RoR: Forum

Post 0

Sunday, May 27, 2007 - 11:08am

Link

Edit

I'd like to pose a hypothetical question to all of you. This arose out of a discussion that Doug Fischer and I had a short time ago. I ask that you form an opinion about the original post before reading the responses. Here we are:

Suppose that you were driving down the road, taking all necessary precautions. Despite your caution, you struck a pedestrian crossing the street (your fault). The man was unconscious when you got out, and was rushed to the hospital by a nearby ambulance. You learn that the man was in a coma, but the doctors were sure he would awake in less than a year, barring any further complications. Suppose you don't live in America, and the only way the man would be kept on life-support is if someone else paid for it, besides the government. The strain of supporting him would be immense for you.

My question is:

1) Would you support the man?

2) Would a law which required you to support him be just, and why?

Post 1

Sunday, May 27, 2007 - 11:08am

Link

Edit

I hope you have formed some sort of defense already. I would like to now ask: does this differ in any significant way from abortion? If so, how and why? I can see a few ways, most of them not philosophically relevant.

Allow me to anticipate one argument � that is, that the fetus is not a person, and the man is. A fetus has no rights, and the man has rights. The assumption here is usually that the fetus has no rights because it dependant on someone else (the mother) to provide. I remind you that both fetus and man will be able to survive on their own eventually.

A common argument is that we should value things as they currently are, and not as the y have the potential to become. Here we must form a distinction between the potential you have to be successful, and the potential a fetus has to become a person. Barring death, the fetus WILL become a person, and the man WILL wake up.

I am not asking a question of rights alone, but of morality. I am assuming that most of you realize that a newborn is also dependent for survival on someone. I also assume that most of you believe that chopping off a newborn�s head is grossly immoral.

You�ll notice that I am talking about cases of accidental conception. While this is my focus, you can also see how this poses interesting questions in cases where conception was purposeful, and then the �premises change.� If you agree, feel free to refine my argument. If not, please be very specific about where you think I have gone astray.

Post 2

Sunday, May 27, 2007 - 11:28am

Link

Edit

Joseph Funk hypothesized funkily:

Suppose that you were driving down the road, taking all necessary precautions. Despite your caution, you struck a pedestrian crossing the street (your fault). The man was unconscious when you got out, and was rushed to the hospital by a nearby ambulance. You learn that the man was in a coma, but the doctors were sure he would awake in less than a year, barring any further complications. Suppose you don't live in America, and the only way the man would be kept on life-support is if someone else paid for it, besides the government. The strain of supporting him would be immense for you.

No, I would not take care of him. If I took "all necessary precautions" then I cannot concurrently have "fault" in the accident.

Your hypothesis attempts to integrate a contradiction.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 5/27, 12:05pm)

Post 3

Sunday, May 27, 2007 - 1:27pm

Link

Edit

Joseph:

Hmmm. "Despite your caution..." implies that 'fault' doesn't apply to the driver. Then there's the question as to what 'caution' was or was not taken by the pedestrian? --- Now, given the rest of the question's concern, especially as it segues into the subject of abortion, I suspect the innuended premise is whether or not there was enough caution applied...only by the driver. However, the analogy falls since a question of caution also applies to the pedestrian...but not to a fetus.

Besides, your real argument seems to be when should we regard 'potential' as relevent and when should we not? A good question; no answers at the moment.

LLAP
J:D

Post 4

Sunday, May 27, 2007 - 2:39pm

Link

Edit

Joseph,

I agree with Luke. If you were taking all of the necessary precautions, then the accident is not your fault.

Nevertheless, you write,

Allow me to anticipate one argument � that is, that the fetus is not a person, and the man is. A fetus has no rights, and the man has rights. The assumption here is usually that the fetus has no rights because it dependant on someone else (the mother) to provide.
No, that's not the reason it doesn't have rights. A five-year old is dependent on its parents, but a five-year old still has a right to life.
I remind you that both fetus and man will be able to survive on their own eventually.

But that's not why they have a right to life. By that criterion, a zygote, which had yet to acquire consciousness would have a right to life, which is absurd. The potential to survive on one's own eventually does not confer a right to life. A five-year old has the potential to drive eventually, but that doesn't entitle him to a driver's license.

A common argument is that we should value things as they currently are, and not as they have the potential to become.
Exactly!
Here we must form a distinction between the potential you have to be successful, and the potential a fetus has to become a person. Barring death, the fetus WILL become a person, and the man WILL wake up.

Yes, and barring death, the five-year old will acquire the ability to drive, but that doesn't give him the right to drive before he acquires that ability. We must also distinguish between an entity that already has rights (the man in the coma) and an entity that may not yet have acquired them (the fetus). Whoever is responsible for putting the man in the coma (whether the driver or someone else) must compensate him for his injuries, including helping him to recover. But that's because the injured man already has rights. If the fetus does not yet have them -- and we must be careful not to beg the question here -- then it cannot claim those rights on the grounds that it will eventually acquire them.

I am not asking a question of rights alone, but of morality. I am assuming that most of you realize that a newborn is also dependent for survival on someone. I also assume that most of you believe that chopping off a newborn�s head is grossly immoral.

You�ll notice that I am talking about cases of accidental conception. While this is my focus, you can also see how this poses interesting questions in cases where conception was purposeful, and then the �premises change.� If you agree, feel free to refine my argument. If not, please be very specific about where you think I have gone astray.

Even if the woman intentionally conceives, it doesn't follow that she is bound to carry the offspring for the next nine months, does it? Why would you assume that? If the offspring is not a rights-bearing person (which it certainly is not in the early stages of pregnancy), then the woman is free to change her mind and abort it at any stage prior to its becoming a rights-bearing person. The question is: at what point does it acquire rights? We don't answer this question by assuming that it is like an injured man in a coma who will eventually wake up. That analogy fails, if only because the injured man is already assumed to have rights; the embryo or fetus is not.

In deciding whether a fetus has rights, we have to ask what is it about a fully formed human being that gives him or her rights rather than, say, a sacrificial animal, like a cow or a guinea pig? The salient difference between human beings and the lower animals is that human beings have a rational faculty. Since rights are a moral principle, they apply only to rational agents who are capable of grasping abstract principles and choosing their actions on the basis of such principles.

Does a fetus have that ability? No. Neither does a baby. Does that mean that a baby lacks rights as well? The problem is that at some uncertain point in a child's development, it acquires the ability to grasp and apply moral principles. When exactly that is is difficult to specify precisely. So, in setting the standard for when rights are acquired, one needs to allow ample room for error. Since children develop at different rates and since any standard that is set after birth is not easy to identify by casual observation, the safest standard for the acquisition of rights is the bright line of birth. There is no mistaking a separate human being.

Now, it may be argued that a fetus that is capable of surviving outside the womb is no different from a newborn; the former is simply part of the mother's body, whereas the latter is not. Here we have a similar problem to that of setting the standard some time after birth -- a lack of precision and of ease of identification. When exactly a fetus becomes viable may not be entirely clear and can become a matter of interpretation. Should a woman who aborts a fetus in the third trimester be charged with murder based on someone else's arguable interpretation of the fetus' viability? We can avoid this problem as well by setting the standard at birth, after which it is obvious that the offspring is a separate individual.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 5/27, 2:49pm)

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 5/27, 2:55pm)

Post 5

Sunday, May 27, 2007 - 2:54pm

Link

Edit

Now, it may be argued that a fetus that is capable of surviving outside the womb is no different from a newborn; the former is simply part of the mother's body, whereas the latter is not. Here we have a similar problem to that of setting the standard after birth -- a lack of precision and of ease of identification. When exactly a fetus becomes viable may not be entirely clear and can become a matter of interpretation.

If the fetus is capable of surviving on its own, it would have been born - that is what being born is all about... if it is still in the womb, then it has not the viability to survive [and having it artificially viabilized does NOT change the issue - indeed, it clearly shows the fetus NOT to be viable in its normal course of development]...

(Edited by robert malcom on 5/27, 2:55pm)

Post 6

Sunday, May 27, 2007 - 5:23pm

Link

Edit

Robert,

I disagree with this:

If the fetus is capable of surviving on its own, it would have been born - that is what being born is all about... if it is still in the womb, then it has not the viability to survive [and having it artificially viabilized does NOT change the issue - indeed, it clearly shows the fetus NOT to be viable in its normal course of development]...

I disagree because its a fact that a late term fetus is perfectly viable outside the womb without any artificial means. Its just not true to imply that a fetus is non-viable the day before labor ensues.

I'm even tempted to say that your argument boarders on intrinsicism.

If viability is assured, and science has proved it is a million times over, what, then, can your argument be? The superiority of one geographical location over another?

I understand the need to formulate an argument which supports a position, but viability isn't a qualifier for being born, nor is geography.

