As I say next in the reply, human medical intervention absolutely plays into our ability to declare life or death,
This is an odd statement. It would suggest that the morality of killing an infant is contingent on the medical care in the area. Would it be moral to kill a 34 week old fetus in a very poor area without access to medical care? Would it have been moral to kill 34 week old fetuses a few decades ago? There's no rational reason why the quality of medical care would dictate the ethics of ending another being's life. If it is immoral today then surely it is something that was always immoral.
babies that are born premature are taken away from their mothers because they need advanced care from nurses and doctors
Not true. Some babies are born premature without need for care. Mine was born healthy at 35 weeks. If your delineating line is "can be born without any medical intervention and not need treatment" then the cutoff is around 34-35 weeks. Meaning you'd be okay with killing a 33 week old fetus. I imagine that's not true.
"capability to live
Babies do not have the capability to live. A 38 week old fetus has the exact same requirements for another to supply them with nutrition as a 2 month old baby does, same as with a 2 day old zygote. If your delineating line is "can survive by being fed by external means like formula" then you're looking at mid-30 weeks. Before that and they have gut issues and need special IV treatments. Again, I imagine you're not okay killing a 32 week old because of this.
The "survive out of the womb" argument is full of holes.
I'll take the chance to fallback on the argument that human capacity for thought is the only objective marker that does not have logical inconsistencies. Meaning anything after 8 weeks is fraught with ethical concerns.
I appreciate the opportunity to have had this conversation. It's rare to find someone who can articulate their thoughts well and still disagree with you. Thanks.
This is an odd statement. It would suggest that the morality of killing an infant is contingent on the medical care in the area.
It's one I've said before, and it is supported by what happens in the world. As said before, CPR, defibrillators and all the other fancy tools we have has pushed what we define as "death" and when we/how we declare it. It also plays into what is "viable" at the beginning of life.
Would it be moral to kill a 34 week old fetus in a very poor area without access to medical care?
Possibly. As I said before, I'm against late term abortions, but I must state that there can/should be exception for when the mother's life is at risk or if the fetus has become (or is) nonviable. As to your specific questions, because we have cars, planes, and helicopters, a specific area's level of medical capability plays less of a role in deciding this because we also have the capability to move people to better areas...but of course this is within reason. We don't transport expecting mothers from South Sudan to the US to get better care. Those people must deal with their environment they are in, and that plays out in statistics of positive outcomes. But we can absolutely move a poor women in a rural country to a major hospital when medical emergency happens, and not only can we do that, we often do!
Would it have been moral to kill 34 week old fetuses a few decades ago?
I'm not sure on the exact timeline, but absolutely as our medical tech advances the gray area of viability changes. I think the youngest ever premie is now around 24 weeks or so. But that's not always been the case. If we get better then it will be pushed back, and if our society crumbles and we lose our ability to care for the extremely young/premies then it will slide back.
There's no rational reason why the quality of medical care would dictate the ethics of ending another being's life. If it is immoral today then surely it is something that was always immoral.
The rational reason being if something is not possible you cannot will it to be possible. The same reason that we give up on dying people based on our medical tech, we can give up on early people, based on our medical tech.
Not true. Some babies are born premature without need for care.
Correct, I was not precise enough with my words. I meant some premies and/or all of the extremely early term premies.
Mine was born healthy at 35 weeks.
Congrats!
If your delineating line is "can be born without any medical intervention and not need treatment"
That's not my line, I am okay with treatment being used to cross the gap...as long as that treatment can be actualized.
then the cutoff is around 34-35 weeks. Meaning you'd be okay with killing a 33 week old fetus. I imagine that's not true.
As said before, I am against late term, and even precautionary against midterm.
Babies do not have the capability to live. A 38 week old fetus has the exact same requirements for another to supply them with nutrition as a 2 month old baby does, same as with a 2 day old zygote.
The specific that I laid out was that they no longer need "the mother" not that they no longer need "anyone" to help them. A 2 day old can be cared for by others. A 2 day old zygote simply cannot. If we ever get to a point where med tech can raise a 2 day old zygote outside of the mother, I will change my stance.
