If some people think sexual abuse is OK, should they be allowed to do it? — frank

Sex abuse (I'll assume for the present that our definition of 'abuse' is more or less the same) has been widely rejected as an acceptable behavior for some time. Not always, certainly -- standards have changed over time, and are still changing. Some behaviors that were once considered normal are now considered abusive, or even pathological.

What constitutes acceptable behavior and what constitutes abuse varies from time to time, place to place, but where something is generally defined as abusive, it's generally rejected.

Some people consider spanking children abusive while others consider it proper. Time will tell.

Did you answer the question?

Time will tell. — Bitter Crank

Time always does!

:up:

Did I?

There is a difference between behavior we disapprove of and behavior which has been legislated against. Abortion, homosexuality, polygamy, corporal discipline of children (spanking with the hand--not beating), recreational drug use, and other behaviors can be legal, illegal, moral, or immoral. Abortion, obviously, is legal in many states, even though some people in those states consider it immoral. In many other states it is (or soon will be) illegal and considered immoral by some. Other people will consider abortion moral, even if it is illegal.

So: In states where abortion is legal, some people consider it murder and others consider it medical procedure.

So: In states where abortion is legal, some people consider it murder and others consider it medical procedure. — Bitter Crank

Sure. So imagine you live in a state where sexual abuse of children is tolerated, say it's Montana. There's no law against it. Would you say that in Montana, sexual abuse is a matter of choice?

If some people think sexual abuse is OK, should they be allowed to do it? — frank

No, because it has been defined as a criminal act.

NAMBLA, the North American Man Boy Love Association (not sure if it still exists) held the view that sexual relationships between adults and youth were moral. In a few places, depending on other laws, it was legal under certain circumstances -- where homosexuality was not criminalized, and where the age of consent was low enough. Man-boy sexual relationships occurred long before NAMBLA was organized in 1978. Mostly they just flew under the radar of respectability.

The organization causes a PR panic in the gay community because pederasty threatened to blow up gay efforts to achieve respectability and legality. The issue was less one of legality than one of morality and optics. NAMBLA was denounced as if it was a doorway straight to hell.

Over the next 20 years, (less because of NAMBLA and more because of a moral panic about children) there were some very public child (<6 years old) abuse prosecutions, some of which were, in the end, found to be completely baseless.

Now relationships between adults and 15 or 16 year olds (males or females) count as a sex crime. It's illegal, Is it immoral? Not by default. It would be immoral and illegal if deceit and exploitation is involved. If it is consensual and conducted honestly, then it would not be immoral, but still illegal.

So imagine you live in a state where sexual abuse of children is tolerated, say it's Montana. There's no law against it. Would you say that in Montana, sexual abuse is a matter of choice? — frank

Well, Frank -- if a behavior is tolerated, and there are no laws defining what a behavior is, then it is a matter of personal interpretation as to whether one can permissibly do x, y, or z. You've raised a non-issue, seems to me.

Well, Frank -- if a behavior is tolerated, and there are no laws defining what a behavior is, then it is a matter of personal interpretation as to whether one can permissibly do x, y, or z. You've raised a non-issue, seems to me. — Bitter Crank

So does it sit well with you that child abuse is considered to be a matter of choice in Montana?

It's a non-issue?

What constitutes acceptable behavior and what constitutes abuse varies from time to time, place to place — Bitter Crank

What's accepted might vary, but what's acceptable might not. If moral facts are independent of (inter)subjective opinion then these are two different things.

I've been among the left for the 49 years of Roe vs. Wade and I have NEVER witnessed abortion being "celebrated" or considered a "badge of honor".

Aborting a fetus may be considered a personal medical decision, but it is not a casual, pleasant procedure. Most women apparently consider it a difficult decision--far more fraught than other medical procedures. — Bitter Crank

There seems to be two types of leftists (and right-wingers) nowadays - the moderates and the extremists. The extremists didn't exist 49 years ago.

That was my point in saying that most Americans don't see it as a black and white issue where abortions are to be banned outright, or celebrated as a joyful thing to brag about (as in wearing a "I had an abortion" or "I :heart: abortion" t-shirts). Most of the behavior of both extremes seem more to piss the other side off than to make any reasonable arguments on this topic. They just become more extreme as each side attempts to out-perform the other with preposterous actions and statements, and doing this over a period of decades has led us to where we are today.