The conclusion that "rights begin at birth, because being born is a qualifier for viability, and viability is the qualifier for rights," is a terribly weak, uncompelling argument.

Post 7

Sunday, May 27, 2007 - 5:36pm

Link

Edit

Bill,

I have to take issue with you over this:

Should a woman who aborts a fetus in the third trimester be charged with murder based on someone else's arguable interpretation of the fetus' viability? We can avoid this problem as well by setting the standard at birth, after which it is obvious that the offspring is a separate individual.

Viability isn't a matter of interpretation. Its a hard condition. If the lungs have developed to a certain precise measurable point, viability is assured, barring any other abnormal defects. Fetal development follows a very set pattern, and isn't subject to a whole lot of variation, if any variation at all. Points of development happen at a very predicable rate.

There is simply NO argument to support the idea that a fetus at 8.75 months gestation isn't viable! Its a fantasy, a stretch, and an assault on facts to suggest viability isn't present at that stage.

Post 8

Sunday, May 27, 2007 - 6:05pm

Link

Edit

What Teresa said.

Sam

Post 9

Sunday, May 27, 2007 - 6:14pm

Link

Edit

Back to the original question, what is meant by fault?

Also, the analogy is faulty, unless you posit that the car accident takes place very gradually over a nine month period, and that no person is involved until the later stages of the accident.

Ted

Post 10

Sunday, May 27, 2007 - 8:49pm

Link

Edit

There is simply NO argument to support the idea that a fetus at 8.75 months gestation isn't viable! Its a fantasy, a stretch, and an assault on facts to suggest viability isn't present at that stage.

Ask yourself, then, why the fetus remains in the womb after that point - nature isn't capricious, and in terms of survivability, doesn't lax... within the variability of individuals, there is a 'reason' why these patterns are such in nature, that the term is as such and not in general other lengths..... this is as such for all living organisms, humans no exception..... and those who study biology know this, yet they 'blank-out' on this.when dealing with the human...

(Edited by robert malcom on 5/27, 8:50pm)

Post 11

Sunday, May 27, 2007 - 9:00pm

Link

Edit

The hypothetical Jonathan posits was presented some years ago as an analogy pro positive rights for the viable fetus and newborns. I'm not sure that he authored it, but Roger Bissel offered this a long time ago.

His argument was basically along the lines of "caused helplessness," or, in other words, if you cause another to be helpless, you are responsible for them.

Its been so long, I can't remember all of the finer details.

Ted wondered:

Back to the original question, what is meant by fault?

Probably the difference between a pedestrian stepping in front of your car, and a driver being distracted in some way.

Also, the analogy is faulty, unless you posit that the car accident takes place very gradually over a nine month period, and that no person is involved until the later stages of the accident.

Indeed. The accident is meant to be allowing the later stages to occur, causing helplessness in another.

Post 12

Sunday, May 27, 2007 - 9:10pm

Link

Edit

Actually, Robert, the length of the pregnancy and the birthweight of the baby are all compromises and struggles; between the maximized size of the brain versus the constrained width of the birth canal, between the tendency of genes passed on through sperm to maximize allocation of resources to the fetus versus inhibition factors in the egg that keep the fetus from growing too large and stressing the mother, and so on. You are not alone among Objectivists in making statements which to a biologist sound like the arguments of Catholic Ptolemaicists to Kepler and Galileo. Your point from before, that sapience is relevant, is enough to make the argument you want. Making biological assertions that biologists wouldn't support is not necessary. Babies are not born at nine months because they are "ready." In fact, compared to all other primates, human children are born extremely premature. Newborn chimps can hold up their heads and quickly come to crawl about, some six months or more quickly than can human babies. Humans are born with such relatively underdeveloped bodies only because they are born with such over-developed brains.

Ted

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 5/28, 10:10am)

Post 13

Monday, May 28, 2007 - 12:24am

Link

Edit

Come on Luke (and others), I know you're smart enough to see where I was going. What I was saying is that you weren't being reckless, but it was your fault. I still do not feel satisfied with the original hypothetical. We assume certain risks when we do our daily activities. You assume the risk of accidents on the road, and the risk of conception in sex. The "pro-choice" movement relies solely on minimizing the importance of a fetus. I think it fails to take reality into account.

Please realize that people in comas may have less brain activity than a fetus. Explain this man's rights from that point, if you want to go that way. I thought this was implied, but I guess I can't rely on others to make my argument.

William - the problem I have with your post is that it relies on "convenience" on two major points. (that is, on when humans acquire this rational ability, and when the fetus is viable) My purpose of posting was to bring out some issues out. Besides, it sounds to me like, "It's too hard to say when, so let's just say at birth."

I think you've missed my point on potential as well. I'm not saying give the kid a driver's license. I'm saying let him (it) live. Yes, a child has potential to become many things. Maybe a driver, maybe a commuter, maybe a genius. This is a different sort of potential. Are you saying that potential means nothing? That, morally speaking, a carrot is of as much significance as a zygote? I have the image of a man who lives for today, pretending the future is irrelevant because it scares him. It's irrational. I'd hoped for a more solid argument on the topic of potential than the one I already offered.

If we are only different from animals by rationality, and newborns admittedly aren't any more rational than mature pigs, should killing newborns for food be ok? You must realize that this is where your argument leads, if you don't hide behind convenience. Is it wrong, yes or no?

Along those same lines, I think Teresa hit it pretty well. Robert - I fail to see the point of your argument. It's as if you lack a "therefore" at the end. It is ideal for the fetus to stay in nine months, but is the fetus able to survive at 8.75 months or isn't it? Also, why the dismissal of reality with artificial controls? Can the fetus survive, or can it not? I'm dealing with reality - the here and now - and I don't see any justification for pretending that such machines don't exist.

Post 14

Monday, May 28, 2007 - 7:43am

Link

Edit

Joseph Funk furthered his funky fictional fearsome foisting when he wrote:

Please realize that people in comas may have less brain activity than a fetus. Explain this man's rights from that point, if you want to go that way. I thought this was implied, but I guess I can't rely on others to make my argument.

I do not think that any person in any need necessarily has a legitimate claim on the products of the efforts of others. Who pays for this man's life support system?

To isolate the instance, let us assume that a man goes into a coma because of a health defect. Doctors know that the defect will clear itself in a year, but they also know he has no way of paying for his health care, nor does he have anyone willing to finance it. My solution? Let him die. Too bad for him. He should have done a better job of building a support network over his lifetime.

Actually, the comatose state amounts to a red herring. He could simply become incapacitated and unable to produce and totally indigent. The solution remains the same. If no one volunteers to help, he suffers and dies and deserves it.

If someone such as a spouse has pledged to help this man, then it becomes an issue of what legal strength that pledge has regarding whether the government ought to enforce that pledge as well as what ability the pledging person has to assist. The same holds true regarding the legal liabilities of accidents, etc.

Because a fetus is not a man, I will not dignify your faulty analogy with an examination. But I did want to make clear that an incapacitated man per se has no rights to the products of the efforts of others. If you find my answering of your "a" point while ignoring your "the" point annoying, then stop equivocating between a man and a fetus.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 5/28, 7:47am)

Post 15

Monday, May 28, 2007 - 9:27am

Link

Edit

I wrote, "Should a woman who aborts a fetus in the third trimester be charged with murder based on someone else's arguable interpretation of the fetus' viability? We can avoid this problem as well by setting the standard at birth, after which it is obvious that the offspring is a separate individual." Teresa replied,

Viability isn't a matter of interpretation. Its a hard condition. If the lungs have developed to a certain precise measurable point, viability is assured, barring any other abnormal defects. Fetal development follows a very set pattern, and isn't subject to a whole lot of variation, if any variation at all. Points of development happen at a very predicable rate.

There is simply NO argument to support the idea that a fetus at 8.75 months gestation isn't viable! Its a fantasy, a stretch, and an assault on facts to suggest viability isn't present at that stage.

I agree, and would not have argued otherwise. My point was simply that it is easier to err in determining viability in utero than it is to identify a newborn. But it would seem that there is a more precise standard for identifying viability in utero than I had originally thought. So, you make a good point here.

- Bill

Post 16

Monday, May 28, 2007 - 9:49am

Link

Edit

Actually, Robert, the length of the pregnancy and the birthweight of the baby are all compromises and struggles; between the maximized size of the brain versus the constrained width of the birth canal, between the tendency of genes passed on through sperm to maximize allocation of resources to the fetus versus inhibition factors in the egg that keep the fetus from growing too large and stressing the mother, and so on.....[ ..]... babies are not born at nine months because they are "ready." In fact, compared to all other primates, human children are born extremely premature. Newborn chimps can hold up there heads and quickly crawl about, some six months or more quickly than can human babies. Humans are born with such relatively underdeveloped bodies only because they are born with such over-developed brains.

