336 Million

[thegreekdog]

The only way to get around this is to make the speciesist assertion that humans are inherently worthy of the right to life; but there is no logical justification for this, and there are plenty of practical problems with this definition, as I can explain if you desire.

Can you explain it to me? If there is no logical justification for your right to life, would you not have a problem being killed?

[premio53]

There is no difference between the morals of Adolf Hitler and abortionists.

[Metsfanmax]

Well, I've already explained this to you, but let's go again.

The basic logic, which is fairly simple, is that to be a person, an organism needs to have the traits we normally associate with personhood (e.g. the ability to feel pain, and the ability to see oneself as existing over time). It is wrong to kill a person precisely because only a person has those traits which we deem worthy of special protection. In this line of argumentation, many non-human animals are persons, but a fetus is not a person, because a fetus is not a self-conscious organism, and a fetus does not even have the neural pathways established to have sensory inputs like pain before 2/3 of the pregnancy is completed. The "pro-choice" and "pro-life" sides typically either debate about whether a fetus is a human (obviously a silly debate), or about whether it is always wrong to kill a human, but rarely stop to ask if a fetus shares the same characteristics that make a human actually worthy of something similar to the right to life. The answer, of course, is that they obviously do not. The only way to get around this is to make the speciesist assertion that humans are inherently worthy of the right to life; but there is no logical justification for this, and there are plenty of practical problems with this definition, as I can explain if you desire. It is unfortunate that the discussion isn't grounded on a sensible understanding of what makes killing wrong to begin with, because no one is likely to make progress when people can't even agree on the basic ethical principles involved.

So next time there's a Serial Killer around go volunteer yourself to be his victim seeing as you lay no claim on your right to live.

I think you missed the point I was making, and please accept my apologies for not being perfectly explicit. The highlighted sentence argued that humans do not have a right to life simply because they are members of the species Homo sapiens. I still contend that the life of any person is well worth protecting and regarding as important, and I am a person. This has the two implications I hinted at: first, if any non-human animal can be considered a person, it should be given the same legal protections as adult humans. Second, any organism that does not have the qualities of personhood does not enjoy the same protections as a person, although in general one should shy away from killing any sentient organism unless there's an acceptable reason. In particular, the standard I advocate judging by is to avoid harming a non-human animal is if the benefit you gain from it pales in comparison to the harm inflicted on the animal. This informs my vegan lifestyle, but it's an issue for a separate thread.

Might as well kiss goodbye to any freedoms you hold dear as well. You have no logically justifiable right to them. Each "fetus" is called a BABY, which is personal can experience pain and can PANIC (thats an emotion btw).

I already pointed out that it's physiologically impossible for a fetus to feel pain before roughly 24 weeks into the pregnancy, so if the ability to feel pain is your standard, then you would still be ok with abortions in the first two trimesters. However, there are two distinct classes of organisms here; those that are sentient (i.e. can feel pain/pleasure) and those that are sentient and self-conscious (i.e. can see themselves as existing over time). Only the latter are persons. The former, which encompasses the fetus after the first two trimesters until about a couple of months after birth, are quite worthy of regard, but they do not have the same sort of right to life that persons do. For a good enough reason, it would be ethically acceptable to kill the baby in this case.

You are also denying that many if not all people with Autism and similar disorders/disabilities as people because many of them cannot relate to time, and thus cannot see themselves existing over time.

Autistic people are capable of perceiving time and understanding themselves as existing over time, even though their perception of the passage of time itself may be significantly different from those unafflicted. Only a fundamentally and severely disabled individual would be incapable of understanding themselves as existing over time. At any rate, I choose this definition as a simple way to express self-awareness. If you do not like it, there are other definitions. For example, a crude definition would be that any organism capable of passing the mirror test is a person.

Similarly your argumentation can be taken to say that those who do not have traits "worthy" of special protection do not have the right to live or even contribute to society. And yet you are probably a strong environmentalist, seeing that you in your basic line of argumentation argue that animals can be considered people, yet they lack the ability to reason and are driven by instinct and primal urges.

While it surely the case that most animals are not people, it is simply false that all non-human animals are "driven by instinct and primal urges." Many species, notably the great apes but also some bird species for example, have demonstrated significant reasoning skills. It is more or less impossible to explain some of the study results we see by appealing to some sort of instinctual reaction. I can get into some of the specifics of the tests if you like.

Thou shalt not kill.- This is why abortion is wrong.

