There is a fundamental problem with Peter Sellick's argument. People respect human lives because other humans have selves like us, not because of DNA. For example, hospitals can turn off life support once a patient has been declared brain-dead, even though pregnant women have been kept "alive" in this state for weeks or months because the family wanted to save the fetus. No one is there anymore. We would regard the murder of an identical twin just as seriously as any other murder, even if the victim's DNA lives on in the twin. No unique DNA. We would extend human rights to E.T. or Commander Data if they actually existed. No human DNA. The vast majority of abortions take place in the first trimester, when the embryo or fetus simply isn't developed enough to have a self. No one is there yet. The issue becomes murky later in pregnancy, but late abortions are relatively rare and usually performed because something has gone tragically wrong with a wanted pregnancy. Third trimester abortions are uncontroversially illegal, except under the most extreme circumstances.

Jewish law never accepted the moment of conception argument. For example, they didn't delay the execution of a pregnant woman unless she was actually in the process of giving birth. There was also a difference of opinion among early Christians about whether ensoulment (personhood) took place a the moment of conception or when the fetus was developed enough to have human faculties. Those in the latter camp would have said that early abortion was still wrong, but for reasons to do with Christian theology and because (at the time) abortion was so dangerous for the woman.

It is one thing to tell the flock that a good Christian will have nothing to do with abortion except to save the mother's life and quite another to attempt to force your views on people outside who don't accept the moment of conception argument. Similarly with voluntary assisted dying. What if the dying person doesn't accept that his or her horrendous suffering is part of their journey to God?

Dear Banjo,

«You note that I “speak of autonomy and free will”. Yes, I do speak of autonomy, but, if you re-read my posts carefully, you will not find any mention at all of “free will”.»

Good, thank you for clarifying because from an objective point of view there is no such thing.
What you refer to as "autonomy", is an objective functionality: while science may describe it in detail, attaching importance to this functionality is emotional and irrational.

«That said, I am quite happy to discuss free will with you if you are interested.»

What's there to discuss? from an objective standpoint there is no such thing!

«As I see it, nature has endowed all life forms with a certain degree of consciousness and autonomy to enable us all (animals, vegetation, and whatever) to thrive, evolve and survive. And it is the exceptional growth and development of the human brain that has allowed mankind to dominate all the other life forms and attain the supreme degree of consciousness and autonomy that we call free will.»

I generally agree with your statement, apart from three points:

1) The word "consciousness" does not belong in this list: there is nothing objective about it.

2) I was of the impression that we just agreed, above, that "free will" is different from autonomy (the latter exists, the former not), so why suddenly equate the two again?

3) The phrase "...to enable us all (animals, vegetation, and whatever) to thrive...", falsely equates US with those life forms (animals, vegetation and whatever). This statement could be true if you only replaced it with "to enable animals, vegetation and whatever, to thrive...".

.

Dear Uuyutsu,

.

You wrote :

« … from an objective point of view, there is no such thing [as autonomy].

What you refer to as "autonomy", is an objective functionality: while science may describe it in detail, attaching importance to this functionality is emotional and irrational »
.

Those centuries-old criticisms are long surpassed, Yuyutsu. I am more inclined to agree with Jacques Monod’s criterion of “autonomous morphogenesis”.

The OED defines life as :

« The condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death »

It defines autonomy as :

« Freedom from external control or influence; independence »

Here is a brief description of Jacques Monod’s criterion of “autonomous morphogenesis” :

« ...a living being's structure results from a ... process ... that owes almost nothing to the action of outside forces, but everything, from its overall shape down to its tiniest detail, to "morphogenetic" interactions within the object itself. It is thus a structure giving proof of an autonomous determinism: precise, rigorous, implying a virtually total "freedom" with respect to outside agents or conditions — which are capable, to be sure of impeding this development, but not of governing or guiding it, not of prescribing its organizational scheme to the living object. Through the autonomous and spontaneous character of the morphogenetic processes that build the macroscopic structure of living beings, the latter are distinct from artifacts, as they are, furthermore, from the majority of natural objects whose macroscopic morphology largely results from the influence of external agents. To this, there is a single exception: that, once again, of crystals, whose characteristic geometry reflects microscopic interactions occurring within the object itself. Hence, utilizing this criterion alone, crystals would have to be classified together with living beings, while artifacts and natural objects, alike fashioned by outside agents, would comprise another class. »

(Chance and Necessity, p.10)
.

Free will is a functional advantage developed by nature. It is autonomy, the autonomy of the individual. Its acquisition and development are progressive.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

It is an evolutive mode of functioning. It has been evolving ever since the apparition of life on earth of which human beings are by far the most advanced form. We have long surpassed all other forms of life and all other animal species in terms of autonomy and continue to make progress, generation after generation. Though there may be important differences in the rate of development of autonomy among individuals due to all the variables that contribute to its evolution, progress is nevertheless achieved during the lifetime of each individual. Beneficial mutations and experiences continue to accumulate over time, multiplying and diversifying choice patterns to an ever-greater degree of complexity until the individual is no longer held to obey any predetermined course of behaviour, gaining in the autonomy we call free will.

Autonomy or free will implies that the individual can govern himself, of determining his own thoughts and actions without, or despite, outside influence. He must clearly be in the driving seat. He must exercise what we call self-control. Self-control is an integral component of autonomy. If there is no self-control, there is no autonomy. The degree of autonomy is determined by the degree of self-control and vice versa.

As the individual continues to emerge and develop free will, his vision of society and the environment in which he evolves takes on a new perspective. He develops a greater awareness of his earthly condition and the nature of his existence and life in general.

The emerging faculty to extract himself from his environment and observe himself as an individual is fuelled by that innate, basic emotion we call curiosity which mankind shares with other animal species. Our curiosity and need for understanding lead us to develop a capacity for abstract thought and imagination when no obvious rational explanation is available. It is a gradual evolutionary process that allows us to develop the capacity to project our minds beyond perceived reality in our quest for an explanation. Conscience and free will continue to emerge because of this development.

.

And back in the real world we have the question of 'abortion', which in reality is a question that only women can answer for themselves.
Men, and especially religion, along with political logic, has no place in this question.
In fact any social ideology that justifies death and persecution, in any form, has nothing to contribute to this question or to that of 'life'
The ideological social masses always seem to think it is their right to interfere with the wishes of an individual (woman) who is in a difficult situation to begin with.
We speak of free will, as long as it's convenient to society, otherwise free will is taken off the table and the individual is accused of not understanding what they are doing.
Well, in their own minds they do, and that's all there is to it.
Their decision is of the moment and within the parameters of their awareness of their own existence.
Society raised the individual, intentionally or unintentionally, doesn't matter at this point, society can live with this woman's choice.
If society wanted a different result it should have paid attention to the education that was needed well before this point.

Dear Banjo,

First I must clarify that in my previous post when I wrote "there is no such thing", I was referring to free-will, not to autonomy.
Autonomy could still exist in a sense, depending on how exactly it is defined, yet that has nothing to do with free will.

Computers for example also have an increasing degree of autonomy and at some time in future (hopefully not before I have left this world for good), their autonomy might even exceed that of humans, yet they will always remain bound by their algorithms and none of that could grant them consciousness or will of any kind, let alone "free".

Humans as such, are no different - they too have no consciousness and no will.
Before you jump at my last statement, let me clarify that I am not claiming that you are not conscious: all I said was that the HUMAN with which you identify has neither consciousness nor will, so that's quite different.

There was never a shortage of deluded people indiscriminately spewing out their wishful ego-boosting thoughts. This Jacques Monod seems to be one of them.
I could spend my days here refuting practically every sentence of his mental diarrhea, but I have better things to do. I better converse with you than start arguing with every Frenchman that ever existed, including this one who would have been wiser to keep to his field of expertise - bacteria, chemistry and biochemical feedback loops.