when the possibility of thought can be entirely ruled out. Eg. current organ donor programs.

"But what does this say that we only value a life that is related to us only if it is wanted?"
Firstly, I would say that there is a moral obligation to give blood and also organs upon death, and in the latter case I think the obligation is strong enough to warrant a legal presumption. Value is not binary; we value other animals less than humans, plants are generally considered to have no inherent value. Situations must be balanced against the societal benefits of protecting personal integrity.

"So we cannot once a child is born neglect it or kill it. But why not, it is not yet have personhood like a zygote or foetus,"
Using your definition with birth as the point in the developmental cycle that attracts equal moral consideration, it would have personhood. If it is a level of cognitive ability that occurs after birth, then it might be justified by again balancing the needs. If raising the child would cause another to die, or the child would suffer in the long term, it may well be necessary to do so. It is not necessary in our society.

"What does that say when we have laws concerning pain related abuse of farm animals and pets but we can cause pain to our own family members if they happen to be pre-born?"
But is a fetus able to understand pain, moreover is there a subject capable of feeling pain or is it only a nervous response. I think it would also be difficult to include an unwanted zygote or embryo within any non-biological definition of family. I could just as easily ask: What does it say when we do not intervene to save the lives of the majority of our family members? (Refering to those that do not implant in the placenta.)

I would consider knowledge of the pregnancy to be an aggravating factor in the assualt. Higher penalty, but not manslaughter. More tomorrow.

With the greatest respect, Neohuman, because I know you are sincere in your beliefs, I think you may have overstated your case a little.

You postulated:

"Say we painlessly kill and make use of the body parts for those with severe mental handicaps or experiment on unwanted new born babies after they have been lobotomized."

And then used this as equivalent to:

"[pro-choice] see human lives albeit at the earliest stage of development, being used as spare body parts and experimentation material."

...from which you draw the conclusion that:

"Pro-Lifer’s are morally consistent whereas the Pro-choice are inconsistent and hypocritical"

Presumably by "inconsistent and hypocritical" you mean that some people can discern a difference between a mentally handicapped person and an unfertilized ovum, while others cannot, or will not. However, you do not even have to be as in anti-abortion to see that there might be some different issues in play here, for example a consideration of the potential benefits of the research, against the unfertilized - i.e. without-a-future-of-any-kind - bunch of cells.

None of this addresses the issue I raised earlier, which is where exactly does "human dignity" enter the equation?

Deuc
>I'm having trouble parsing this, but my guess is that "they" refers to anti-abortionists and I gather the potential human argument means a pro-choice view that a fetus etc, are currently only potential lives?

From past debates Pro-life advocates argue that the fetus while not a human being it is a potential human being because pro-choice have argued the fetus isn’t a person & therefore doesn’t deserve equal moral consideration I simply ignore that argument & say human life should be used not personhood.

>The corresponding problem with the pro-life position you outlined occurs when the zygote/embryo/fetus will not develop or when there is no chance of cognitive ability……. a human that will not develop anything other than a brain stem?

I acknowledge your point using a human life also carries it’s problems, maybe a combination of the two is warranted a human life that is capable of developing personhood/self-awareness free of extreme genetic defects.

Sorry for being obtuse but could go over your organ donor and why we cannot kill non-personhood infants point again I’m finding it hard to follow your reasoning?
(BTW I’m not sure of the legal argument why a newborn is given legal status and a pre-born not, can someone fill me in?)

Understand pain maybe isn’t a good choice of words, whether they experience pain is more relevant, from a quick reading, to my knowledge they do from 8wks on.

>think it would also be difficult to include an unwanted zygote or embryo within any non-biological definition of family. What does it say when we do not intervene to save the lives of the majority of … those that do not implant in the placenta.?

If the child was wanted and we had the technical means to monitor & to save it I’d guess many parents would want the zygote saved as they treat the zygote/fetus as a wanted life. Then it comes back to, can the question, is that life wanted or not be morally relevant when it cannot be used after birth but before personhood/self-awareness

Pericles
>With the greatest respect, Neohuman, because I know you are sincere in your beliefs, I think you may have overstated your case a little.

NP

>Presumably by "inconsistent and hypocritical" you mean that some people can discern a difference between a mentally handicapped person and an unfertilized ovum, while others cannot, or will not.