If you think abortion is moral, go ahead and say it. Normalize it. Otherwise it's like: "abortion is moral for some of us, but not all." — frank

Saying it doesn't normalize it. Many people doing it without consulting others (like god or government) is what normalizes it.

But this diverges from the original point I was making between you and BitterCrank - that we need to be consistent in how we define life, personhood, and suffering. Both political extremes are not being consistent at all.

The question of whether abortion is murder or not hinges on whether one considers a everything from a just-fertilized egg on to a blastocyst on to a fetus with a beating heart but not much more than a neural tube for a brain on to a barely viable fetus, on to an entirely viable fetus is a "person" in the way a healthy new-born is a person.

The fetus-fetish folks think a just-fertilized egg is owed as much legal protection as a two-year od, Hence, the expected moves to outlaw 'day after' pills.

Many people do not grant personhood to a non-viable fetus; some grant personhood to a fully viable (7-9 month) fetus. — Bitter Crank

It's not just about personhood. As I stated before, vegans point to suffering as the reasons that we shouldn't abort the lives of animals. If animals can suffer, then it's not really about defining personhood, but suffering and what organisms are capable of experiencing it.

But this diverges from the original point I was making between you and BitterCrank - that we need to be consistent in how we define life, personhood, and suffering. — Harry Hindu

I don't think we need to be consistent, because I don't think there is a precise answer. Just as there is no single point where one species evolves into another, there's no single point where something "becomes" alive or a person or something which can suffer. We can see that at one extreme it's not a living person and at another extreme it is a living person, but in between it's just a matter of degree. With this in mind there's no reason that we can't treat the foetus differently depending on circumstance, e.g. between a woman choosing to have an abortion and some third party causing an unwanted miscarriage.

I don't see a difference in aborting a fetus that is conscious and killing a new born baby. Once the fetus gains conscious, he/she isn't a part of the mother only, but a member of society with the right to life.

In the case of rape, the mother is not responsible for taking care of her baby but the state should interfere and place the child in the care of foster parents. If the baby is the product of incest, the same rules should apply but the parents should be fined or imprisoned.

The mother should be allowed to abort the fetus if her life is in danger , this is a special concession and it doesn't require any detailed moral reasoning behind it. For the lack of any better argument, it will minimize the net suffering/loss by saving one life instead of letting two people die.

The abortion debate is a bit ridiculous tbh. People should use better means to avoid getting pregnant. What's the point of getting pregnant accidentally and going through the hassle of abortion when a condom/pill etc will cut the problem at the root. I am in favor of the government banning unnecessary abortion as long as there is a social security net to take care of vulnerable children

People should use better means to avoid getting pregnant. What's the point of getting pregnant accidentally and going through the hassle of abortion when a condom/pill etc will cut the problem at the root. — Wittgenstein

Because condoms/pills etc. don't always work.

Once the fetus gains conscious, he/she isn't a part of the mother only, but a member of society with the right to life. — Wittgenstein

When does a foetus become conscious?

In the case of rape, the mother is not responsible for taking care of her baby but the state should interfere and place the child in the care of foster parents. If the baby is the product of incest, the same rules should apply but the parents should be fined or imprisoned. — Wittgenstein

There's still the 9 months of pregnancy which a woman has to suffer through.

Because condoms/pills etc. don't always work.

Nothing works perfectly all the time. That's not the point. We should encourage people to use ( better quality ) protection and discourage abortion. This can be achieved with improving sex education, subsidizing birth control means and banning unnecessary abortions. I have a religious/spiritual argument at hand but since many people here don't share the same religious commitment as me, it won't be well received. Nevertheless, l will make it. Sex should not be used primarily for hedonistic means and people should be more responsible with coitus as it has a deep psychosocial impact on society as a whole. I want to preserve the family structure in society and hedonism is playing a great role in destroying it. Self control in two individuals creates a family and self control in families creates a nation.

When does a foetus become conscious?

I could quote a medical study here but since we are not doctors, We should let the experts determine when the foetus becomes conscious and l am sure doctors have a medical definition of consciousness

There's still the 9 months of pregnancy which a woman has to suffer through.

Yes, but l don't see how it's proportional or even comparable to taking the life of a baby. The foetus has a right to life and the suffering of the mother during the time of pregnancy cannot take that away.