It is not possible for me to carry on a meaningful ethical debate with someone whose morals are couched in the language of religion. There is no reasoning involved, there are just fundamental absolutes. Although there are plenty of reasons why the typical absolute right to life standard is flawed, which are reasons enough to reject the religious interpretation, and I can get into them if you would like to engage on that subject.

I am for I was, even as a fetus. If you eliminate the person before it can debate with you about the fact that it is a person. I was carried in my mothers womb as a baby, was born and yet cannot remember everything that shaped me in childhood. Does that make me any less of a person then than now? I trow not.

One is either a person or not a person. Once a being is capable of forming memories and being self-aware, it is a person. You are not more of a person than when you were a young child, but you were not a person at all when you were a fetus. This is simply logically obvious. If you insist that you were a person as a fetus, then all you are doing is redefining "person" as "human being," in which case the entire meaning of the argument is lost.

[john9blue]

The basic logic, which is fairly simple, is that to be a person, an organism needs to have the traits we normally associate with personhood (e.g. the ability to feel pain, and the ability to see oneself as existing over time).

comatose and unconscious people meet neither of these criteria. can we kill them all?

[thegreekdog]

I still contend that the life of any person is well worth protecting and regarding as important, and I am a person.

Okay.

At any rate, I choose this definition as a simple way to express self-awareness. If you do not like it, there are other definitions. For example, a crude definition would be that any organism capable of passing the mirror test is a person.

From the age of 6 to 12 months, the child typically sees a "sociable playmate" in the mirror's reflection.

So if you have a child, it would be perfectly okay for someone to kill that child before he or she reaches 12 months of age? Note, I'm not talking about a child; I'm talking about your child.

Although there are plenty of reasons why the typical absolute right to life standard is flawed,

I would like to get into this. Why is the absolute right to life standard flawed if applied to your definition of a person?

One is either a person or not a person. Once a being is capable of forming memories and being self-aware, it is a person. You are not more of a person than when you were a young child, but you were not a person at all when you were a fetus. This is simply logically obvious. If you insist that you were a person as a fetus, then all you are doing is redefining "person" as "human being," in which case the entire meaning of the argument is lost.

Can you flesh this out some more? This is where I'm having trouble with respect to your definition. Let's ignore abortion for a second and focus on the idea of "personhood" and your definition (from what I can gather): namely, self-recognition. If a human being will eventually be a person, why is it okay to kill the human being? I'm also a bit concerned about your use of logic in what can only be considered a desire (namely, the ability or right to live).

By the way, for those that care - Mets' definitions and reasoning are not the definitions and reasoning used in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

[thegreekdog]

The basic logic, which is fairly simple, is that to be a person, an organism needs to have the traits we normally associate with personhood (e.g. the ability to feel pain, and the ability to see oneself as existing over time).

comatose and unconscious people meet neither of these criteria. can we kill them all?

Yes. Unconscious people cannot meet the definition of personhood that Mets has indicated; it does not matter that they will eventually be conscious since they are not conscious at the time you kill them.

[Metsfanmax]

The basic logic, which is fairly simple, is that to be a person, an organism needs to have the traits we normally associate with personhood (e.g. the ability to feel pain, and the ability to see oneself as existing over time).

comatose and unconscious people meet neither of these criteria. can we kill them all?

No. In the case of someone who is temporarily comatose or unconscious, one would obviously reach unintended conclusions if one applied directly the standard of presently seeing oneself as existing over time. Therefore the theory may be modified to be made more explicit by saying that a person is any being that has at some time been self-aware, even if they are not presently in this state (this is what I meant when I said that an organism has the ability to see oneself as existing over time -- it may not be exercising that ability at every moment, though). It can be modified even more if one were to discuss cases of humans in persistent vegetative states that are no longer capable of being self-aware, in which case one might want to extend the definition even further by saying that a person must have at some time been self-aware and also must be capable of being self-aware at some point in the future. These are complications on the main issue at hand, but do lead into interesting questions about how to treat, for example, brain-dead patients.

At any rate, I choose this definition as a simple way to express self-awareness. If you do not like it, there are other definitions. For example, a crude definition would be that any organism capable of passing the mirror test is a person.

From the age of 6 to 12 months, the child typically sees a "sociable playmate" in the mirror's reflection.

So if you have a child, it would be perfectly okay for someone to kill that child before he or she reaches 12 months of age? Note, I'm not talking about a child; I'm talking about your child.

No, of course not. There are external reasons why it would be gravely wrong for someone to kill my newborn child -- namely, the distress it would cause to me (although this is largely hypothetical as I do not intend to have children). My argument is that it is wrong but it is not murder to kill a newborn child. Note that I specifically advocated a standard of one month after birth to be conservative, because there will certainly be some cases of children maturing faster than the norm.

Although there are plenty of reasons why the typical absolute right to life standard is flawed,

I would like to get into this. Why is the absolute right to life standard flawed if applied to your definition of a person?

My apologies again for the lack of clarity; I was referring to the traditional "absolute right to life of humans" standard that is often espoused by, for example, the Catholic Church. One reason it is flawed is, for example, the issue of twinning. Twins can be formed up to two weeks after conception, and this muddles the question of what it means for the newly conceived fetus to be a unique person. Another is that it demands that we can never actively terminate the life of a gravely ill patient in serious pain, yet doctors effectively (passively) do this all the time when they, for example, decide to stop treatment on such a patient that extends the agony. From the doctor's point of view, both decisions terminate a life, yet for some reason people call the first murder and the second being a good doctor.

One is either a person or not a person. Once a being is capable of forming memories and being self-aware, it is a person. You are not more of a person than when you were a young child, but you were not a person at all when you were a fetus. This is simply logically obvious. If you insist that you were a person as a fetus, then all you are doing is redefining "person" as "human being," in which case the entire meaning of the argument is lost.

Can you flesh this out some more? This is where I'm having trouble with respect to your definition. Let's ignore abortion for a second and focus on the idea of "personhood" and your definition (from what I can gather): namely, self-recognition. If a human being will eventually be a person, why is it okay to kill the human being?

Well, because we don't apply rights when the conditions for those rights have not been fulfilled. Prince Charles is next in line to be the head monarch of England, but we don't presently grant him the rights of the King just because he will someday hold that title. A President-elect has several months after being elected where we do not give this person access to the nuclear football.

I'm also a bit concerned about your use of logic in what can only be considered a desire (namely, the ability or right to live).

There is no problem with it; in fact, it's the basis for my system of ethics (preference utilitarianism). Ultimately, reason and logic do not dictate what people's desires are; those desires are inputs that must be respected in a system of ethics. Perhaps for that reason, I don't believe in an absolute right to life for persons, but do believe that such an effective right springs from the categorical imperative. Namely, it is my desire not to be killed, so a proper universalization of that principle leads one to the principle that one should not murder.

By the way, for those that care - Mets' definitions and reasoning are not the definitions and reasoning used in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

This is quite correct. My arguments are not accepted as any current legal doctrine; nevertheless, I find them to be compelling on philosophical grounds, even if I doubt that after-birth abortion will be accepted any time soon in this country.

[john9blue]

The basic logic, which is fairly simple, is that to be a person, an organism needs to have the traits we normally associate with personhood (e.g. the ability to feel pain, and the ability to see oneself as existing over time).

comatose and unconscious people meet neither of these criteria. can we kill them all?

No. In the case of someone who is temporarily comatose or unconscious, one would obviously reach unintended conclusions if one applied directly the standard of presently seeing oneself as existing over time. Therefore the theory may be modified to be made more explicit by saying that a person is any being that has at some time been self-aware, even if they are not presently in this state (this is what I meant when I said that an organism has the ability to see oneself as existing over time -- it may not be exercising that ability at every moment, though). It can be modified even more if one were to discuss cases of humans in persistent vegetative states that are no longer capable of being self-aware, in which case one might want to extend the definition even further by saying that a person must have at some time been self-aware and also must be capable of being self-aware at some point in the future. These are complications on the main issue at hand, but do lead into interesting questions about how to treat, for example, brain-dead patients.

as a consequentialist i reject your claim that the past should matter when making decisions. only the future effects of a decision should matter.

if you don't determine the morality of an action by its consequences, then how else do you do it?

[Metsfanmax]

The basic logic, which is fairly simple, is that to be a person, an organism needs to have the traits we normally associate with personhood (e.g. the ability to feel pain, and the ability to see oneself as existing over time).

comatose and unconscious people meet neither of these criteria. can we kill them all?

No. In the case of someone who is temporarily comatose or unconscious, one would obviously reach unintended conclusions if one applied directly the standard of presently seeing oneself as existing over time. Therefore the theory may be modified to be made more explicit by saying that a person is any being that has at some time been self-aware, even if they are not presently in this state (this is what I meant when I said that an organism has the ability to see oneself as existing over time -- it may not be exercising that ability at every moment, though). It can be modified even more if one were to discuss cases of humans in persistent vegetative states that are no longer capable of being self-aware, in which case one might want to extend the definition even further by saying that a person must have at some time been self-aware and also must be capable of being self-aware at some point in the future. These are complications on the main issue at hand, but do lead into interesting questions about how to treat, for example, brain-dead patients.

as a consequentialist i reject your claim that the past should matter when making decisions. only the future effects of a decision should matter.

if you don't determine the morality of an action by its consequences, then how else do you do it?

I don't understand what you are getting at. The morality of the action of murder is judged by its consequence of killing a person. The fact that one must refer to "the past" to understand what a person is, is not relevant to the general scheme of judging an action by its future consequences.

[Lootifer]

So if you have a child, it would be perfectly okay for someone to kill that child before he or she reaches 12 months of age? Note, I'm not talking about a child; I'm talking about your child.

That's easy, so easy I feel I even have the right to answer although I have no children myself.

Firstly; no, it is not ok.

Second; neither is abortion. Abortion is a terrible thing.

But in both cases there are certain scenarios where I believe the actions to be tolerable.

Sure in NS's eyes my tolerance makes me a murderer. But then again, the catholic church murders people every day through intolerance, so that little sword cuts both ways.

[rishaed]

The basic logic, which is fairly simple, is that to be a person, an organism needs to have the traits we normally associate with personhood (e.g. the ability to feel pain, and the ability to see oneself as existing over time).

comatose and unconscious people meet neither of these criteria. can we kill them all?

No. In the case of someone who is temporarily comatose or unconscious, one would obviously reach unintended conclusions if one applied directly the standard of presently seeing oneself as existing over time. Therefore the theory may be modified to be made more explicit by saying that a person is any being that has at some time been self-aware, even if they are not presently in this state (this is what I meant when I said that an organism has the ability to see oneself as existing over time -- it may not be exercising that ability at every moment, though). It can be modified even more if one were to discuss cases of humans in persistent vegetative states that are no longer capable of being self-aware, in which case one might want to extend the definition even further by saying that a person must have at some time been self-aware and also must be capable of being self-aware at some point in the future. These are complications on the main issue at hand, but do lead into interesting questions about how to treat, for example, brain-dead patients.

as a consequentialist i reject your claim that the past should matter when making decisions. only the future effects of a decision should matter.

if you don't determine the morality of an action by its consequences, then how else do you do it?

I don't understand what you are getting at. The morality of the action of murder is judged by its consequence of killing a person. The fact that one must refer to "the past" to understand what a person is, is not relevant to the general scheme of judging an action by its future consequences.

Exactly! I was not more or less of a person as a child (a newborn) than I am now, it is just as much murder to kill me then, as it is now. And since without me as an unborn child within my womb determines the fact that I am here presently, I can conclude that since I and the me that was unborn at the time are one and the same person, it would be murder to kill me in the womb as well.
For your reference, for me conception is the point where life begins, so I'm not OK with abortion at all. To me its still murder.
I was therefor I am. Thus speaking without every part of the past of how I was formed, and born I would not exist. And seeing as I exist as a person, with a personality, with wants, desires, emotions, thoughts, and every other part of me. From my hair down to my very skin cells, if there was not each precise step in my beginning I would not be, therefor since I require every step to live, and every step is essential for me to live I was therefor I am. My status as a person is not revoked because of what stage of life I am in.

[john9blue]

I don't understand what you are getting at. The morality of the action of murder is judged by its consequence of killing a person. The fact that one must refer to "the past" to understand what a person is, is not relevant to the general scheme of judging an action by its future consequences.

but WHY should we refer to the past to determine this? if it was possible to turn an insect into a fully grown human within seconds (via electrocution or something), wouldn't it still be wrong to kill this human despite the fact that they were an insect only seconds ago? the past doesn't matter at all when it comes to making the right decision NOW with regards to the current state of things.

[chang50]

The basic logic, which is fairly simple, is that to be a person, an organism needs to have the traits we normally associate with personhood (e.g. the ability to feel pain, and the ability to see oneself as existing over time).

comatose and unconscious people meet neither of these criteria. can we kill them all?

No. In the case of someone who is temporarily comatose or unconscious, one would obviously reach unintended conclusions if one applied directly the standard of presently seeing oneself as existing over time. Therefore the theory may be modified to be made more explicit by saying that a person is any being that has at some time been self-aware, even if they are not presently in this state (this is what I meant when I said that an organism has the ability to see oneself as existing over time -- it may not be exercising that ability at every moment, though). It can be modified even more if one were to discuss cases of humans in persistent vegetative states that are no longer capable of being self-aware, in which case one might want to extend the definition even further by saying that a person must have at some time been self-aware and also must be capable of being self-aware at some point in the future. These are complications on the main issue at hand, but do lead into interesting questions about how to treat, for example, brain-dead patients.

as a consequentialist i reject your claim that the past should matter when making decisions. only the future effects of a decision should matter.

if you don't determine the morality of an action by its consequences, then how else do you do it?

I don't understand what you are getting at. The morality of the action of murder is judged by its consequence of killing a person. The fact that one must refer to "the past" to understand what a person is, is not relevant to the general scheme of judging an action by its future consequences.

Exactly! I was not more or less of a person as a child (a newborn) than I am now, it is just as much murder to kill me then, as it is now. And since without me as an unborn child within my womb determines the fact that I am here presently, I can conclude that since I and the me that was unborn at the time are one and the same person, it would be murder to kill me in the womb as well.
For your reference, for me conception is the point where life begins, so I'm not OK with abortion at all. To me its still murder.
I was therefor I am. Thus speaking without every part of the past of how I was formed, and born I would not exist. And seeing as I exist as a person, with a personality, with wants, desires, emotions, thoughts, and every other part of me. From my hair down to my very skin cells, if there was not each precise step in my beginning I would not be, therefor since I require every step to live, and every step is essential for me to live I was therefor I am. My status as a person is not revoked because of what stage of life I am in.

So every spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) is exactly equivalent to the death of a fully formed sentient being,even if it is a handful of cells that can only be seen under a microscope and the potential mother is neither aware of the pregnancy or the miscarriage?If I have misunderstood please clarify..

[BigBallinStalin]

The basic logic, which is fairly simple, is that to be a person, an organism needs to have the traits we normally associate with personhood (e.g. the ability to feel pain, and the ability to see oneself as existing over time).

comatose and unconscious people meet neither of these criteria. can we kill them all?

No. In the case of someone who is temporarily comatose or unconscious, one would obviously reach unintended conclusions if one applied directly the standard of presently seeing oneself as existing over time. Therefore the theory may be modified to be made more explicit by saying that a person is any being that has at some time been self-aware, even if they are not presently in this state (this is what I meant when I said that an organism has the ability to see oneself as existing over time -- it may not be exercising that ability at every moment, though). It can be modified even more if one were to discuss cases of humans in persistent vegetative states that are no longer capable of being self-aware, in which case one might want to extend the definition even further by saying that a person must have at some time been self-aware and also must be capable of being self-aware at some point in the future. These are complications on the main issue at hand, but do lead into interesting questions about how to treat, for example, brain-dead patients.

Therefore, if a PV human has been born that way, thus has never been self-aware at any time, then it's okay to kill that human?

[Night Strike]

So every spontaneous abortion (miscarriage) is exactly equivalent to the death of a fully formed sentient being,even if it is a handful of cells that can only be seen under a microscope and the potential mother is neither aware of the pregnancy or the miscarriage?If I have misunderstood please clarify..

Biologically speaking....yes. Humans die of natural causes every day. The difference is the sentimental value that person had to other people. But from biology, there is no difference.

[_sabotage_]

The government tried to forcibly abort my sister-in-law when her mother was eight months pregnant. This isn't standard procedure to wait so long, but as it was her fourth child, she was pretty good at concealing her pregnancies by then. That was 25 years ago. Nowadays, you have to pay a fine for subsequent children, have them born abroad, or have them wait for an ID card until after an amnesty. But my wife's 4 siblings, a son was the fifth, did suffer from the loss of their property, their dad was fired and my wife clearly remembers her dad pulling out knives to fend off the would be abortionists.

The fine for a second child born within five years of the first is 165,000 RMB, or you can just wait five years and apply. What is more fucked up though, is the coil. In order to get an ID card for my son, and therefore a passport, my wife had to have a contraceptive coil inserted. She was indignant about this, and I suggested we bribe the doctors to say they did it, but she is cheap and decided she didn't want to take that route. When she arrived here, I asked her to get it removed, but she prefers to keep it in as a contraceptive. She is constantly talking about having a daughter, so it may come out soon.

As a policy, it is terrible to enact, difficult to enforce and ineffectual. If you are poor and stupid or willing , they will likely abort the children, otherwise they will use other deterrents. Many applications require you to have complied with the policy to be admitted, such as becoming a civil servant, getting a business license or a passport. The rich pay fines or bribes, the poor don't care and the fledgling middle class gets stuck following.

On the other hand, having a child has many social obstacles as well for the middle class. As a child, my wife witnessed her parents desire for a son, was told by her grandmother that she would amount to nothing and had to pay her own way through college. But this made her strong and self reliant. Many sons have accomplished their parents ambitions for them just by being born and then become layabouts. In Shenzhen, the ratio of women to men is 6:1. This is significant because 30 years ago the population there was 30,000 and now it's 12,000,000. That is, the population is based on migration and the successful migration is dependent on meeting the needs of an economic centre, Shenzhen, and are mainly met by women who grew up feeling the need to prove themselves.

Leftover women: is a term applied to women who reach their mid thirties unwed. A perspective husband in china must be: taller, richer, older and better educated then the wife. As women become more and more successful, their list of potential suitors drops sharply. This is leading to a natural decline in births.

To marry, you need to buy a property and usually a car, have a stable income and meet the family's requirements. This is leading to fewer births as well. A friend of mine was contacted last summer by a wealthy 30 something ex to impregnate her. He declined. This would have been a way around the social constraints for her: she could say the foreign father was an asshole and ran off. For young men from a humble background there are few ways around these constraints.

Due to social constraints, certain classes are more subject to laws than others. Poor families will have less than the rich and cannot pay the fines. The policies are repugnant and difficult to enforce. But from all perspectives, our western criticisms are generally unfair. In our media we are presented with a limited side. China is constantly impressed upon by world bodies with the need to limit the population, and then criticized more publicly for how they do it.

336 m is a large number, so is 1.5 b. which do you want to bitch about? And how many facts are you willing to ignore to do so?

[PLAYER57832]

My apologies again for the lack of clarity; I was referring to the traditional "absolute right to life of humans" standard that is often espoused by, for example, the Catholic Church. One reason it is flawed is, for example, the issue of twinning. Twins can be formed up to two weeks after conception, and this muddles the question of what it means for the newly conceived fetus to be a unique person. Another is that it demands that we can never actively terminate the life of a gravely ill patient in serious pain, yet doctors effectively (passively) do this all the time when they, for example, decide to stop treatment on such a patient that extends the agony. From the doctor's point of view, both decisions terminate a life, yet for some reason people call the first murder and the second being a good doctor.

Actually, the Roman Catholic church will call both situations “killing’. AND they go further and may insist that people go beyond just continuing treatments to starting new treatments. Some individual priests and nuns, being much closer to real life than the Vatican folks take a different stance.

I am going to start a new thread specifically dealing with end of life issues, because I want to separate the information/education articles from the debate, but i will say just briefly that a lot of the reason people get so upset over these issues is that they make assumptions without really understanding what is going on. When people are in crisis, such as wehn your mother or child is dying/you are informed your child will die or have a very, very bad life... people want to deny and reach out for even very, very tenuous "chances". They want a miracle. That is fine if you are in church, but it makes for very, very poor public policy, particularly when it is paired with denial of insurance and general medical care to many.

Even in China, while I absolutely reject their policy and decision vehemently, the truth is that the country was not able to feed itself, for a variety of reasons was facing a true population crisis. And, most Chinese would call this “success.”

[Metsfanmax]

I don't understand what you are getting at. The morality of the action of murder is judged by its consequence of killing a person. The fact that one must refer to "the past" to understand what a person is, is not relevant to the general scheme of judging an action by its future consequences.

but WHY should we refer to the past to determine this? if it was possible to turn an insect into a fully grown human within seconds (via electrocution or something), wouldn't it still be wrong to kill this human despite the fact that they were an insect only seconds ago? the past doesn't matter at all when it comes to making the right decision NOW with regards to the current state of things.

If you are about to kill an organism, and you want to ask if it is murder, then you ask if the being is currently self-aware or has been self-aware at some time and will become self-aware again. In your example, of course it would be wrong to kill the human, and it would be murder if at the present time they are self-aware. You are asking a question about the present status of the being, even though an answer to that question may in some circumstances require understanding some behaviors that are not currently displayed. Remember, we're not trying to answer the question of whether killing a human is wrong, but whether it should be treated as murder. That's naturally going to require a philosophy more complicated than can be captured in four words on a stone tablet.

Therefore, if a PV human has been born that way, thus has never been self-aware at any time, then it's okay to kill that human?

I do not know what PV refers to, but if a human has never been self-aware and has no possibility of being self-aware in the future, then it is not murder.

Exactly! I was not more or less of a person as a child (a newborn) than I am now, it is just as much murder to kill me then, as it is now.

You were not a person as a newborn. You could not engage in reasoned thinking and you were not self-aware. Do you have any memories of being a newborn? Of course not, because it wasn't even possible for baby rishaed to form memories. I challenge you to describe any way in which you are similar to baby rishaed that is ethically significant (hint: the fact that you and baby rishaed were both members of the species Homo sapiens does not count).

And since without me as an unborn child within my womb determines the fact that I am here presently, I can conclude that since I and the me that was unborn at the time are one and the same person, it would be murder to kill me in the womb as well.

You would not have existed if your pregnancy was aborted. A non-existent being cannot be murdered. If that's really your standard, then sex with contraception and masturbation should also be illegal, because those also deny potential humans from coming into existence.

For your reference, for me conception is the point where life begins, so I'm not OK with abortion at all. To me its still murder.

The point of beginning of "life" is not an ethically meaningful question. I can agree that human life begins at conception (dubious because a sperm is a live cell) and still assert that a fetus is not a person.

[PLAYER57832]

The government tried to forcibly abort my sister-in-law when her mother was eight months pregnant. This isn't standard procedure to wait so long, but as it was her fourth child, she was pretty good at concealing her pregnancies by then. That was 25 years ago. Nowadays, you have to pay a fine for subsequent children, have them born abroad, or have them wait for an ID card until after an amnesty. But my wife's 4 siblings, a son was the fifth, did suffer from the loss of their property, their dad was fired and my wife clearly remembers her dad pulling out knives to fend off the would be abortionists.

The fine for a second child born within five years of the first is 165,000 RMB, or you can just wait five years and apply. What is more fucked up though, is the coil. In order to get an ID card for my son, and therefore a passport, my wife had to have a contraceptive coil inserted. She was indignant about this, and I suggested we bribe the doctors to say they did it, but she is cheap and decided she didn't want to take that route. When she arrived here, I asked her to get it removed, but she prefers to keep it in as a contraceptive. She is constantly talking about having a daughter, so it may come out soon.

As a policy, it is terrible to enact, difficult to enforce and ineffectual. If you are poor and stupid or willing , they will likely abort the children, otherwise they will use other deterrents. Many applications require you to have complied with the policy to be admitted, such as becoming a civil servant, getting a business license or a passport. The rich pay fines or bribes, the poor don't care and the fledgling middle class gets stuck following.

On the other hand, having a child has many social obstacles as well for the middle class. As a child, my wife witnessed her parents desire for a son, was told by her grandmother that she would amount to nothing and had to pay her own way through college. But this made her strong and self reliant. Many sons have accomplished their parents ambitions for them just by being born and then become layabouts. In Shenzhen, the ratio of women to men is 6:1. This is significant because 30 years ago the population there was 30,000 and now it's 12,000,000. That is, the population is based on migration and the successful migration is dependent on meeting the needs of an economic centre, Shenzhen, and are mainly met by women who grew up feeling the need to prove themselves.

Leftover women: is a term applied to women who reach their mid thirties unwed. A perspective husband in china must be: taller, richer, older and better educated then the wife. As women become more and more successful, their list of potential suitors drops sharply. This is leading to a natural decline in births.

To marry, you need to buy a property and usually a car, have a stable income and meet the family's requirements. This is leading to fewer births as well. A friend of mine was contacted last summer by a wealthy 30 something ex to impregnate her. He declined. This would have been a way around the social constraints for her: she could say the foreign father was an asshole and ran off. For young men from a humble background there are few ways around these constraints.

Due to social constraints, certain classes are more subject to laws than others. Poor families will have less than the rich and cannot pay the fines. The policies are repugnant and difficult to enforce. But from all perspectives, our western criticisms are generally unfair. In our media we are presented with a limited side. China is constantly impressed upon by world bodies with the need to limit the population, and then criticized more publicly for how they do it.

336 m is a large number, so is 1.5 b. which do you want to bitch about? And how many facts are you willing to ignore to do so?

Thank you for your personnal, obviously intelligent post.

[AAFitz]

Yet another reason why letting business and competition have their sway without any check is just wrong.

I didn't know businesses had an impact on the number of abortions performed in China. Maybe instead of decrying everything that has to do with the marketplace, you would start decrying the people that kill innocent people.

Are you even implying the marketplace has not killed innocent people...I mean seriously...you cant even be that dumb.

[BigBallinStalin]

Therefore, if a PV human has been born that way, thus has never been self-aware at any time, then it's okay to kill that human?

I do not know what PV refers to, but if a human has never been self-aware and has no possibility of being self-aware in the future, then it is not murder.

So you condone killing people who were born into a persistent vegetative state? Interesting. And it's not murder. How does that work? You can justifiably kill humans of all ages who aren't persons?


"has no possibility of being self-aware in the future"
I don't get it. Why rely on this proposition? Any fetus has the possibility of being self-aware in the future; therefore, ..... ?

[BigBallinStalin]

Yet another reason why letting business and competition have their sway without any check is just wrong.

I didn't know businesses had an impact on the number of abortions performed in China. Maybe instead of decrying everything that has to do with the marketplace, you would start decrying the people that kill innocent people.

Are you even implying the marketplace has not killed innocent people...I mean seriously...you cant even be that dumb.

Might wanna pull your head outta your ass and reread what NS typed.

[Metsfanmax]

Therefore, if a PV human has been born that way, thus has never been self-aware at any time, then it's okay to kill that human?

I do not know what PV refers to, but if a human has never been self-aware and has no possibility of being self-aware in the future, then it is not murder.

So you condone killing people who were born into a persistent vegetative state? Interesting. And it's not murder. How does that work? You can justifiably kill humans of all ages who aren't persons?

A human of any age that is not a person cannot be murdered; this is a definitional argument, as I am saying that it is only murder to kill a person against their wishes. Killing a being that is alive but not self-conscious is also generally wrong, but the standard for justification is much lower. So I would condone killing a human (note that I reject your implicit assumption that this human is a person) born into a persistent vegetative state if there are significant reasons for doing so -- for example, keeping this human alive would result in substantial costs to the family of the child. Since this is usually the case, I would say in most cases this is acceptable.

"has no possibility of being self-aware in the future"
I don't get it. Why rely on this proposition? Any fetus has the possibility of being self-aware in the future; therefore, ..... ?

The proposition is relied on because it comports with our general intuitive understanding that a person should not be denied their rights simply because they are temporarily incapable of engaging in the behaviors that define personhood. On the other hand, while a fetus may at some point grow into a being that is self-aware, it has never been self-aware, so it is not a person.

From a more practical perspective, consider the comfort it brings to those who are currently alive. If I know that, upon entering a coma, someone could kill me while comatose because I was an inconvenience even if they knew I would later regain consciousness, my life now would be less comfortable as I might fear this outcome. My preference would be to remain alive so that I could one day be conscious again and enjoy life, and we should respect the preferences of persons. On the other hand, a fetus has never had the preference to remain alive, so it has not had any preferences that we can respect. By the time a baby is old enough to understand the abortion policy, it is automatically old enough to be safe from it.

[patches70]

Hahah! Mets thinks killing a day old to one month old baby is not murder. I'd love to hear you trying to argue that in front of a judge after having murdered a newborn infant. Simply explain to the judge all this tripe you've been going on about how that new born baby is not really a person.

I'm sure the judge and jury will acquit you.

What an idiot. Note, I'm not talking about fetuses. You're talking about newborn babies and trying to convince people that it's not murder if one were to kill a baby.

You should probably look at the the 14th amendment, particularly the equal protection under the law clause. A baby born has the equal protection under the law as a full grown adult. Kill an adult it's murder. Kill a newborn baby and it's also murder.

And yet somehow you can't see that. Man, you are one deluded person. If you were somehow granted the power to be the absolute king of the world you'd be the most hated king ever to exist. You wouldn't sit on such a throne for long. And while you were being hung by the neck until dead your vain cries of "But! But! I know better than you all do!" would fall on deaf ears.
You are espousing evil deeds and evil justifications.
But, you won't see it that way, few deluded people ever do.....

[Night Strike]

The Nazis also redefined murder to justify killing Jews, homosexuals, gypsies, etc.