Polyticks: Bob Butler's Perspective

[Clarkmod]

The Catholic position can be found in Gaudium et Spes... (Snip)

The Church apples the same thinking to execution, euthanasia and suicide. Murder is murder. The victim being ten weeks old or ten minutes old or ten years old doesn't make a difference.

A good logical response. You deserve applause for that at least. But...

The Gaudium et Spes and Evangelium Vitae reflect a consistent and often sincerely felt position. There is a vast difference between them and supporting criminality, prejudice and death by Covid. Still, they are religious documents. Do you want the government to enforce religious doctrines? Do you want to drop the ban against establishing official religion and join Iran in requiring the hijab? Could you conceive of enforcing through the government the old catholic tradition of not eating fish on Friday?

To me, you should not terminate sentients. Animals are not sentient. No fetus can react anywhere near as intelligently as mature mammals, thus a fetus is not sentient. No culture assigns the same penalties to killing non sentients and sentients, certainly no meat eating culture. To override the beliefs of most Americans in order to enforce a purely religious doctrine is very questionable.

Still, a member of the some religious sects will urgently seek a reason to oppose the practice of abortion. It is just that the government’s job is not to satisfy any given religious sect. A better argument would isolate itself from being a religious argument. The distinction seems to run along the difference between believing one should not kill sentients, and believing you should not kill something that might become sentient at a later time.

[Clarkmod]

Bob,

We have been over this before, and I know that you cannot accept that you are actually in an illogical and immoral position, but I will restate the case again:

Let's start with the definition of sentience -
sentient
adjective
1. Having sense perception; conscious.
2. Experiencing sensation or feeling.
3. Having a faculty, or faculties, of sensation and perception.

By this, animals too are sentient. They know they exist, and engage in self preservation.

But lets go further then. Lets say animals are unable to engage in reasoning. Maybe we are only allowed to kill what cannot reason or engage in debate. Unfortunately children aren't able to do this at all until they learn to speak, at about 18 months.

So maybe, by your thinking, we should be allowed to kill children who cannot say "stop".

But we all have already agreed that killing a young infant (from the instant outside the womb) is Murder. And we have also agreed that making Murder illegal is, as per the 10 commandments, legislating Morality.

The only difference between the unborn and the newly born is inside/outside the womb.

In regards to experiencing sensation/feeling, I have seen videos of fetus trying desperately to get away from the vacuum hose that is suctioning off their limbs. I have seen them react to needles and so on. This says they are experiencing feeling and have the consciousness to engage in self preservation.

This entire argument of it being OK to kill something inside the womb is illogical. But certain people WANT it to so, so that they can stop the responsibility that comes from creating another living being.

IMHO, you can't commit Murder because you don't want to be responsible for a child, or, worse yet, you don't want to go through the inconvenience of being pregnant for nine months. Heck, if you don't want the responsibility, give the child up for adoption. There are plenty of people who would be glad to take care of the child. So really we are down to people not wanting to go through the discomfort and pain of being pregnant and delivering the child.

I say, if you don't want that, then DONT ENGAGE IN UNPROTECTED SEX! That's where you have the choice about what happens to your body!

[Clarkmod]

Anyone who's had a child with a heart beat knows that it's their child. To relegate the child's life to an intellectual exercise about whether they're "fully human" is, at that point, borderline evil.
Women who have miscarriages from an expected baby can have tremendous emotional damage. We know family bonding begins in the womb and it's a real, tangible and powerful experience.

Denigrating the unborn child in order to justify it's death helps the guilty justify their deeds intellectually, but emotional and spiritual damage is real and documented.

[Clarkmod]

In regards to experiencing sensation/feeling, I have seen videos of fetus trying desperately to get away from the vacuum hose that is suctioning off their limbs. I have seen them react to needles and so on. This says they are experiencing feeling and have the consciousness to engage in self preservation.

This entire argument of it being OK to kill something inside the womb is illogical. But certain people WANT it to so, so that they can stop the responsibility that comes from creating another living being.

IMHO, you can't commit Murder because you don't want to be responsible for a child, or, worse yet, you don't want to go through the inconvenience of being pregnant for nine months. Heck, if you don't want the responsibility, give the child up for adoption. There are plenty of people who would be glad to take care of the child. So really we are down to people not wanting to go through the discomfort and pain of being pregnant and delivering the child.

I say, if you don't want that, then DONT ENGAGE IN UNPROTECTED SEX! That's where you have the choice about what happens to your body!

How old does a fetus have to be to try to escape a hose or react to a needle? I would quite believe it of a baby in the third trimester. I would want sources for something in the first. The borderline should be at the slightest hope of self awareness. As you say, one line might not be crossed until well after birth. However, most draw a line much earlier, maybe after the first two trimesters. The logic seems to be if there is any doubt, move the line earlier. Certainly a fully mature cow, who is not considered sentient, is not protected by most cultures, but does react to threats. Thus, where you try to draw lines is utterly inconsistent. The arguments used here are not relevant to what most people propose and believe. The position of most is not that is OK to kill something inside the womb.

Thus your rhetoric of murder is inappropriate, the scenarios presented not relevant. Saying slavery to a non sentient is required is immoral.

I can agree that not engaging in unprotected sex is usually a good way to avoid the decision. This is a very difficult moral choice. All the more you should not make that choice for someone else.

Good work on staying serious and in avoiding an argument depending on religious doctrine. The difficulty is that difficult moral decisions are often unresolvable, thus it is thus difficult to enforce them. Those who believe as you say will work themselves up vehemently, but their view is that of a minority and the opponents can be just as vehement. In some ways I am glad the GOP has over reached, has motivated women against them. In the long run the majority tends to prevail, and this effects some people far more than criminality, rule of law, prejudice and the other crisis problems. In a S&H crisis, the new civic generation classically defines the new culture, disregarding the older ethics. This is another variation of the Luddite problem, that you are using old ethics against new technology.

[Clarkmod]

By your reasoning, BB, the slightest chance of feeling is when neurons form. Thus, outlawing abortion at 42 days

Changes in the gross morphology of the prenatal neural system are underpinned by changes occurring at the cellular level. Neuron production in humans begins on embryonic day 42.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... 20day%2042.

I could take this as half a loaf. Obviously, I would want to abolish abortion all together, but it might be all I can get.

[Clarkmod]

By your reasoning, BB, the slightest chance of feeling is when neurons form. Thus, outlawing abortion at 42 days

Changes in the gross morphology of the prenatal neural system are underpinned by changes occurring at the cellular level. Neuron production in humans begins on embryonic day 42.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... 20day%2042.

I could take this as half a loaf. Obviously, I would want to abolish abortion all together, but it might be all I can get.

According to Wiki, "The neuron is the main component of nervous tissue in all animals except sponges and placozoa." Thus, if everything with neurons is sentient, most animals would be sentient. Clearly, most cultures disagree.

I think an argument opposite yours could be made. Any creature that had not begun to generate neurons could not possibly be sentient, thus an early fetus could not be. However most creatures with neurons are not considered sentient. The question becomes whether the creature has developed the ability to reason significantly beyond most animals, at a level only found in humans.

Thus, I think you would have to develop another criteria. Like the criteria "able to respond to threats", most animals can respond but are not considered sentient. The commonly accepted line is the after the second trimester, but this is likely too young to avoid any possible error.

[Clarkmod]

Anyone who's had a child with a heart beat knows that it's their child. To relegate the child's life to an intellectual exercise about whether they're "fully human" is, at that point, borderline evil.
Women who have miscarriages from an expected baby can have tremendous emotional damage. We know family bonding begins in the womb and it's a real, tangible and powerful experience.

Denigrating the unborn child in order to justify it's death helps the guilty justify their deeds intellectually, but emotional and spiritual damage is real and documented.

What people don't also add, to skirt the demonization of others, is the fact that as currently practiced, abortion (95% of the time at least) is child sacrifice. You are eliminating a human being because you do not want to deal with it, and rather put emphasis on your (former) life, choices, wishes, or any other idol you want to prop up - because those are more important to you than the new life and its challenges. That's what is, and the further proof is that the evil one rejoices every time someone commits this error.

The good news is that people can repent even for this, but they of course have to recognize the error to correct it. Sadly, they still must live with the consequences of sin. We all do.

[Clarkmod]

The commonly accepted line is the after the second trimester, but this is likely too young to avoid any possible error.

That does not sound right. Do you mean likely too old?

By week 8 of pregnancy, your baby has developed touch receptors in his face — mostly on his lips and nose — that connect to his growing brain.

Over the next few months, touch receptors start to form all over, including his genitals, palms and the soles of his feet by week 12 and the abdomen by week 17. By week 32, every part of a fetus has gained a sense of touch that’s sensitive enough to feel a single hair brushing across the body.

So four months at the latest, and preferably two months?

[Clarkmod]

Tom

An adult cow has developed touch receptors all over, but is not considered sentient. I believe another criteria has to be looked at to determine sentience.

No, I meant the commonly accepted date of after the second trimester is likely too young. At that time, there is no evidence of having developed the ability to reason beyond most adult animals, but people are pushing the date early out of fear of error. Not that I’m complaining.

[Clarkmod]

In regards to experiencing sensation/feeling, I have seen videos of fetus trying desperately to get away from the vacuum hose that is suctioning off their limbs. I have seen them react to needles and so on. This says they are experiencing feeling and have the consciousness to engage in self preservation.

This entire argument of it being OK to kill something inside the womb is illogical. But certain people WANT it to so, so that they can stop the responsibility that comes from creating another living being.

IMHO, you can't commit Murder because you don't want to be responsible for a child, or, worse yet, you don't want to go through the inconvenience of being pregnant for nine months. Heck, if you don't want the responsibility, give the child up for adoption. There are plenty of people who would be glad to take care of the child. So really we are down to people not wanting to go through the discomfort and pain of being pregnant and delivering the child.

I say, if you don't want that, then DONT ENGAGE IN UNPROTECTED SEX! That's where you have the choice about what happens to your body!

How old does a fetus have to be to try to escape a hose or react to a needle? I would quite believe it of a baby in the third trimester. I would want sources for something in the first. The borderline should be at the slightest hope of self awareness. As you say, one line might not be crossed until well after birth. However, most draw a line much earlier, maybe after the first two trimesters. The logic seems to be if there is any doubt, move the line earlier. Certainly a fully mature cow, who is not considered sentient, is not protected by most cultures, but does react to threats. Thus, where you try to draw lines is utterly inconsistent. The arguments used here are not relevant to what most people propose and believe. The position of most is not that is OK to kill something inside the womb.

Thus your rhetoric of murder is inappropriate, the scenarios presented not relevant. Saying slavery to a non sentient is required is immoral.

I can agree that not engaging in unprotected sex is usually a good way to avoid the decision. This is a very difficult moral choice. All the more you should not make that choice for someone else.

Good work on staying serious and in avoiding an argument depending on religious doctrine. The difficulty is that difficult moral decisions are often unresolvable, thus it is thus difficult to enforce them. Those who believe as you say will work themselves up vehemently, but their view is that of a minority and the opponents can be just as vehement. In some ways I am glad the GOP has over reached, has motivated women against them. In the long run the majority tends to prevail, and this effects some people far more than criminality, rule of law, prejudice and the other crisis problems. In a S&H crisis, the new civic generation classically defines the new culture, disregarding the older ethics. This is another variation of the Luddite problem, that you are using old ethics against new technology.

Gallup stopped asking this question in 2011.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx