus in order to "stay alive" just as we each need a liver?


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


JetLag
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Aug 2008
Age: 75
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,762
Location: California

11 Mar 2010, 10:54 pm

ruveyn wrote:
JetLag wrote:
]A person is a person because of that person's unique essence. The child growing in the womb certainly does not have the nature of a fish, a reptile, or a bird; but rather he or she has a human nature.


A fetus (and also a new-born) does not have enough prefrontal cortex to be a person.

After birth, the brain grows at a furious rate and in a few months an infant has enough brain-works to be a person.

There is a good evolutionary reason for this. If the brain were too large at birth the skull containing it could not pass through the mother's birth canal. Humans are born relatively under developed relative to their fully grown state. We come half-baked from the oven, so to speak.

ruveyn


But since that young life in the womb has human DNA and is very much alive, the fact is that the essence and nature of that person remains a human being, whether or not his or her "prefrontal cortex" is fully developed at birth, or afterward.

Speaking of "prefrontal cortex," I've read that it may be the reason that autistic people have problems with executive dysfunction and other functions related to such things as cognition, language, sociability, etc.

I'm concerned that there are some who may take this to mean that people whose "prefrontal cortex" has developed differently than the majority are less human.


_________________
Stung by the splendor of a sudden thought. ~ Robert Browning


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

11 Mar 2010, 11:07 pm

JetLag wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
JetLag wrote:
]A person is a person because of that person's unique essence. The child growing in the womb certainly does not have the nature of a fish, a reptile, or a bird; but rather he or she has a human nature.


A fetus (and also a new-born) does not have enough prefrontal cortex to be a person.

After birth, the brain grows at a furious rate and in a few months an infant has enough brain-works to be a person.

There is a good evolutionary reason for this. If the brain were too large at birth the skull containing it could not pass through the mother's birth canal. Humans are born relatively under developed relative to their fully grown state. We come half-baked from the oven, so to speak.

ruveyn


But since that young life in the womb has human DNA and is very much alive, the fact is that the essence and nature of that person remains a human being, whether or not his or her "prefrontal cortex" is fully developed at birth, or afterward.

Speaking of "prefrontal cortex," I've read that it may be the reason that autistic people have problems with executive dysfunction and other functions related to such things as cognition, language, sociability, etc.

I'm concerned that there are some who may take this to mean that people whose "prefrontal cortex" has developed differently than the majority are less human.


All humans are obviously not the same. I wonder what a scale of "humanity" might be like. A fetus is not even a living animal. It is merely an organ of the mother that has the possibility to become a living animal. As is a cell of the body and these die in multitudes each day in the normal life processes.



LKL
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Jul 2007
Age: 49
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,402

12 Mar 2010, 12:35 am

leejosepho wrote:
PLA wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
LKL wrote:
Until [a fetus] can think, it's just a collection of tissues that's a bit more complex.


Are you suggesting that means it is worthy of less care, concern, protection or whatever else than the liver we each need in order to remain alive?

The bold makes a case.


So then, should it not be said mankind overall needs the fetus in order to "stay alive" just as we each need a liver?


As long as we are reproducing above the replacement rate, it cannot be said that humanit 'needs' any given z/e/f.

wrt. human respect and neurological function, we can and do ascribe rights based on mental function. Young people cannot vote, drive cars, have sex, enlist in the army, drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, etc. because they are felt to lack the mental maturity necessary to do those things. The younger you are and the less high functioning you are, the less likely you are to be able to refuse medical care that your parents/doctors/the state feels is in your best interest - to the point that newborns can have peices of their genetalia removed, even in this country.

Less brain function = less rights. No brain function = no rights. A zef does not begin to show recognizably human EEG tracings until the 3rd trimester; before that point, it cannot be said to feel pain or fear in any real sense, and therefore cannot be considered sentient, much less sapient.

This is in contrast to the mother, which is an adult human being capable of fear, pain, hope, and planning for the future.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

12 Mar 2010, 1:06 am

LKL wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
PLA wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
LKL wrote:
Until [a fetus] can think, it's just a collection of tissues that's a bit more complex.


Are you suggesting that means it is worthy of less care, concern, protection or whatever else than the liver we each need in order to remain alive?

The bold makes a case.


So then, should it not be said mankind overall needs the fetus in order to "stay alive" just as we each need a liver?


As long as we are reproducing above the replacement rate, it cannot be said that humanit 'needs' any given z/e/f.

wrt. human respect and neurological function, we can and do ascribe rights based on mental function. Young people cannot vote, drive cars, have sex, enlist in the army, drink alcohol, smoke cigarettes, etc. because they are felt to lack the mental maturity necessary to do those things. The younger you are and the less high functioning you are, the less likely you are to be able to refuse medical care that your parents/doctors/the state feels is in your best interest - to the point that newborns can have peices of their genetalia removed, even in this country.

Less brain function = less rights. No brain function = no rights. A zef does not begin to show recognizably human EEG tracings until the 3rd trimester; before that point, it cannot be said to feel pain or fear in any real sense, and therefore cannot be considered sentient, much less sapient.

This is in contrast to the mother, which is an adult human being capable of fear, pain, hope, and planning for the future.


This seems to be a sensible outlook. Rights are bestowed by society and accumulate to the individual as the individual moves deeper into a social context with maturity and capability. A newly created fetus has zero social status and rights appropriate to that condition.



PLA
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Sweden

12 Mar 2010, 5:28 am

leejosepho wrote:
PLA wrote:
leejosepho wrote:
LKL wrote:
Until [a fetus] can think, it's just a collection of tissues that's a bit more complex.


Are you suggesting that means it is worthy of less care, concern, protection or whatever else than the liver we each need in order to remain alive?

The bold makes a case.


So then, should it not be said mankind overall needs the fetus in order to "stay alive" just as we each need a liver?


If, in the "body" of humanity, the fetuses are the liver, one fetus would still be hardly noticeable. The liver is not a static organ, it is worn and dying, continuously. If we were to prevent that process entirely, a condition would be that the liver could not even be used. Of course we minimise the damage where convenient, but only where convenient. This analogy isn't a good argument in either direction, though. It's just not a very apt comparison.


_________________
I can make a statement true by placing it first in this signature.

"Everyone loves the dolphin. A bitter shark - emerging from it's cold depths - doesn't stand a chance." This is hyperbol.

"Run, Jump, Fall, Limp off, Try Harder."


leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

12 Mar 2010, 7:14 am

JetLag wrote:
Speaking of "prefrontal cortex," I've read that it may be the reason autistic people have problems with executive dysfunction and other functions related to such things as cognition, language, sociability, etc.

I'm concerned that there are some who may take this to mean that people whose "prefrontal cortex" has developed differently than the majority are less human.


I often feel that way about myself ... as if somehow I am just not complete.

PLA wrote:
If, in the "body" of humanity, the fetuses are the liver ...


No such direct comparison was intended there. Maybe mankind's children are more like an individual's teeth where having many is not so vital as having a heart. But either way, this fact remains:

Without the fetus, mankind is dead.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


PLA
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Sweden

12 Mar 2010, 1:55 pm

leejosepho wrote:
JetLag wrote:
Speaking of "prefrontal cortex," I've read that it may be the reason autistic people have problems with executive dysfunction and other functions related to such things as cognition, language, sociability, etc.

I'm concerned that there are some who may take this to mean that people whose "prefrontal cortex" has developed differently than the majority are less human.


I often feel that way about myself ... as if somehow I am just not complete.

PLA wrote:
If, in the "body" of humanity, the fetuses are the liver ...


No such direct comparison was intended there. Maybe mankind's children are more like an individual's teeth where having many is not so vital as having a heart. But either way, this fact remains:

Without the fetus, mankind is dead.

Singularis?


_________________
I can make a statement true by placing it first in this signature.

"Everyone loves the dolphin. A bitter shark - emerging from it's cold depths - doesn't stand a chance." This is hyperbol.

"Run, Jump, Fall, Limp off, Try Harder."


leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

12 Mar 2010, 3:38 pm

PLA wrote:
Singularis?


Surely you can comprehend principle/s, can you not?

This discussion began on the matter of the alleged rights of a woman versus any "rights" possibly held by a fetus, but that is really a silly question if mankind is to continue on past its currently-present, newest generation. So then, what about the unwanted, unexpected, imposed (via rape) or even dangerous-to-mother-or-child pregnancy?

Those can be tough calls to make, but we will have to consider something other than alleged "rights" if we are to consider them sanely and rationally.

And then, of course, I understand how it really pisses some people off when somebody might presume to second-guess what "God" would have mankind do -- as far as I know, there is nothing in Scripture about abortion -- so I just proceed on the thought we can each and/or all simply do as we please as long as we do not then complain about any following consequences that could even include having possibly brought about our own demise.


_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================


PLA
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,929
Location: Sweden

12 Mar 2010, 4:40 pm

leejosepho wrote:
PLA wrote:
Singularis?


Surely you can comprehend principle/s, can you not?

This discussion began on the matter of the alleged rights of a woman versus any "rights" possibly held by a fetus, but that is really a silly question if mankind is to continue on past its currently-present, newest generation. So then, what about the unwanted, unexpected, imposed (via rape) or even dangerous-to-mother-or-child pregnancy?

Those can be tough calls to make, but we will have to consider something other than alleged "rights" if we are to consider them sanely and rationally.

And then, of course, I understand how it really pisses some people off when somebody might presume to second-guess what "God" would have mankind do -- as far as I know, there is nothing in Scripture about abortion -- so I just proceed on the thought we can each and/or all simply do as we please as long as we do not then complain about any following consequences that could even include having possibly brought about our own demise.

So the fetus in your previous phrasing was referring to all fetuses? I didn't notice how the discussion veered into the topic of whether the fetal stage serves any function and whether the phenomenon of the fetus should be entirely removed from human society.

In this case, yes, I agree that a fetus can carry out functions, that some of these functions can be beneficial, and that we should avoid exterminating the phenomenon of human biological reproduction if we wish to maintain humanity as a whole.


_________________
I can make a statement true by placing it first in this signature.

"Everyone loves the dolphin. A bitter shark - emerging from it's cold depths - doesn't stand a chance." This is hyperbol.

"Run, Jump, Fall, Limp off, Try Harder."


Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

12 Mar 2010, 8:25 pm

The presumption that permitting abortions in appropriate circumstances is a threat to all human reproduction can only be characterized as psychotic.