What gives something a Right to life?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

I have been pondering this, because different philosophers seem to have totally different opinions on this. Utilitarians claim that a right to life comes via personhood, and personhood comes via rational autonomy and self-awareness.

Now, they say a fetus and a newborn aren't persons, becaus they lack the above. This seems to be a very common academic position in favour of certain cases of infanticide.

However, to what extent does the "it will be a person eventually" argument go in terms of validity? Obviously, future potential must matter some, but according to Utilitarians, since a newborn/fetus aren't persons, you can kill them under certain conditions.

What would stop one, according to the above system, from engaging in fetal alcoholism and making retarded babies in the future. The fetus isn't yet a newborn, which isn't yet a person?

Is this making sense, or am I just misunderstanding what they are saying? Any tips?

[Edi]

You're strawmanning most utilitarians to begin with. Personhood begins to develop toward full autonomy from the moment there are measurable cognitive brain functions. I.e. some five months into the pregenancy, at which point the mother's rights to self-determination over her body start slowly eroding the longer the pregnancy lasts. But they are not automatically revoked instantly, there are things like viability of the fetus/child at what age to consider, among other factors.

A newborn is already a person, and capable of survival autonomously from the mother (not dependent on the mother's bodily functions like oxygen delivery and waste disposal) to stay alive, so that's a fucking huge strawman and lumping two distinct issues into one.

Why don't you take a fucking stroll through the various abortion threads right here in SLAM, where all of this shit is hashed out in great detail for the benefit of ignorant morons. Or are you too goddamn lazy to use the search function?

I know I personally and DW have several posts on this very issue.

Edi

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Well, if that is true, why do many Utilitarians think it's ok to kill newborns because they aren't "persons." This is generally the opinion of Singer, from what he says in his articles.

Many Utilitarians don't consider the Newborn a person, Singer and Mooreson among them.

You're strawmanning most utilitarians to begin with. Personhood begins to develop toward full autonomy from the moment there are measurable cognitive brain functions. I.e. some five months into the pregenancy, at which point the mother's rights to self-determination over her body start slowly eroding the longer the pregnancy lasts. But they are not automatically revoked instantly, there are things like viability of the fetus/child at what age to consider, among other factors.

A newborn is already a person, and capable of survival autonomously from the mother (not dependent on the mother's bodily functions like oxygen delivery and waste disposal) to stay alive, so that's a fucking huge strawman and lumping two distinct issues into one.

Why don't you take a fucking stroll through the various abortion threads right here in SLAM, where all of this shit is hashed out in great detail for the benefit of ignorant morons. Or are you too goddamn lazy to use the search function?

I know I personally and DW have several posts on this very issue.

Edi

Actually no, I did, but your opinions of it seem very different from the academic opinions.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

So, before you call people "ignorant "morons" you should educate yourself first on what Utilitarians in academia actually state, which was the focus on the quesiton.

This is what the forerunning Utilitarian, Singer, states, In Chapter 4 we saw that the fact that a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species Homo sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather, characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings

In his practical ethics. He's by far not the only one.

[Darth Wong]

Utilitarianism isn't a fucking church. There isn't a Pope or a hierarchy. If you're going to name a name, it's going to be John Stuart Mill, not Singer. The fact that there are some weirdoes out there presuming to speak on behalf of all utilitarians doesn't mean shit, nor does your proclamation that they have authority to do so.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Utilitarianism isn't a fucking church. There isn't a Pope or a hierarchy. If you're going to name a name, it's going to be John Stuart Mill, not Singer. The fact that there are some weirdoes out there presuming to speak on behalf of all utilitarians doesn't mean shit, nor does your proclamation that they have authority to do so.

This is why I am not saying I agree, I just don't understand why this is the position held by a large portion of Utilitarians in academics. Singer actually bases his position off of Mill and Benthem. He quotes them in his work.

