Remember the "If Abortion Is Murder" thread?

[Cail]

Cail, sentience is a quality that is suggestive of "being" if not necessarily dispositive.

A 4 year old child with Downs Syndrome is not "sentient" by any definition. Is it cool to kill them?

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Ex, I am sorry if you felt maligned, that was not my intent. I feel no enmity. Indeed, I only aspire to be a worthy opponent. I am not an intellectual, but I do know what I believe and I know a lot about why I believe it. But I don't have it all figured out, nor hope to in this life.

That is an admirable outlook. Let me caution you however that just because we don't agree on this one issue doesn't mean that I'm a soulless reductionist without respect for human life.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Cail, sentience is a quality that is suggestive of "being" if not necessarily dispositive.

A 4 year old child with Downs Syndrome is not "sentient" by any definition. Is it cool to kill them?

That doesn't seem correct. Would you care to support that assertion?

[Cail]

You're treating sentience as though it's something important. Is it? If it is, a 4 year old with severe Downs Syndrome isn't sentient. So is it OK to retroactively abort a 4 year old with severe Downs Syndrome since they're not sentient?

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

I would like your definition of sentience since mine suggests that it is not necessarily a function of intellectual capacity given some basic level of self-awareness or interaction with the environment. I would think that a viable human of any intelligence is sentient. And I haven't stated that sentience matters necessarily, just that it might.

[Cail]

I would like your definition of sentience since mine suggests that it is not necessarily a function of intellectual capacity given some basic level of self-awareness or interaction with the environment. And I haven't stated that it matters necessarily, just that it might.

I don't have one for the context of this discussion, as I think it's immaterial.

You seem to think there's some importance to it, so please....Explain it.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

If a zygote could be shown to be sentient, I would be more inclined to think of it as a human being. And I think a viable human of any intelligence - and I am including fetuses that are viable - is sentient.

[Cail]

If a zygote could be shown to be sentient, I would be more inclined to think of it as a human being. And I think a viable human of any intelligence - and I am including fetuses that are viable - is sentient.

That's nice, but a 4 year old child with severe Downs Syndrome isn't sentient by even the loosest definition.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

I disagree with your premise, I think that a four year old with downs syndrome is sentient.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

sen·tient
Adjective: Able to perceive or feel things: "sentient life forms".

[Cail]

I disagree with your premise, I think that a four year old with downs syndrome is sentient.

We'll agree to disagree.

How about a 38 year old in a persistent vegetative state?

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Not sentient and not entitled to equal ethical consideration.

[Avatar]

Agree with Ex that the kid with Downs is sentient.

Cats are sentient too. All sentience is is awareness, a state of elementary or undifferentiated consciousness.

The person in a vegetative state is not conscious, and therefore not sentient.

I have emotional problems with saying that they should be killed, (allowed to die would be preferable) but no moral ones.

A zygote of course cannot be sentient. It doesn't have any of the necessary physiology required for sentience. It cannot see or perceive, it cannot be conscious.

--A

[Cail]

So again, explain what sentience has to do with anything.

[deer of the dawn]

In view of this discussion, it seems that without belief in a soul, a human zygote would not be considered a human being. Ex, are you saying that only when the nerve and brain tissue develop to the point where the baby reacts with its environment, only then is it a human being?

I agree with you on sentience. What makes sentience the deciding factor? If a cat is sentient, then it is not the criteria for deciding on human/not human.

(Side thought: if an average 4-year-old child is in a coma temporarily, does he/she cease temporarily to be human?)

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

So again, explain what sentience has to do with anything.

I already have indicated what it may have to do with anything, but I'll elaborate for your benefit (as this is evidently a Socratic dialogue). Sentience seems (perhaps) to both differentiate and invest dignity into the individual. I regard it as likely (perhaps) a key element of "being-ness" when it comes to the ontology of what constitutes a human being.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

In view of this discussion, it seems that without belief in a soul, a human zygote would not be considered a human being. Ex, are you saying that only when the nerve and brain tissue develop to the point where the baby reacts with its environment, only then is it a human being?

I agree with you on sentience. What makes sentience the deciding factor? If a cat is sentient, then it is not the criteria for deciding on human/not human.

(Side thought: if an average 4-year-old child is in a coma temporarily, does he/she cease temporarily to be human?)

I'm not sure soul has much meaning in the absence of sentience. But, that is a tentative position and I'm willing to be instructed, DoD.

[deer of the dawn]

I already have indicated what it may have to do with anything, but I'll elaborate for your benefit (as this is evidently a Socratic dialogue). Sentience seems (perhaps) to both differentiate and invest dignity into the individual. I regard it as likely (perhaps) a key element of "being-ness" when it comes to the ontology of what constitutes a human being.

Sentience does SEEM to invest dignity into the individual. But that is shaky ground. Does a person with more sentience (i.e. smarter, better at doing stuff) have more worth? From where I am coming from the individual's worth is something they have no matter what they seem to us to be like; no matter their race, gender, socioeconomic status, accomplishments, goodness or badness, etc. It's taken me a long time to arrive at this opinion, and I came from the place I was brainwashed in school to believe which was that the value of a person was all about what they do and have, how they contribute to society and justify their existence.

Sentience is neither necessary nor sufficient. If a cat is sentient, then sentience is not sufficient (imho) for soul*; neither, since a 4-yr-old in a coma is not sentient, is it necessary. I guess in my mind it's just not the central issue.

When I say "soul" I am talking about the immaterial part of a human being (call it heart/spirit/consciousness/mind or whatever suits you). Yet the immaterial is wrapped up in the material, there is no clear dichotomy. In fact that may be what we are trying to define here.

Rationalists will see it one way-- as definable in terms of biotic functions and scientifically quantifiable processes and stages of development, believers will see it another way, in terms of something God-given. Sorry, but that's where I'm coming from. Human beings have a supernatural component to their make-up.

(*The Bible reads that animals have spirit, but not a soul; a soul is unique to human and supernatural beings.)

[Rawedge Rim]

RR, the point is that some zygotes never become human beings because of a lack of intrinsic potential to develop. And it has nothing to do with the womb environment or being rejected by the mother, etc. If some zygotes do not have the intrinsic potential to become human beings, then tautologically speaking zygotes are not human beings. Therefore human being-hood occurs later or emerges via development, the matter must be considered empirically. So in sum, we can say without equivocation that zygotes do not warrant equal ethical consideration as human beings. Is that clear enough yet?

PS Could you please edit some of those question marks into nothingness?

Then what do those zygotes become? Far as I remember, they are flushed from the womb, and that's that, no human intervention required. The fact that some do not develop is not pertinent to this discussion.

What is pertinent, is that a zygote, "in general", will split and become multicellular, and continue to do so until it becomes a fetus, at which time more specialized cells have developed, and will continue to develop until the organism dies, whether it's ineutero, or as an independent organism.

The question becomes then, at what point does protection for the potential human being begin. Since I don't know at which point it is, I defer to the point of conception, that way I know for a fact that I have not destroyed on purpose, a potential human being.

And PS:

No.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Your recollection is partial. Some defective fetuses are aborted, some are carried to term and delivered, and some are never delivered and have to be medically removed. In any case the faulty development of zygotes proves that zygotes are not human beings. They are a genetic combination of gametes that may or may not develop into a human. You say you are ethically concerned with potential human life. Well then, doesn't that make every sperm and egg sacred? Or is something more than potential required.

[Edited because RR is showing himself to be a fine human being. Worthy of equal ethical consideration not to mention courtesy.]