The "survive out of the womb" argument is full of holes.
Most things are if you zoom in close enough. But I'm not aware of the specifics you have in mind. I am okay with changing ethical practices based on what is possible at the time (as I've said many time, life and death changes with medical technology). You seem to be trying to find a universal, all time forever answer^TM to this question, and I see it as a moving target. That may be why we will never agree.
Meaning anything after 8 weeks is fraught with ethical concerns.
Yet I don't think you support pre-8 week termination. Why? I've asked for your views on what gives right to life a couple of times now but I've never gotten a response, that I can tell, to that question.
This is an odd statement. It would suggest that the morality of killing an infant is contingent on the medical care in the area. Would it be moral to kill a 34 week old fetus in a very poor area without access to medical care? Would it have been moral to kill 34 week old fetuses a few decades ago? There's no rational reason why the quality of medical care would dictate the ethics of ending another being's life. If it is immoral today then surely it is something that was always immoral.
Not true. Some babies are born premature without need for care. Mine was born healthy at 35 weeks. If your delineating line is "can be born without any medical intervention and not need treatment" then the cutoff is around 34-35 weeks. Meaning you'd be okay with killing a 33 week old fetus. I imagine that's not true.
Babies do not have the capability to live. A 38 week old fetus has the exact same requirements for another to supply them with nutrition as a 2 month old baby does, same as with a 2 day old zygote. If your delineating line is "can survive by being fed by external means like formula" then you're looking at mid-30 weeks. Before that and they have gut issues and need special IV treatments. Again, I imagine you're not okay killing a 32 week old because of this.
The "survive out of the womb" argument is full of holes.
I'll take the chance to fallback on the argument that human capacity for thought is the only objective marker that does not have logical inconsistencies. Meaning anything after 8 weeks is fraught with ethical concerns.
I appreciate the opportunity to have had this conversation. It's rare to find someone who can articulate their thoughts well and still disagree with you. Thanks.
It's one I've said before, and it is supported by what happens in the world. As said before, CPR, defibrillators and all the other fancy tools we have has pushed what we define as "death" and when we/how we declare it. It also plays into what is "viable" at the beginning of life.
Possibly. As I said before, I'm against late term abortions, but I must state that there can/should be exception for when the mother's life is at risk or if the fetus has become (or is) nonviable. As to your specific questions, because we have cars, planes, and helicopters, a specific area's level of medical capability plays less of a role in deciding this because we also have the capability to move people to better areas...but of course this is within reason. We don't transport expecting mothers from South Sudan to the US to get better care. Those people must deal with their environment they are in, and that plays out in statistics of positive outcomes. But we can absolutely move a poor women in a rural country to a major hospital when medical emergency happens, and not only can we do that, we often do!
I'm not sure on the exact timeline, but absolutely as our medical tech advances the gray area of viability changes. I think the youngest ever premie is now around 24 weeks or so. But that's not always been the case. If we get better then it will be pushed back, and if our society crumbles and we lose our ability to care for the extremely young/premies then it will slide back.
The rational reason being if something is not possible you cannot will it to be possible. The same reason that we give up on dying people based on our medical tech, we can give up on early people, based on our medical tech.
Correct, I was not precise enough with my words. I meant some premies and/or all of the extremely early term premies.
Congrats!
That's not my line, I am okay with treatment being used to cross the gap...as long as that treatment can be actualized.
As said before, I am against late term, and even precautionary against midterm.
The specific that I laid out was that they no longer need "the mother" not that they no longer need "anyone" to help them. A 2 day old can be cared for by others. A 2 day old zygote simply cannot. If we ever get to a point where med tech can raise a 2 day old zygote outside of the mother, I will change my stance.
Most things are if you zoom in close enough. But I'm not aware of the specifics you have in mind. I am okay with changing ethical practices based on what is possible at the time (as I've said many time, life and death changes with medical technology). You seem to be trying to find a universal, all time forever answer^TM to this question, and I see it as a moving target. That may be why we will never agree.
Yet I don't think you support pre-8 week termination. Why? I've asked for your views on what gives right to life a couple of times now but I've never gotten a response, that I can tell, to that question.