No I mean simply this they have picked a criteria which they use for members of our fundamental social group, but include some humans who don’t match the criteria(handicapped etc) but not others who also don’t match(pre-born). Not only that but if we treat this other group the handicapped the same way we treat the-born many would find this unacceptable-therefore inconsistent/hypocritical- when the major difference is an arbitrary developmental one.

>However, ….example a consideration of the potential benefits of the research, against the unfertilized - i.e. no future bunch of cells.

Using utility to break negative rights that we grant ourselves is fraught with danger. I could think up of myriad benefits to society if we used the handicapped as body banks, euthanased the elderly, lobotomized serial criminals for medical research, sterilized the poor, the list could go on.
BTW where am I objecting to the use unfertilized cells?

>None of this addresses the issue I raised earlier, which is where exactly does "human dignity" enter the equation?

Isn't giving or granting human dignity like saying a human life is something worth respecting, allowing it some semblance of self-respect, and not being made a means to an end?

To the Pro-Life a unborn human life has the same value deserving of human dignity that we grant our lives and the lives of the impaired elderly, the disabled and infants that don’t have full personhood/self-awareness or social interaction. In the same way some now bury miscarriages, as like our post birth humanity dead they shared that fundamental commonality of human life and so deserve human dignity even in death.

By doing the reverse you make a human life a means to an end and that robs it of it’s dignity/value.

"To correct the surgically attached adult analogy the female has directly consented to the possibility that the adult may be attached and must bare the responsibility for that action."
Not quite, how's this: You're grabbed, drugged and a device is implanted in your foot that would require amputation to remove. The device has a transmitter in it that sends a signal everytime you walk, but the signal is weak. You can try to stop the signal but it doesn't always work. A reciever is attached to a small bomb hidden somewhere near where you live. By walking there is a chance that a signal might reach the bomb and someone might be injured. You didn't consent to the device, it might not cause an explosion and even if it does someone might not get hurt. Should the government have the power to force you not to walk?

But the analogy really fails because it's not a person that is attached.

"[T]he third party is excluded for any consideration unless on totally arbitrary grounds on whether it is wanted or not."
When those two consented to participate there was no third party, even afterwards there is only the possibility of a third party. The party that can make a choice is free to consider the possible third party.

"The male is given no right in the consideration of whether the human life continues but is expected to take responsibility for his participation by financially contributing whether he wants it to continue or not."

Often a contribution is needed. There are three options in these situations: the community pays, the father pays or the child suffers. If the community wants to encourage child birth then it should front the cost, or it can discourages it by selecting one of the other options. Currently it seems that it wants to encourage child birth in one situation, discourage it in another & not have to pay for any of it.

"The female... is allowed to avoid any responsibility for her participation"
One way or another the woman takes responsibility.

"I simply ignore that argument & say human life should be used not personhood."
But that leaves unanswered the fundamental question of why the test should be human life or human life capable of developing personhood/self-awareness free of extreme genetic defects. And if the latter combination is the test, then you are effectively adopting a potential human argument since that is the only distinguishing feature. I do not claim that a potential person is without value, just that the value is lower than an actual person, subject to a need for the person.

"Sorry for being obtuse but could go over your organ donor and why we cannot kill non-personhood infants point again I'm finding it hard to follow your reasoning?"

I wasn't trying to explain so much as refute, so I wasn't very clear. My main premise is that value attaches to thought, and secondly that a balancing of need, desires & value must occur. We could kill infants, just as we could invade another country and kill thousands, if there was a sufficient need. Potential people have value, which must be considered against an act of harm. For infants (assuming they're not people), there is no need to kill the child, destroying its value, and there is an additional benefit to keeping it. The protection of individual freedom has great value for society, and to individuals in general, which is a counterweight to organ donations from living people, but not the dead. It's possible that there may be a need so strong that completion of pregnancy should be enforced.

"Understand pain maybe isn't a good choice of words, whether they experience pain is more relevant, from a quick reading, to my knowledge they do from 8wks on."
But again, I think the real issue is whether "they" exists yet. It is possible for a person with just a brain stem to respond to "pain", even though no consciousness exists.

Legally: because it lacks a seperate existence; I don't know the foundational legal reasoning. Re: aggravated assault, that's my view of how it probably should be, not necessarily reality