The point of the question was, how can they all just follow this? I don't get how they don't see the problem in their logic.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Edit: My intent was, why is academics so filled with this one position? It seems only to stem from the Utilitarian branch. The arguments don't sound convincing at the end if you take them to an extreme, but few professors seem to see that.

My ethics professors consistantly promote it. Singer is no "fringe" academi. Utilitarian.net lists countless other utilitarians who follow the exact same logic. This is what's taught, and I don't see why.

[Rye]

You're strawmanning most utilitarians to begin with. Personhood begins to develop toward full autonomy from the moment there are measurable cognitive brain functions.

That seems to be a bit arbitrary, it was long developing towards "full autonomy" up until that point, too. The fact it is marginally less stupid because it's now at a "reflexes plus some central information processing" doesn't really mean it's a person. It's not a person in the sense you or I or even a cat is a person. It's doing some brain-related processing, extremely primitive thought, it is not an autonomous entity, and nor is this part of its development significantly different to 5 seconds earlier than it began to think.

Do you think that it would be okay to abort a foetus 5 seconds before it started to think? Even though it is developmentally able to think, and will do in a matter of moments?

I.e. some five months into the pregenancy, at which point the mother's rights to self-determination over her body start slowly eroding the longer the pregnancy lasts. But they are not automatically revoked instantly, there are things like viability of the fetus/child at what age to consider, among other factors.

A newborn is already a person, and capable of survival autonomously from the mother (not dependent on the mother's bodily functions like oxygen delivery and waste disposal) to stay alive, so that's a fucking huge strawman and lumping two distinct issues into one.

I have yet to see a newborn significantly smarter than a chicken, you can slaughter millions annually for food (who knows how many unnecessarily), and the other it is emotionally unthinkable. But logically? I dunno, I remain to be convinced on the inherent value of a sub-chicken level of intelligence human.

[Darth Wong]

This is why I am not saying I agree, I just don't understand why this is the position held by a large portion of Utilitarians in academics. Singer actually bases his position off of Mill and Benthem. He quotes them in his work.

Well of course he quotes them; that doesn't mean that he is Mill, or that utilitarianism as an ethical philosophy is defined by his writings.

The point of the question was, how can they all just follow this? I don't get how they don't see the problem in their logic.

As long as you insist on saying that "all" utilitarians follow this person, it is obvious you are either being dishonest or stupid, just as Edi said.

[Darth Wong]

As for infants, they have not yet developed the intellectual skills to be considered "rational", but quite frankly, many adults also lack this trait. That doesn't mean it should be OK to murder fundies. And as for "autonomy" and "self-consciousness", those are qualities arguably shared by many non-human species. Singer is being entirely arbitrary when he states that these are the only criteria defining a human person. What about intelligence? Isn't that the only thing that really differentiates us from the animals? An infant brain is quite intelligent, as it must learn numerous survival skills and even basic motor functions quickly (human infants, unlike animals, are not born with much of a skillset, and must quickly learn how to function). The fact that they are learning things which seem elementary to us does not mean they are not intelligent.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Well of course he quotes them; that doesn't mean that he is Mill, or that utilitarianism as an ethical philosophy is defined by his writings.

Oh, I know. I just wonder why most professors of ethics who are utilitarian seem to trumpet him as the "brilliant" utilitarian. He's setting the standard for new Utilitarian bioethics. The only real complaints comming up against him that students are exposed to are from the deontological groups. I don't think that's very balanced of the textbooks.

As long as you insist on saying that "all" utilitarians follow this person, it is obvious you are either being dishonest or stupid, just as Edi said.