I had to laugh when read this, since it was I who pointed this out in RoR long before you showed your infantile heads... the problem with googling everything is you betray a lack of integration, to say nothing of non-contradictory identification.... the fact is, as developmental biologists will say, human babies are born at nine months because they are"ready", that if born earlier, they are impaired - the earlier, the greater the impairment - and while modern medical advances have allowed a survivaling, there is usually a life-long impairment of one kind or another which limits the flourishing which would have otherwise been there had it not been born prematurally..... and that its premature birthing was actually, from a biological standpoint, a rejecting of the fetus which had it stayed may well have imperiled the host's life or well-being....

Post 17

Monday, May 28, 2007 - 10:33am

Link

Edit

Robert, can we keep it civil [deleted] ? My avatar is my nephew. Your remarks on my childishness are childish.

As for the child being ready, well, of course, the lungs do reach a stage of readiness in the 8th month which they don't have prior. But developmental biologists and comparative physiologists agree that otherwise the human infant if born in a much more premature state than what one would expect for a primate of its size. If there were no limit to the width of a woman's birth canal, it is almost universally accepted that human gestation would be longer than it is. But woman need to be able to walk upright - and hence their hips cannot splay much more than they already do. Humans are also unique in the difficulty with which the give birth and the pain which they experience.

I suppose this pain is "just right" for the woman?

Your arguments are what Steven Jay Gould characterized as Panglossian Selectionism, the idea that everything in biology is as it is because it is for the best. I assume you deny the Anthropic Principle, that the constants of physics are as they are because if they were different we would not be here to comment on them? Panglossian Selectionism is no different from the Anthropic Principle applied to biology.

Rand defined a compromise as a unilaterally sub-ideal situation which is nevertheless better for each participant than otherwise - each side gets something it wants, but not all that it wants. Being born at nine months is not ideal for a baby - it is the best compromise for the tendency of the child to develop before birth and the limits of the mother in carrying him.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 5/28, 7:38pm)

Post 18

Monday, May 28, 2007 - 10:48am

Link

Edit

Joseph wrote,

William - the problem I have with your post is that it relies on "convenience" on two major points. (that is, on when humans acquire this rational ability, and when the fetus is viable) My purpose of posting was to bring out some issues out. Besides, it sounds to me like, "It's too hard to say when, so let's just say at birth."

It's not just that it's too hard to say when; it's that if you try to draw the line at some point after birth, you risk violating the child's rights. In order to ensure against this, we set the standard at birth.

I think you've missed my point on potential as well. I'm not saying give the kid a driver's license. I'm saying let him (it) live. Yes, a child has potential to become many things. Maybe a driver, maybe a commuter, maybe a genius. This is a different sort of potential.

It's not relevantly different. The analogy I was making is as follows: If he should not have the right to drive simply because he has the potential to become a driver, then neither should he have the rights of human being simply because he has the potential to become a human being. In order to have the right to drive, he must actually be able to drive. Similarly, in order to have the rights of a human being, he must actually be a human being.

Are you saying that potential means nothing?
No, I'm saying that a potential human being is not an actual human being, and that only actual human beings have human rights.
That, morally speaking, a carrot is of as much significance as a zygote?

No, I'm saying that a zygote has no more rights than a carrot. There's a difference between rights and significance or value. Something can have significance or value to me without having rights. A zygote has no rights, even though it may have a great deal of significance to the mother who wants to keep it and carry it to term.

If we are only different from animals by rationality, and newborns admittedly aren't any more rational than mature pigs, should killing newborns for food be ok? You must realize that this is where your argument leads, if you don't hide behind convenience. Is it wrong, yes or no?

Again, my argument is not based on convenience; it's based on ensuring against an unwarranted violation of a child's rights. But your rejoinder is based on emotion -- on the emotional aversion we all have to killing babies. An emotional aversion to killing babies does not prove that babies have rights, any more than an emotional aversion to killing bunnies proves that bunnies have rights. Emotion is not a standard of ethical judgment or a sufficient basis on which to form moral principles, including a principle of rights.

But even if we couldn't prove that babies have rights, it wouldn't mean that killing them for food would be okay; it wouldn't justify it; it would simply mean that anyone who killed a baby could not be arrested for violating its rights. But the killer could certainly be ostracized or otherwise punished non-violently by the refusal of others to deal with him, in much the same way that O.J. Simpson is now being shunned for the murders that he committed.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 5/28, 10:17pm)

Post 19

Monday, May 28, 2007 - 11:45am

Link

Edit

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 5/28, 12:02pm)

An interesting hypothetical