I could quote a medical study here but since we are not doctors, We should let the experts determine when the foetus becomes conscious and l am sure doctors have a medical definition of consciousness — Wittgenstein

I suppose there's this:

Thalamic afferents to the cortex develop from approximately 12-16 wk of gestation, reach the cortical subplate, but “wait” until they grow into the cortical plate (16). At this stage, only long depolarization of the deep layers may reach the cortex (17) (Fig. 2). After 24 wk, thalamocortical axons grow into the somatosensory, auditory, visual, and frontal cortices and the pathways mediating pain perception become functional around the 29-30 wk (18). From approximately 34 wk, a synchrony of the EEG rhythm of the two hemispheres becomes detectable at the same time as long-range callosal connections, and thus the GNW circuits, are established (18–20). From the 26th wk, pyramidal neurons in the primary visual cortex of humans develop dendritic spines (19).

And this:

Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation.

This fits with the current law in the UK which allows abortion up to 24 weeks, and I believe this is (currently) the case in the US as well.

Yes, but l don't see how it's proportional or even comparable to taking the life of a baby. The foetus has a right to life and the suffering of the mother during the time of pregnancy cannot take that away. — Wittgenstein

Whether or not a foetus has a right to life is the very thing being debated. And I would say that the woman's suffering very much is comparable, and at least in the early stages of pregnancy her rights take precedence of the foetus', just as I would say that a human's suffering takes precedence over any animal's right to life.

Well, so be it. I don't have a problem with 24 weeks

But this diverges from the original point I was making between you and BitterCrank - that we need to be consistent in how we define life, personhood, and suffering. Both political extremes are not being consistent at all. — Harry Hindu

And this is probably why the debate continues. There's no clear cut way to determine when a fetus becomes a person.

Whether or not a foetus has a right to life is the very thing being debated. And I would say that the woman's suffering very much is comparable, and at least in the early stages of pregnancy her rights take precedence of the foetus', just as I would say that a human's suffering takes precedence over any animal's right to life

Since my argument rests on consciousness as a condition to being a member of society and having the right to life in consequence, l will use it as a criterion

It's a matter of consciousness. If a person is brain dead , in a vegetative state and taking his life can reduce the suffering of an animal who is conscious, l don't see a problem with saving the life of the animal. If the foetus isn't conscious, the mother can abort it but if its conscious, then the baby has the right to life, and the suffering of the mother doesn't factor into the equation. But I'm not done with letting women abort an unconscious foetus except in special cases l have mentioned in my earlier post.

Here, it's very difficult to argue my case but l want the government to place a better social security net and weaken abortion rights to make sure no foetus is aborted for the financial inability of the parents to take care of the child. This will encourage women to not abort babies as abortion isn't a pleasant experience for the mother , placing your baby in foster care is million times better for ones mental health. This argument is in spirit of providing better social care. Abortion isn't incompatible with social care but they both drive the social practice of people in opposite directions. I will always prefer the latter option

And this is probably why the debate continues. There's no clear cut way to determine when a fetus becomes a person. — frank

Then what use is the term, "person" if there is no way to determine what it is? Are you a person? How do you know? Can you point to something that has an equal number of properties of personhood and not-personhood?

Then what use is the term, "person" if there is no way to determine what it is? Are you a person? How do you know? Can you point to sonething that has an equal nunber of properties of personhood and not-personhood? — Harry Hindu

Sorites paradox

Not much of a paradox when you are making a distinction between distinguishable and indistinguishable, nor does it answer any of my questions.


What about the potential of personhood? Does that matter?

What about the potential of personhood? — Harry Hindu

A lot of the land surface of the planet has the potential to become a person, Harry.

Your hair used to be some dust stirred up by a brontosaurus.

Then what use is the term, "person" if there is no way to determine what it is? Are you a person? How do you know? — Harry Hindu

See Wittgenstein's Philosophical Investigations, particularly regarding what is or isn't a game.

Can you point to something that has an equal number of properties of personhood and not-personhood? — Harry Hindu

I don't understand this question.

Fine, then let's go back to the question you're trying to avoid:

Are you a person? How do you know? — Harry Hindu

If you can't explain why you are a person then what is wrong with aborting you? I'm not interested in bringing morality into it. I just want to know what traits a thing possesses that would qualify it as a person.

Can you point to something that has an equal number of properties of personhood and not-personhood?
— Harry Hindu

I don't understand this question. — Michael

Let's say that there are 5 traits that define a thing as a person. If a thing has two or less of these traits, then that thing does not qualify as a person, three or more it does.