Well, it's neither, since in no texts have I ever seen a utilitarian decry his work, but support it. There might be one somewhere, but they aren't of the ranks of the academic utilitarians. This is the focus of the problem, and this is also what the deontological groups are worried about. They cannot understand either why the seeming entirety of utility-professors seem to advocate the same thing Singer does. Basically, the new edition for Analysing Moral Issues indicates that it's unheard of that Utilitarians are against the idea. It states that Singer is the "new" utilitarian setting the standard for Academic Utilitarianism. If this is not true, then I have no problem saying otherwise and my book is wrong, but I there are three standard texts at my college, and none of them have any anti-infanticide utilitarians--only ones for it who cite Singer's studies.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

And as for "autonomy" and "self-consciousness", those are qualities arguably shared by many non-human species. Singer is being entirely arbitrary when he states that these are the only criteria defining a human person. What about intelligence? Isn't that the only thing that really differentiates us from the animals? An infant brain is quite intelligent, as it must learn numerous survival skills and even basic motor functions quickly (human infants, unlike animals, are not born with much of a skillset, and must quickly learn how to function). The fact that they are learning things which seem elementary to us does not mean they are not

You are quite right. The Autonomy and consciousness criteria many utilitarians use are used also in support of animal liberation. He says he's trying to go for a common denominator for species or something.

However, one problem I have is that he does not seem internally consistant in his work. At some points, he states that the criteria are not rationality, but then he focuses on what he calls rational autonomy. Intelligences "isn't important," rather suffering. Well, if suffering is important, how can infants not suffer?

You mention intelligence separating humans from other animals. That is what many other ethicists think in the deontology field, but Singer and multitudes of Utilitarians seem not to distinguish between species/species intelligence levels and human/human intelligence levels. I don't know why. The most prevelant argument is that if you go by intelligence, you have to treat humans which are less intelligent than others differently. I don't see why they see this, from a moral perspective.

An infant brain is quite intelligent, as it must learn numerous survival skills and even basic motor functions quickly (human infants, unlike animals, are not born with much of a skillset, and must quickly learn how to function).

This makes sense, but they seem to ignore it. Apparently, it is stated that human infants are no better than, say, a chimpanzee--and the rest of the academics in the field agree with it. I think my text mentions they are about as smart as a 3-4 year old. Singer's Utilitarianism is the basis behind the animal liberation movement because "all animals are equal" in terms of suffering, or something (at least ones that he deems self-aware).

[Zero]

Why should humans be judged differently as a species, instead of simply judging all individuals as equal? The value of the average human has no relevance to the value of any single human. Why should it? If you use any basis of judgement at all, why should it not apply to all beings?

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Well, I typically hear that it's "unjust" to generalize all individuals. It's "disrespectful" to the indidivudal to treat him as merely one of many instead of on a case-by-case basis.

To maximize utility, I am told they have to look at every individual as a tabula rasa. The reason they state this is that Humans are not all equal in intelligence level, autonomy, self-awareness---or so they say. I don't know if this be true.

Basically, the "new" utilitarian position being promulgated is eugenic, according to my textbook, but is different from old eugenics. It doesn't apply to peoole who are "persons." You wouldn't be able to kill someone, for example, if he's already a person, but it would be fine to kill the newborn who has some debilitation.

I think one of the points made by (not just by singer) is that if you had a debilitated newborn, and taking care of him would prevent you from having another, you should kill that child and have enough in the attempt to get a child who will have "higher prospects" and "a better life."

Total utility is supposedly fufilled since the life of the debilitated child is outweighed by the life of a normal child.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why should humans be judged differently as a species, instead of simply judging all individuals as equal? The value of the average human has no relevance to the value of any single human. Why should it? If you use any basis of judgement at all, why should it not apply to all beings?

[wolveraptor]

Iirc, "eugenic" means an active attempt to breed or change a population through birth control or abortions. Allowing a mother to euthanise a down's syndrome baby is not the same thing; it's just a personal freedom.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

Iirc, "eugenic" means an active attempt to breed or change a population through birth control or abortions. Allowing a mother to euthanise a down's syndrome baby is not the same thing; it's just a personal freedom.

Apparently there is something called "neo-eugencis." according to Judith Boss.

The definition given in the book is awefully vague. Maybe it is due to the definition of Eugenics the text is using as background information. Each chapter has basic stats/figures/facts that you can use to understand the various positions, and in their Genetics section, they consider the abortion of fetuses or infanticide with the notion of decreasing undesirable traits as a form of eugenics. It is odd, though, because other practices or concepts are lumped under Eugenics, such as "gene therapy" or "genetic engineering." I take it from the information that modern eugenics isn't anything like the original form of eugenics in that it only deals with non-persons and voluntary actions via the parents. There is no state mandate.


It can be forced state mandate, voluntary actions via parents/relatives, or it can be forced breeding, or it can be the above things. I was confused at first, but perhaps the definition changed.

[tharkûn]

Most utilitarians, unfortunately are running on O'Hare or whatever his name was. The basic problem Singer comes up with is that he has picked a mostly arbitrary set of qualifications for personhood and runs from there. One could pick a different mostly arbitrary set of qualifications and arrive at a different outcome.

Being a utilitarian more of the Mill than Benthem tradition, I hold Singer in contempt. If the world followed the "ethical" rules he lays out, all hell would break loose. In particular his specific prescriptions for alleviating world poverty and hunger are terrible rules to live by as they would result in the collapse of the global economy and result in a massive death toll. Not surpisingly he fails to live up to his own ethical standards.

What would stop one, according to the above system, from engaging in fetal alcoholism and making retarded babies in the future. The fetus isn't yet a newborn, which isn't yet a person?

From a rule utilitarian perspective saying such a thing was to be encouraged or ignored, you'd end up increasing harm both from creating a drain on society and leading to yet more aggregious harm. Banning alcohol consumption by pregnant females unwilling to abort is rejected on practical grounds, implementation of such a rule would lead to increased harm.

From a Singer consequentialist perspective in the short term there would be no reason to ban such behaviour - nothing which can feel pain is being harmed. However in the longer term it can be agrued that creating such children would be a net drain on society and increase harm either by leading to insufficient care for them or by depriving others (typically someone starving in Africa) of basic needs to alleviate a preventable harm.

Singer doesn't really want to kill babies, so much as protect animals, being the godfather of the modern animal rights movement.

Iirc, "eugenic" means an active attempt to breed or change a population through birth control or abortions. Allowing a mother to euthanise a down's syndrome baby is not the same thing; it's just a personal freedom.

BS. Eugenics is simply controlled human breeding based on notions of desirable and undesirable genotypes. As anyone with basic biology knows killing off undesirable offspring is one method of controlling breeding.

Granted this more a phenotypic issue, but you still have the same net result in many cases - the favored genotypes are allowed to live and reproduce while the disfavored ones are not.

Note not all eugenics is bad. Preventing brother - sister crosses, say by them choosing to use a condom, is also eugenic, mainly preventing the breeding of rare homozygous recessives for a number of nasty conditions. The method by which eugenics is practiced is what determines its morality.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

It's good you brought up the Singer solution to poverty. I could never wrap my head around that one. I was recently perusing his website, and he did have (finally) a counter-argument to the suggested problem. It was something I think was rather lame in that "if everyone did this, then no one would have to give too much of a sacrifice." THe more people, the fewer resources you need to donate, so you would collectively be able to spend more on nonsense items.

[Edi]

You're strawmanning most utilitarians to begin with. Personhood begins to develop toward full autonomy from the moment there are measurable cognitive brain functions.

That seems to be a bit arbitrary, it was long developing towards "full autonomy" up until that point, too. The fact it is marginally less stupid because it's now at a "reflexes plus some central information processing" doesn't really mean it's a person. It's not a person in the sense you or I or even a cat is a person. It's doing some brain-related processing, extremely primitive thought, it is not an autonomous entity, and nor is this part of its development significantly different to 5 seconds earlier than it began to think.

I don't understand how you failed to grasp the obvious in my post. Prior to a fetus having cognitive brain functions, it has no rights whatsoever if the mother doesn't feel like it. After it develops cognitive brain functions (which, as you said, start out small and develop gradually) it begins to merit some consideration, and the level of that consideration must increase as time goes by. When I talk about that five months mark, it's not arbitrarily chosen. Premature babies born after only five and a half months of pregnancy have been known to survive and grow up without any problems. Exhibit A would be our own InnerBrat right here on SDnet. At five months the fetus/child is not viable, no matter how much medical technology you bring to bear, but at that point it must have enough cognitive processes that they are considered significant. As far as I can remember, cognitive brain functions start developing at around three months into the pregnancy, which is when they are at the very primitive level you're talking about.

You really want to get your shit together before you start making strawmen of my position, because given the facts of neural development in the fetus and my citation of the five month mark as (imo) the significant divide, that's precisely what your post is.

Do you think that it would be okay to abort a foetus 5 seconds before it started to think? Even though it is developmentally able to think, and will do in a matter of moments?

Good fucking luck showing that this is anything other than a strawman. Cognitive development starts at around three months, when there start to be patterns of activity in the brain of the fetus that are not just randomly firing neurons. It's a long way from that to actual thoughts as we commonly undestand the term. And the cognitive processes, while one of the most important criteria, are not the only one. Health of the fetus (possible genetic disorders etc), health of the mother (how risky is the pregnancy etc) and how viable the fetus is at a given moment are all significant.

I.e. some five months into the pregenancy, at which point the mother's rights to self-determination over her body start slowly eroding the longer the pregnancy lasts. But they are not automatically revoked instantly, there are things like viability of the fetus/child at what age to consider, among other factors.

A newborn is already a person, and capable of survival autonomously from the mother (not dependent on the mother's bodily functions like oxygen delivery and waste disposal) to stay alive, so that's a fucking huge strawman and lumping two distinct issues into one.

I have yet to see a newborn significantly smarter than a chicken, you can slaughter millions annually for food (who knows how many unnecessarily), and the other it is emotionally unthinkable. But logically? I dunno, I remain to be convinced on the inherent value of a sub-chicken level of intelligence human.

Then, frankly, you're an asshole. Intelligence is the capability to learn, and while a human newborn does not possess a set of skills natively (unlike, say, newborn antelopes that will be up and running within minutes of being born), they can learn a massive set of skills in a relatively short time. And a newborn is autonomously alive, so killing one would be murder. Your example is further fucking stupid, because the chickens you're talking about do not have the capacity to be anything more than they already are intelligence-wise, and they are our prey animals. If you think such species specific considerations are meaningless, why don't you go join the PETA idiots? You could have actually had a meaningful argument if you had compared human newborn to e.g. gorilla or chimpanzee newborns, then you would have an analogy worth something and with a whole different set of factors. But this chicken example is nothing but stupid.

Edi

[Rye]

I don't understand how you failed to grasp the obvious in my post. Prior to a fetus having cognitive brain functions, it has no rights whatsoever if the mother doesn't feel like it.

I agree, I also think that there's some inherent worth in foetuses that have the ability to think, I'm more just asking why the potential to learn matters more here than what is actually learned. The potentiality = actuality argument is shot down when it is applied to its physical form, so why does it apply to it's mental form? I mean, a gestating foetus prior to the 5 months mark has the (rather likely) potential to become a thinking human due to its biology, much as the "sub chicken" level of human has the potential to become greater than a chicken, if it is looked after to such a point.

After it develops cognitive brain functions (which, as you said, start out small and develop gradually) it begins to merit some consideration, and the level of that consideration must increase as time goes by. When I talk about that five months mark, it's not arbitrarily chosen. Premature babies born after only five and a half months of pregnancy have been known to survive and grow up without any problems. Exhibit A would be our own InnerBrat right here on SDnet. At five months the fetus/child is not viable, no matter how much medical technology you bring to bear, but at that point it must have enough cognitive processes that they are considered significant. As far as I can remember, cognitive brain functions start developing at around three months into the pregnancy, which is when they are at the very primitive level you're talking about.

Okay.

You really want to get your shit together before you start making strawmen of my position, because given the facts of neural development in the fetus and my citation of the five month mark as (imo) the significant divide, that's precisely what your post is.

Okay, to clarify: You think that the potential to become more than the foetus/newborn is currently, mentally, is justification to consider it an individual after 5 months; though more primitive forms of neural activity already exist, and though it actually is no more advanced mentally than a food species that we will happily devour. Also, you note, it can potentially survive outside the womb shortly after this cutoff point, which, I note, is the same of our prey species.

If there's a part of this that is inaccurate, please show me where.

Do you think that it would be okay to abort a foetus 5 seconds before it started to think? Even though it is developmentally able to think, and will do in a matter of moments?

Good fucking luck showing that this is anything other than a strawman.

It was a question, it was not misrepresenting your position, FYI.

Cognitive development starts at around three months, when there start to be patterns of activity in the brain of the fetus that are not just randomly firing neurons. It's a long way from that to actual thoughts as we commonly undestand the term. And the cognitive processes, while one of the most important criteria, are not the only one. Health of the fetus (possible genetic disorders etc), health of the mother (how risky is the pregnancy etc) and how viable the fetus is at a given moment are all significant.

Yes, I am applying the questions to a best case scenario for the foetus, since they are different subjects, and largely irrelevent to the minutae of the thought argument.

I.e. some five months into the pregenancy, at which point the mother's rights to self-determination over her body start slowly eroding the longer the pregnancy lasts. But they are not automatically revoked instantly, there are things like viability of the fetus/child at what age to consider, among other factors.

A newborn is already a person, and capable of survival autonomously from the mother (not dependent on the mother's bodily functions like oxygen delivery and waste disposal) to stay alive, so that's a fucking huge strawman and lumping two distinct issues into one.

I have yet to see a newborn significantly smarter than a chicken, you can slaughter millions annually for food (who knows how many unnecessarily), and the other it is emotionally unthinkable. But logically? I dunno, I remain to be convinced on the inherent value of a sub-chicken level of intelligence human.

Then, frankly, you're an asshole. Intelligence is the capability to learn, and while a human newborn does not possess a set of skills natively (unlike, say, newborn antelopes that will be up and running within minutes of being born), they can learn a massive set of skills in a relatively short time.

So, again, the potential = actual argument that's invalid when talking about the physical progress of the child, but is okay when talking about the mental progress of the child? Since mental progress is entirely dependent on the physical progress of the brain, I don't see how you can dismiss one potential/actual argument while asserting another.

And a newborn is autonomously alive, so killing one would be murder.

Murder's to do with legality, not morality, so that's a red herring.

Your example is further fucking stupid, because the chickens you're talking about do not have the capacity to be anything more than they already are intelligence-wise, and they are our prey animals.

And humans routinely practised cannibalism, we were our own prey species, so obviously, being a prey species has no bearing on the conversation. Just the potential = actual argument of yours I have problems with.

If you think such species specific considerations are meaningless, why don't you go join the PETA idiots?

Because I may not emotionally agree with what I'm saying, and perhaps I'm trying to find a logically convincing argument FOR my emotional mindset, asking you the questions I ask myself and have no answers to?

Also, I don't consider humans to be inherently more valuable than animals, I take it on a case by case basis.

You could have actually had a meaningful argument if you had compared human newborn to e.g. gorilla or chimpanzee newborns, then you would have an analogy worth something and with a whole different set of factors. But this chicken example is nothing but stupid.

Bullshit. It's there to highlight the potential=actual argument, using an animal with a similar level of potential would have only confused matters.

[petesampras]

Since mental progress is entirely dependent on the physical progress of the brain

A newborn babies brain is a lot bigger than that of a chicken. There is a lot more processing going on than inside of a chicken.

Anyway, this argument is stupid. You cannot detach human emotion from this subject. A newborn baby activates all kinds of caring instincts in humans. Chickens do not. Nor do chimpanzees or dolphins, despite their intelligence.

You are trying to find a rational basis for morality. Unless you are religous, morality is a human construct, not a property of the universe that you can evaluate. We choose what is moral and what is not depending, ultimately, on our whims.

[Darth Wong]

I seriously question the intelligence of anyone who seriously thinks that a newborn human baby's brain has no more processing power than a chicken's brain. People who leap to that conclusion are obviously confusing developmental level of physical skills with intelligence.

You are trying to find a rational basis for morality. Unless you are religous, morality is a human construct, not a property of the universe that you can evaluate. We choose what is moral and what is not depending, ultimately, on our whims.

That's oversimplifying. Morality is a social construct, hence it is considerably more complicated than individual whims. It is subject to rational debate once one agrees upon certain base terms such as the value of human life, but then that leads to the question of what truly constitutes a human being. I say it's intelligence (notwithstanding Rye's ridiculous assertion that a human baby has no more intelligence than a chicken), while Singer thinks it's some meaningless bullshit about "autonomy" and "consciousness" and "rationality" (note how the first two are common to all animals and the last one is not even common to all humans). Still others think it's some kind of blessing from God, which is the dumbest of all interpretations.

[Rye]

I seriously question the intelligence of anyone who seriously thinks that a newborn human baby's brain has no more processing power than a chicken's brain. People who leap to that conclusion are obviously confusing developmental level of physical skills with intelligence.

No, since the development level of the child is what I kept referring to with "mental progress" not "intelligence" ... their minds are very primitive, initially, not even self aware, but they learn fast, which I never denied.

What I DID say was not that they have no more processing power, just that their minds are no more complex than a chicken's at the point. I'm seperating the two concepts here, the mind as a system of abstract knowledge, capable of x amount of interaction with the outside world, the processing power is a seperate issue.

In the case of newborns, the mind exhibits the same or less understanding of that of a chicken, or maybe something closer to us evolutionarily, whatever, with the potential, (especially if not purposefully damaged), to grow far beyond what it is currently (thanks to that processing power).

Now, the question I raised is why a primitive mind (newborn level) with the ability to become more than it is due to its biology means it is wrong to kill it, whereas it's not wrong to kill an even more primitive mind (prior to the 5 month cutoff), or biomass with no such mind at all that has similar potential (earlier foetuses), or even other organisms with minds at similar levels of development but without the potential to become greater.

To evolve the analogy along a bit, say you shunted on some human sized brain on top of a chicken's head, and it now has much more processing power, and is as "intelligent" as a newborn, with the potential to grow mentally at the same rate as a human, is it now wrong to kill it like an ordinary chicken, or only wrong after it has developed more sapient thought?

[Darth Wong]

I seriously question the intelligence of anyone who seriously thinks that a newborn human baby's brain has no more processing power than a chicken's brain. People who leap to that conclusion are obviously confusing developmental level of physical skills with intelligence.

No, since the development level of the child is what I kept referring to with "mental progress" not "intelligence" ... their minds are very primitive, initially, not even self aware, but they learn fast, which I never denied.

Development of what? You're still judging it by physical skills. A baby's brain has already developed to the point that it has superior learning capability to a chicken, so what the fuck are you evaluating, exactly? Oh yes, physical skills.

What I DID say was not that they have no more processing power, just that their minds are no more complex than a chicken's at the point.

Which is utter bullshit. A human baby's brain is much larger and more complex than a chicken's brain will ever be. What fucking part of this do you not understand?

[Rye]

If the brain is unable to accomplish more than a chicken's, what, exactly are you basing the idea that the mind is significantly more complex? I'm judging the complexity of the mind, the person, on what it can accomplish, if that means eat, shit and not much else, why is it inherently more valuable than a chicken? Because of what will happen, if we leave it alone? The same argument that's flawed when being applied to an abortable foetus?