re: Nebraska: Women overwhelmed with joy and in tears, after abortion ban bill fails

There are over 65 million murderors out there walking around..... And they all have a pussy! Fact jack!

Here is an idea. Focus on the 99% of cases where abortions are the equivalent of popping an inconvenient zit.

quote:

---

All good questions.

1. Koko was a perfect case study for this discussion. Most estimates put her IQ equivalent somewhere between the 60s and very low 80s. Even the lowest estimates are higher than profoundly-retarded humans, and the highest estimates would have put her in the second standard deviation among humans. If every mountain gorilla were capable of basic reasoning and of communicating (as with her simplified sign language) at her level, I think that it would be almost mandatory to confer basic rights upon the species ... but that does not seem to be the case. By all indicators, Koko was the Stephen Hawking of her species. So, the question arises as to whether we should confer legal rights to an entire species, based upon the marginal sapience of its most-exceptional member. Honestly, I don't pretend to have a definitive answer to that question, but my impulse is to say that such cases would be handled on an ad hoc basis. If you've not read " Jerry was a Man" by Heinlein, I highly-recommend that you do so. It is a fascinating study of this question in "short story" form, and you can probably read it in 15 minutes or so.
quote:
"What is a man? A collection of living cells and tissue? A legal fiction, like this corporate ‘person’ that would take poor Jerry’s life? No, a man is none of these things. A man is a collection of hopes and fears, of human longings, of aspirations greater than himself—more than the clay from which he came"
As far as profoundly-retarded humans are concerned, we "strip" them of rights all the time. It is not remotely unusual to see them declared non compos mentis. Of course, that is a far cry from saying that it is acceptable to kill them.

2. It seems to me that "rights" are not just something that one "has," but rather something that one can "exercise." I just don't see any way that an organism lacking either consciousness or sapience can "exercise" a right.

The struggle is to find an indicator that would "cover the bases." Simply being a member of Homo Sapiens sapiens does not do that for me, because I feel that the calculus MUST include the possibility of other intelligent species somewhere, whether we are discussing mountain gorillas, dolphins or Klaatu and his people. It would not be inherently unreasonable to say that "rights" should vest in any member of a species in which the eventual development of consciousness/sapience is the norm, but that brings us right back to the question of conflicting rights between two members of the same species. See your point 3.

As an example, G.R.R. Martin examined in Sand Kings a species that does not develop consciousness/sapience until several years after birth (hatching, in his example). John Ringo posited something similar in his Posleen series, as did Turledove in his WorldWar series. The adults of the species actually ATE the hatchlings, assuring in a Darwinistic way that only the most-capable hatchlings survived long-enough to DEVELOP sapience. In both cases, this was biologically-normal for the species. Would humans chauvinistically try to ignore the entire evolution of those species and confer rights upon offspring that would EVENTUALLY demonstrate consciousness/sapience?

3. I think that we DO assign relative levels of importance to different "rights" ... once those rights have vested. I think that you MAY be suggesting that different "levels" of rights might vest at different times. e.g. a right to drive at 16, to vote at 18 and to consume alcohol at 21. You seem to suggest adding a negative right not to be killed, vesting at "conception." There is nothing inherently unreasonable about that notion, either. It is just one that produces results which I do not see as being acceptable.

It seems to me that the question reduces to "what is the essence ... the gestalt ... of a 'person'?" A religious person might call it a "soul" and insist that it is magically conferred by a deity at conception. I tend to believe that it is something which develops over time and which only begins to come into existence when the neural system (the hardware) has developed to the point of being able to SUPPORT it.

If we look at the question from that angle, I would HOPE that you can acknowledge that it is not unreasonable to think that an organism which LACKS that hardware (and therefore lacks that essence or gestalt) would have no inherent entitlement to legal rights.

4. The protection of animals is not really a matter of "rights," despite the misuse of that term by animal lovers. As you say, it is really more a matter of "obligation." It can arise from a variety of different considerations. For example, we might prohibit DDT because it destroys the eggs of raptors, and we want to be sure that we have raptors on the planet. On the other hand, we might prohibit humans from torturing dogs because that sort of behavior tends to engender similar behavior to other humans.

So, do we have a similar "obligation" to preserve the life of an embryo or of a fetus? There is no objective answer to that question, as far as I can see.

---

Thanks again for your thoughts and reading suggestions.

I must say that as yet I remain unconvinced, however.

I understand your treatment of the central issue of personhood—and it's logically sound as far as I can tell—but where it breaks down for me is that I disagree that that is the only central question.

You started out asking fundamental questions about rights, and I think that is just as central a problem to define and explore as personhood.

To me—at their core—rights require a framework of justice, and justice requires morality. You also mentioned objectivity near the end of your post.

I can't see any possibility of objective morality without a transcendent authority that provides a universal standard. Without that, any individual's, culture's, societies's, etc. morality is subject to whim, and so are the rights that are built on the foundations of that morality and which exist within that foundation.

I think that's why the founding fathers of the country conceived of rights as being inherent and endowed by a Creator. Not that you can't disagree with the founding fathers, but they did establish the system we're discussing, and a metaphysical basis and the authority of the creator was good enough for them to confer rights (at least theoretically, as they certainly violated some of the ideals they conceived of).

To me that seems like a more logically stable basis for what rights are. Sapience and personhood still seems like a relatively arbitrary basis for conferring rights compared to the framer's concept of the situation IMO.

quote:

---

Here is an idea. Focus on the 99% of cases where abortions are the equivalent of popping an inconvenient zit.

---

Maybe you should focus on the thousands of cases that do happen outside of just convenience. Its higher than one percent but we can stick with that figure as the data is not exact due to the way reporting works.

Its those cases that are on the minds of tens of millions of women that may find abortion out of convenience objectionable but dont trust or dont want lawmakers interfering when something terrible happens during pregnancy. You can pretend that isnt a huge factor but you would be mistaken. Its why Ireland reversed course on some of their abortion laws.

quote:

---

There are options. Don’t frick. Wear a rubber.

---

Rubbers don't work 10-15 of the time. Can those women apply for an abortion?

You know, of course, the next step is baning contraceptives.

quote:

---

I also don't think an embryo is a person. There's no thought or consciousness.

---

i

quote:

---

Is this the line for you? Shall We explore this further?

---

I'll bite. Let's see your spiel.

quote:

---

as yet I remain unconvinced, however.

---

No offense, but I would not expect otherwise.

Your references to a “higher power“ and to “objective morality“ tend to indicate that you’re not really open to a non-religious approach to the question. Nothing wrong with that.

I think that the “higher power“ is superstitious nonsense, and that “objective morality“ is an entertaining fiction. I’m highly unlikely to see things from your perspective. The nice thing, however, is that you and I seem to be able to be polite in our discussion.

quote:

---

Sapience and personhood still seems like a relatively arbitrary basis for conferring rights

---

No more so than the taboos of Bronze Age desert nomads. In the end, both are utterly arbitrary.

quote:

---

If we are being honest, I don't want women who would abort a baby to ever raise a child. Women want to take risks and have no accountability.

---

I suspect that if they had a husband that wanted to have kids, they would change their tune.

A lot of these activist types are just lonely and disillusioned.

quote:

---

A 4 week child inutero has the capacity for reasoning, there is no denying this fact.

---

That's a new one on me. You have some reasonable authority on that?

quote:

---

The people you are talking to are in good faith arguing against killing babies. You demanding civil conversation seems silly considering your position is in favor of killing babies.

---

You use the terminology "killing babies" twice and then claim good faith argument.

Complete horseshite.