Let's say that instead of 5 traits, there are 6 traits. We now have an even number of traits, so it stands to reason that it is possible for some things to have three of these traits. I'm asking what that thing would look like, or if there are any examples of such a thing.

I'm aware that we would first have to agree on the traits and the number that define a thing as a person, and that would be our starting point, but for now I'm simply contemplating the possibilities.

We can see that at one extreme it's not a living person and at another extreme it is a living person, but in between it's just a matter of degree. — Michael

The question is whether the extreme of being a living person begins before or after birth.

Fine, then let's go back to the question you're trying to avoid:
Are you a person? How do you know?
— Harry Hindu
If you can't explain why you are a person then what is wrong with aborting you? I'm not interested in bringing morality into it. I just want to know what traits a thing possesses that would qualify it as a person. — Harry Hindu

I'm not trying to avoid the question. I just don't know exactly when a clump of cells actually turns into a person. I know it will, given the right conditions. It happened to me.

What we do is declare that some time before the 20th week when the AC membrane in the lungs is too thick to function, the thingy is not a person. Somewhere around 25 weeks the membrane will work and the thingy can live outside the womb.

Some people reject that claim. So the buy-in for it is iffy.

The question is whether the extreme of being a living person begins before or after birth. — Harry Hindu

I would say the two extremes are a newly fertilised egg (not a person) and a healthy adult (a person). A 24 week old foetus and someone in a vegetative state might be somewhere in between.

Let's say that there are 5 traits that define a thing as a person. If a thing has two or less of these traits, then that thing does not qualify as a person, three or more it does.

Let's say that instead of 5 traits, there are 6 traits. We now have an even number of traits, so it stands to reason that it is possible for some things to have three of these traits. I'm asking what that thing would look like, or if there are any examples of such a thing.

I'm aware that we would first have to agree on the traits and the number that define a thing as a person, and that would be our starting point, but for now I'm simply contemplating the possibilities. — Harry Hindu

In some legal respects, a corporation is a person. What would need defining is: individual human person., but the fundamental problem is that it's a fuzzy concept - agreement on some specific set of traits would be virtually impossible. For example, I'd argue that a zygote clearly isn't an individual human person, because a zygote is a cell that can produce more than one person (monozyogtic twins, triplets, quadrupelets...), whereas many Christians disagree (a zygote has a soul; if it divides - God tosses in another soul...). So...it seems to me, it's all a matter of opinion, and it's inappropriate to force your opinion upon others.

:100: Unfortunately, US law refers to the technologically relative term "viability" rather than the biologically determinative threshold of (average) prenatal CNS-brain development ... as I, like you today, also pointed out nearly a year ago:

Before 24-26 weeks of gestation, a human foetus lacks intact thalamocortical circutry and therefore isn't sentient (i.e. feels pain as an independent organism with the potential for learning to anticipate pain in other organisms (empathy)) – not a person, so excising it is a lumpectomy, not homicide ... — 180 Proof

My 30+ years old position is, I suppose, the "extremist" one (as the old post exerpted shows): abortion on demand – as an inalienable Human Right – even in the third trimester. Why? (from the same nearly year-old thread) :point:

The state claims its own interest in, or on behalf of, the fetus just as it claims an interest in protecting the rights of property owners to keep their property and protect it from arbitrary takings.

In this analogy: the state prohibits a woman from terminating her pregnancy by treating a fetus as a property-owner and the womb it's in as the fetus' property, that is confers on a fetus the role of slaveholder and a pregnant woman the role of slave. But slavery is 'officially' outlawed in most modern, secular, nation states, right? And yet state-sanctioned denial of an actual woman's inherent right-to-choose (& think) for herself is overlooked and deemed less repugnant in practice than killing a non-viable [non-sentient] fetus with human DNA (possible person) in theory.

It's quite difficult to think of any prospect more morally repugnant than the circumstance that a pregnant woman is equivalent before the law as slave property who's owned (by state enforcement) by her unviable [non-sentient] fetus. "Pro-life" in this sense is, in practice, indiscernible from pro-slavery. — 180 Proof

:up:

My 30+ years old position is, I suppose, the "extremist" one (as the old post exerpted shows): abortion on demand – as an inalienable Human Right – even in the third trimester. — 180 Proof

:up: