Deuc PT1

In your bomb analogy you are still innocent, to correct it you agree for some benefit to have the device, also there is only a probability that the bomb will arm itself. But because you want some benefit that goes with it say money/holiday, you have it implanted even though you know it will effectively incapacitate you for 9mnths if it arms itself(as you don’t want to kill people.) Now say like in the case of rape and the person has the device implanted without consent, is the price of 9 months incapacitation worth more than the chance that you kill someone by walking?

Since he like the couple consented to the action, knowing the possible consequences that could directly lead from it they must bear the responsibility whatever that is for that action.

Knowledge + Consent/Participation = Responsibility for actions and their ramifications

This is one foundation of our social moral contract. Why should we throw it away in this case; because they aren’t persons? But we don’t do that for all non-persons as I have already shown.

You think well someone has to pay, well first I’m talking about equal consideration even if only between the man and woman, fine make the man have no choice but to take the consequences of his actions and contribute financially but conversely the woman to be fair should give up the exclusive right to choose to keep the child or not.

Equal consideration, both pay financially, both get a choice in the life of a child.

>One way or another the woman takes responsibility.
What responsibility if she chooses an abortion?

For arguments sake –& for now not talking about genetic defects- why not be consistent on human life as the criterion –so we treat birthed non-persons the same as unborn non-persons-why is adoption not a viable alternative when couples are going to IVF for babies?

Pt2
>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.

Because if it is the basic fundamental feature we all share. The reason racism and sexism is arbitrary is because there is another criterion which all races and sexes have in common, belonging to humanity, and not personhood, which has been shown before. For equal consideration equal/treatment to operate when a group shares such a commonality, excluding a section of that group on other non foundational criterion eg race sex age -and I would argue personhood-it breaks this equal consideration/treatment rule.

>And if the latter combination is the test, then you are effectively adopting a potential human argument since that is the only distinguishing feature.

The human life is still the overriding criterion, genetic defects does not necessarily lend itself to the potential human criterion as you can have serious defects that still leave a human with personhood. But it still leaves you with the which defects dilemma.

>We could kill infants, just as we could invade another country and kill thousands, if there was a sufficient need.

With due respect are you saying in everyday life, utility or the doctrine of necessity overrides the Golden rule and negative rights?

>For infants ….there is no need to kill the child, destroying its value, and there is an additional benefit to keeping it.

Replace unborn with infants and repeat the above or conversely there could be the exactly the same sort of needs/benefits accomplished if a child is killed as happens when a unborn to is killed ie economic, social, life saving etc

The problem with sentience is if you are consistent in you treatment of all non-persons you could use all non-persons as a means to an end as long as you don’t cause pain.

I think you misunderstood the analogous features of the bomb scenario; walking *is* the benefit. There are possible undesired consequences, just as there are possible undesired consequences in having sex - you have a choice, but that choice was forced upon you. For pregnancy, it was forced by biology, for the device it was forced on you by some mysterious stranger; either way you are forced. Should you choose to walk, you do so "knowing the possible consequences that could directly lead from it".

"But we don't do that for all non-persons as I have already shown."
I'm not sure what you are referring to, so I suspect that is still in contention.

"the woman to be fair should give up the exclusive right to choose to keep the child or not."
This is all predicated on the mother having custody, which means that the mother will be contributing both financially and non-financially, ie. there already is equal consideration if the pregnancy continues. The woman shouldn't financially benefit, the funds are for supporting the child, they don't have to come from the father.

"What responsibility if she chooses an abortion?"
That of having the abortion. Any responsibility that exists is an obligation to deal with the situation. An abortion is one way of dealing with it. If there is anything other than personal accountability, it would presumably have to be based on the embryo/fetus being something with an interest, which I am rejecting.

"why not be consistent on human life as the criterion"
What is the significance of having similar DNA? It's not limited to genetic defects, any individual organism with human DNA is a human life. The ability to reproduce doesn't make life valuable, nor do our chromosomes.

"so we treat birthed non-persons the same as unborn non-persons"
They have the same value, but the situations are different, in the latter case there is a person with her own personal sovereignty. Adoption is a viable *choice*.

"Because if it is the basic fundamental feature we all share."
A feature we all share. What about another intelligent life-form or a

true artifical intelligence? All we would share with them is thought, are they not worthy of equal moral consideration? You, I and Mr brain stem all share DNA and existence as organisms-- we are all human life.

"The human life is still the overriding criterion, genetic defects does not necessarily lend itself to the potential human criterion as you can have serious defects that still leave a human with personhood. But it still leaves you with the which defects dilemma."
Clearly not overriding but initial. You brought up the defects, I noted And I think that if you play the defect game long enough you'll end up with a test of whether it prevents abstract thought or the like.

"With due respect are you saying in everyday life, utility or the doctrine of necessity overrides the Golden rule and negative rights?"
My statement contained a bit of snark directed at the Bush administration; justified self defence or an extreme set of cirumstances would be required. The golden rule and rights apply to people. But I do not think rights stand on their own-- they are justified by other ethical, social rules and as a result most negative rights are subject to some notion of necessity or reasonableness eg. right to practice your religion that involves sacrificing virgins.

"Replace unborn with infants and repeat the above or conversely there could be the exactly the same sort of needs/benefits accomplished if a child is killed as happens when a unborn to is killed ie economic, social, life saving etc"
Need wasn't the best word, try benefit. Moral calculus exists independent of utilitarianism, my position is that people have significant value and rights, but non-people (non-thinkers) do not.

"The problem with sentience is if you are consistent in you treatment of all non-persons you could use all non-persons as a means to an end as long as you don't cause pain."
You could, but that doesn't make it a problem. Everything is a means to an end, what matters is whether the method is warranted. Protecting non-thinking life does not warrant mandatory pregnancy.

Duec
>For pregnancy, it was forced by biology, for the device it was forced on you by some mysterious stranger; either way you are forced. Should you choose to walk, you do so "knowing the possible consequences that could directly lead from it".

Forced by biology? Last time I checked apart from the Virgin Mary no one spontaneously becomes pregnant.

I’m having trouble thinking of a real life situation where we do and are legally allowed to act –apart from sex- that we partake in an activity that may result in an act -that while still a probability- and when the chance result occurs we are not responsible for that an action if it in the end result in the loss of life. If I have sex while HIV+ there is still only chance that the partner will catch it and then go onto die. The result is ‘forced by biology’ so I’m not responsible for her getting AIDS?

"But we don't do that for all non-persons as I have already shown."
I'm not sure what you are referring to, so I suspect that is still in contention.
We kill unborn non-persons but not born non-persons which is a fact.

>This is all predicated on the mother having custody, …..

Custody is after the fact she still gets to choose the father doesn’t and therefore ad hoc.
If being fair both parties are made to pay, and both get a choice, the party that overrules the other in saying they want to keep the child then accepts the responsibility and burden of duty of care. To me that is again fair, we have plenty of precedents in social interaction for that.

>That of having the abortion. Any responsibility that exists is an obligation to deal with the situation. ....If there is anything other than personal accountability, it would presumably have to be based on the embryo/fetus being something with an interest, which I am rejecting.

No it doesn’t have an concrete interest, but nor do other non-persons. I don’t want to care for my sick aun

with dementia is my killing her mean I’m taking responsibility for my actions if by my initial actions I’ve brought about her dementia?

>They have the same value, but the situations are different, in the latter case there is a person with her own personal sovereignty.

Sorry if they had the same value-the human dignity issue- they would be in different situations & no these are non-persons they’re granted personhood and personal sovereignty so why not unborn persons?

>Adoption is a viable *choice*.
Not for the unwanted fetus or the male when the female wants an abortion.

>All we would share with them is thought, are they not worthy of equal moral consideration? You, I and Mr brain stem all share DNA and existence as organisms-- we are all human life. .. if you play the defect game long enough

True this is the same problem that I came up with a paper on the rights of sentient animals for equal consideration. It is unavoidable but you have to draw the line somewhere. Some are less inclusive racism, sexism others are more inclusive. To me the only sticking point is that that born non-persons are given rights that unborn ones aren’t, that is the inconsistency.

>But I do not think rights stand on their own, they are ……are subject to some notion of necessity or reasonableness .

:)
BTW I believe reasonableness is socially and non-rationally constructed, that’s why sincere moral people can condone slavery or think human sacrifice is acceptable.

>Everything is a means to an end, what matters is whether the method is warranted. Protecting non-thinking life does not warrant mandatory pregnancy.

Fine but warranted & reasonableness can be very plastic and mean different things to different people. I just want to see consistency applied.

Using your argument some one could say protecting non-thinking life does not warrant –from the benefits gained and the inherent plasticity of reasonableness- punishment for killing infants, the mentally handicapped or incapacitated elderly.