Elizabeth Smart, raped? (and Abortion issues)

[The Duchess of Zeon]

But brain development continues after birth - a neonate does not possess the mental cpacity or complexity of a grown adult.
The non-religious arguments I've heard (from my Mum) revolve around the potential for human life.

A priori potential has too much extension to be considered. Do flies have a potential to evolve into sentient beings? Theoretically, yes. So we'd better all start dressing like Jains.


Ex post facto potential is another matter - And that's why it's wrong to treat the mentally ill, sick, etc, like animals, as the Nazis did. Since their sentience had already been demonstrated the fact that they don't have it at the moment is irrelevant.

So I don't think your Mum's argument presents a serious question to the right of abortion. Until something has been demonstrated to the senses it is not a fact - it cannot be a fact - and theoretical potential does not have a bearing on morality. Demonstrated potential does, however, since the person has already proven sentience and it exists as a matter of record.

Furthermore - One cannot apply the demonstrated potential of the species to a single individual in this case. You are dealing with the question of the morality of terminating a single creature, and so the question comes down to if it has a thinking and reasoning, a self-aware mind. Each such mind - being self-aware, must be treated as an independent object in terms of analysis for theoretical or demonstrated potential.

In that context, the line of seperation is that of self-awareness. When does it begin? Before that, the fetus is nothing more than an animal (in philosophical terms - I apologize if I'm being quite blunt, but I'm cutting through a lot of junk that's built up around this issue) and can be dealt like one. After that the fetus is human and must be accorded the rights of one.

It's entirely possible that the Roman practice of infanticide might in fact be morally legitimate from an absolute standpoint, you're correct, if rather heartless. However, I think research would suggest that - with the beginning of brain patterns indicative of dreaming around the start of the third trimester - we would be advised to consider the fetus as capable of, if very simple, still broadly human thought at that point in time, and thus deserving of the rights and protections of a human being.

[Lord of the Lurkers]

It seems to me, Duchess, and others on this forum are basically in support of Peter Singer & infanticide.

Ex post factor potential ? What the hell is that. We know every uninterrupted fetus grows into a human being, just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't or might not. Wouldn't every college in the land soon be empty if they applied this theory. "Well no one in high school has graduated college yet, so no one has the potential for it."

You want self awareness to be your line of separation. I've got news for you, young children are not self aware. Peter Singer of Princeton argues it is morally permissible to kill children up to age 7 since they are not self aware, and it is always permissible to kill the disabled, those in a coma or otherwise deformed.

You say a fetus is no more than an animal, by your definition so is a person in coma or merely unconscious. Hell someone in a deep sleep might even count.

Others have wanted brain activity to be the line of separation. I suppose this is measurable, but perhaps difficult to legislate as the timing could be somewhat different person to person. I find it difficult to philosophically defend. As long as it is something that will occur in the future how can you morally interrupt it ? Do children with Down’s syndrome not meet the required brain activity? May they be culled at a whim?

Then Duchess starts to get really erratic. First heartless

I apologize if I'm being quite blunt, but I'm cutting through a lot of junk that's built up around this issue

Next full of emotion (paraphrasing)
Roman practice of infanctice is ok, but it doesn't feel good and look good so (techbabble) lets do it out of site in the womb.


My next post will deal with why the abortion debate is so screwed up in the country, courtesy largely of "The Economist" magazine.

[Kuroneko]

You are dealing with the question of the morality of terminating a single creature, and so the question comes down to if it has a thinking and reasoning, a self-aware mind.... [T]he line of seperation is that of self-awareness. When does it begin? Before that, the fetus is nothing more than an animal (in philosophical terms - I apologize if I'm being quite blunt, but I'm cutting through a lot of junk that's built up around this issue) and can be dealt like one. After that the fetus is human and must be accorded the rights of one.

I like this argument.

However, I'm concerned that we're not doing justice to the position innerbrat referenced (though arguably it's innerbrat's fault for refusing to clarify), still this "potential" bussiness can be interpreted much more reasonably than a blanket "a priori potential is equated with current fact".

For the moment, I'm going to ask you to take a look at the following argument from the point of view of consequentialist ethics (i.e., the permissibility of an action is a function of its consequences), rather than deontological (from which you apparently gave your argument above) or others.

Question: Why is killing human beings impermissible?

• 1. The effect on the victim
  2. The effect on the killer
  3. The effect on other human beings

(3) could definetely be a factor, but it fails to explain why it is impermissible to kill those with sufficient social isolation (e.g., hermits), so it alone cannot account for this.

(2) would be something along the lines of "killing has a negative effect on the killer's character." This could be a factor in virtue ethics, but in consequentialist ethics it becomes question-begging, and thus inadmissable.

(1) is the most straight-forward: killing deprives the victim of something valuable. Since it is not the biological state of life that's valuable (so that, say, cattle-farming is still permissible), it must be something obtained or done through the act of living--potential future experiences, activities, enjoyments, etc. What it is precisely is irrelevant.

The impermissibility of abortion would not be due to the fetus being a "potential human being" but rather of it having a "potential human life", i.e. having a future sufficiently similar to ours.



This argument seems valid to me (refutations most welcome), but since its validity depends crucially on a consequentialist framework, its soundness is very suspect.

[Durandal]

It seems to me, Duchess, and others on this forum are basically in support of Peter Singer & infanticide.

No, we're in support of the woman's right to choose whether or not she wants a non-sentient clump of cells to develop into a human being through the subjection of her body to physical trauma.

Ex post factor potential ? What the hell is that. We know every uninterrupted fetus grows into a human being, just because it hasn't happened yet doesn't mean it won't or might not.

The success rate for pregnancies is nowhere near 100%. Try again.

Wouldn't every college in the land soon be empty if they applied this theory. "Well no one in high school has graduated college yet, so no one has the potential for it."

Your analogy is flawed, because universities assume that you will graduate with a relatively constant GPA, but if you do not meet that GPA, they can rescind admission. Such is not possible for a developing fetus, which is a human being once it crosses a certain line in its development.

If we start treating the clump of cells like a human being, we might as well give it a senior citizen's discount, as well, since it will eventually be 65 year of age. Hell, using your reasoning, I should be legal to drink because I'll eventually be 21, and toddlers should register for the draft because they'll eventually be 18. Future potentials do not equate to actuals. Read the fucking thread.

You want self awareness to be your line of separation. I've got news for you, young children are not self aware.

Young children are fully self-aware, you twit. They walk, talk and are curious as to their surroundings. What else do you want them to do? Solve a differential equation or quote useless philosophical bullshit for you?

Peter Singer of Princeton argues it is morally permissible to kill children up to age 7 since they are not self aware, and it is always permissible to kill the disabled, those in a coma or otherwise deformed.

Peter Singer is a fucking idiot who's never dealt with a 7 year-old then. The fact that he's a fucking idiot who is at Princeton makes little difference.

You say a fetus is no more than an animal, by your definition so is a person in coma or merely unconscious. Hell someone in a deep sleep might even count.

Because once you've granted someone inalienable human rights, you can't take them away except through due process of law, you fucking moron. That's why they're called "inalienable."

Others have wanted brain activity to be the line of separation. I suppose this is measurable, but perhaps difficult to legislate as the timing could be somewhat different person to person.

Haven't you read the fucking thread? I've already covered that, even if it's impossible to draw a discrete line, you must do so legally in order for the law to be enforceable. In this case, there is clearly a line. At one point, a fetus' brain activity is negligible, if not nonexistent. At another point, it has brain activity similar to human beings in a dream-like state. Clearly, it crosses a line into higher-order brain activity somewhere.

I find it difficult to philosophically defend. As long as it is something that will occur in the future how can you morally interrupt it ? Do children with Down?s syndrome not meet the required brain activity? May they be culled at a whim?

Children with Down syndrome are self-aware, just not particularly intelligent. You don't have to be a genius to be self-aware or have higher-order brain activity. We're talking about higher-level brain functions compared to the rest of the animal kingdom, not humanity.

[Lord of the Lurkers]

The success rate for pregnancies is nowhere near 100%. Try again.

and I'm not reading the threads ?

Duchess's bright line of right to live vs. right to abort was month 7. (third trimester) My point was that in month 6 and 3 weeks the fetus had not reached that ex post facto potential yet, but in another week would. I don't see how the fact the fetus has not yet reached that potential but potentially would could be deprived the right to live. Your analogy is flawed as well we don't give all rights all at once. We are talking about one very specific right, the right to avoid a vacuum cleaner in the uterus.

I defy you to show me how a 1 month old baby is any more self aware then a fetus 1 month from birth. You have obviously never been around children less than 6 months old. Premature babies born at 5 months can live outside the womb, they are little different from a "normal" aged 6 month old. How are you defining self aware ?

Because once you've granted someone inalienable human rights, you can't take them away except through due process of law, you fucking moron. That's why they're called "inalienable."

Oh brother, at least this moron can use a dictionary. You can't grant someone an inalienable right, then take it away by due process of law. That by definition is not an inalienable right. This debate is what the right to live should be, and how to measure that. If done on a nationwide basis and agreed upon you could take those "inalienable" rights away. Leaving Nazi Germany out of it, haven't you ever heard about the euthansia movements across the world ?

The entire point of having your "measurable brain activity" as being the trigger that grants you the right to live, is that reasonable persons can disagree as to what that measurable brain activity ought to be, for the old for the young and for the sick and disabled. Peter Singer claims newborn babies have less "brain activity" and "self awareness" then animals do, thus we are free to hurl the little babies off any nearby bridge. Duchess agreed this was ok, but gross.

[RedImperator]

I defy you to show me how a 1 month old baby is any more self aware then a fetus 1 month from birth. You have obviously never been around children less than 6 months old. Premature babies born at 5 months can live outside the womb, they are little different from a "normal" aged 6 month old. How are you defining self aware ?

I'm going to let Durandal deliver most of your pounding because he's better at it than I, but you obviously haven't read the thread because nobody except Queeb Salaron has advocated keeping abortion legal in the third trimester, and his arguments were dealt with.

[Lord of the Lurkers]

Alright, alright, I'll go back and re-read it as painfully as it was with Queenie switching back and forth it tends to scramble the brain. However most of my post dealt with Duchess.

[Joe]

No offense, Lord, but could you change your avatar? I don't want to appear to be hypersensitive, but I'd rather not be reminded of that day whenever I read one of your posts.

[Durandal]

and I'm not reading the threads ?

No, you obviously are not. Nice job avoiding the fact that not all pregnancies are successes, though. I guess you've never heard of a miscarriage.

Duchess's bright line of right to live vs. right to abort was month 7. (third trimester) My point was that in month 6 and 3 weeks the fetus had not reached that ex post facto potential yet, but in another week would.

And my point, which you're continually ignoring, is that potentials are not the fucking same thing as actuals.

I don't see how the fact the fetus has not yet reached that potential but potentially would could be deprived the right to live. Your analogy is flawed as well we don't give all rights all at once.

The basic rights are granted at the same time.

We are talking about one very specific right, the right to avoid a vacuum cleaner in the uterus.

That would be the right to life. The thing clearly isn't a sentient human being, and it does not resemble one in the slightest. The burden of proof is on you to show why it should receive the right to life.

I defy you to show me how a 1 month old baby is any more self aware then a fetus 1 month from birth. You have obviously never been around children less than 6 months old. Premature babies born at 5 months can live outside the womb, they are little different from a "normal" aged 6 month old. How are you defining self aware ?

I already have, fuckwit. It possesses a fully-developed human brain. I defy you to show me how a clump of cells attached the a uteran wall resembles a human being in any way. In other words, a 7 month-old fetus greatly resembles a human being in its brain activity and brain structure, therefore it is a safe bet to call it a human being and grant it human rights. Explain how a zygote, with no brain or nervous system, passes this test in any respect.

Oh brother, at least this moron can use a dictionary.

Huhuhu. U R FUNY.

You can't grant someone an inalienable right, then take it away by due process of law.

What do you think the legal system is based on, genius? Or do you seriously think that it's not a violation of someone's rights to send them to prison?

That by definition is not an inalienable right.

They're called "inalienable" because they cannot be taken away on a whim, like when you go into a coma.

This debate is what the right to live should be, and how to measure that. If done on a nationwide basis and agreed upon you could take those "inalienable" rights away. Leaving Nazi Germany out of it, haven't you ever heard about the euthansia movements across the world ?

Euthanised people generally give their consent to being killed, in the form of a contract or willful submission, genius. Try again.

The entire point of having your "measurable brain activity" as being the trigger that grants you the right to live, is that reasonable persons can disagree as to what that measurable brain activity ought to be, for the old for the young and for the sick and disabled.

Rights are granted to human beings. A human has a functioning brain and certain features. A newborn infant is unquestionably a human being. A clump of cells is unquestionably not a human being. Drop your philosophical bullshit and accept the obvious.

Peter Singer claims newborn babies have less "brain activity" and "self awareness" then animals do, thus we are free to hurl the little babies off any nearby bridge. Duchess agreed this was ok, but gross.

I already told you that this Singer guy was an obvious moron if he thought that 6 and 7 year-olds were not self-aware. Why do you keep quoting him?

[The Yosemite Bear]

And for the idiot that posted that Pregnancy is nearly 100% sucessful.

I smack you on behalf of my Mom (Two Miscarriages, one nearly fatal)
My sister 3 emergency C-sections where she nearly died
and my niece (Born Premature, had to spend several weeks in a plastic womb)

[Durandal]

And for the idiot that posted that Pregnancy is nearly 100% sucessful.

I smack you on behalf of my Mom (Two Miscarriages, one nearly fatal)
My sister 3 emergency C-sections where she nearly died
and my niece (Born Premature, had to spend several weeks in a plastic womb)

And my aunt went through 2 miscarriages before she finally had a seccessful pregnancy. She has two children, so that's a 50% success rate ... with the aid of modern medicine. Naturally, the success rate is much lower due to survival of the fittest, i'd assume.

[Lord of the Lurkers]

I guess you've never heard of a miscarriage.

Durandel is turning this into a red herring. Can we stop it before it grows out of control? This was clearly a potential being treated as an actual question. Read the quote I said uninterrupted fetus and later mentioned 6.75 months vs. 7 months old. I was talking about determining the divining line between human and non human. My sister has had a miscarriage my sympathies abound.

Your and Darth Wong’s position

instead, they resort to bullshit such as claiming that future potentials should be treated as actualities (which leads directly to the Catholic position on contraception)

In hindsight you are correct I was ignoring your point. While I would still even argue even a clump of cells still has some rights, I concede I really hadn’t thought this through, and I am unsure as too whether this trumps the right to chose. I withdraw this point in defeat for now.

So now the whole of our issue is Identifying the start of human life

Your parameters

It possesses a fully-developed human brain

This is exactly why I keep quoting Sanger to you, his writing are the logical extension of this exact thought. Can we just leave it at brain activity or a fully formed brain organ ?

Your timing

I still don't think that there is enough evidence to justify making second-trimester abortions illegal. There's no question that third-trimester abortions should be banned, though.

Sorry I didn’t realize we were both in agreement we are only quibbling over the timing, and you have asked me for proof.

There is a lot of time between those clumps of cells we (now) agree can be aborted and week 28 as you are holding too. I would move the timing back up by a long ways. By 19 weeks the fetus can live outside the womb, but infections usually doom them.

I hope we can agree this is a person and not a clump of cells ? 20 weeks old (2nd trimester)


In Europe you can’t have an abortion past 12 weeks, and 89% of all US abortions are by week 12. (Economist 1/18/03 page 26). At 14 weeks the baby is completely formed, displays an individual personality, will kick & move, can be startled etc…Do you require more before you agree to ban 2nd trimester along with 3rd?

If so read on, if not I need to work on the 2nd trimester case more.

Pushing it further back is more difficult I will grant you.

8 Weeks old


By 8 weeks process of organogenesis (forming new organs is finished) by 9 weeks self initiated movement and sensation to touch are evident. Document below is talks about sensitivity to touch & other 8 week phenomena.
http://www.birthpsychology.com/lifebefo ... sense.html

As far as just simple measurable brain activity goes, the pro-life sites quote 40 days, the pro-choice sites quote 27 weeks. Obviously each has their own agenda. By week 8 the brain organ is finished forming but again once you get into fully developed you get into Sanger land pretty quick. At any rate if you accept the 27 week figure, it is permissable to kill premature babies born at 5 & 6 months. Anyway we would have to revisit the 2nd trimester argument, not this 1st trimester one I am working on here.

Personally, my time line would be somewhere between 5 and 8 weeks. Once you have a fully formed human with a flickering of brain activity, then the fetus is invested with the right to live that is higher than the right to choose.

Off topic:
My apologies to Durran Korr, I was supposed to be at the WTC on 9/11 at a NABE conference that day and believe keeping that day fresh on our minds to be important. Especially now, I think on the eve of war with Iraq, keeping in mind why it is so important to keep WMD out of the hands of those who wish us harm is entirely appropriate. I will switch it to a great head shot of the best looking woman in Sci-Fi, Tracey Scoggins next week.

[HemlockGrey]

And that means that masturbation is abortion because you are wasting sperm that can potentially create children.

And of course, all woman are murders, because meiosis kills eggs that could potentionally develop into humans!

[The Yosemite Bear]

Sounds like the logic of the Inquistion, and I am getting really temped to Split and HoS Lord of the Lurker's and related points.

Oh, BTW this marks an Official Warning, Ok.

---Edit---

Thank you for whover changed the Avatar.
If it was the Netizen himself good

[Darth Wong]

Lord of the Lurkers, your pictures are pretty but they prove nothing. The outer form does not indicate brain development. Try again, this time without the attention-grabbing tactics.

[InnerBrat]

I haven't continued with this much, because I was offering a viewpoitn for interest, but can't justify it myself (it's not my opinion) BUT:

This "line in the sand" stuff is bullshit. The fact that the line in the sand is a bit blurry does not mean it doesn't exist. At some point early in the pregnancy, the clump of cells is OBVIOUSLY not a thinking, feeling human being (how could it be, with NO FUCKING BRAIN?) At some point late in the pregnancy, the fetus is obviously a baby (how could it not be, when it's reacting to stimuli, has a highly developed brain, and all of the physical attributes?) Are we trying to claim that there is no point between those extremes where we can declare this line?

We can determine the point at which most fetuses begin to develop serious brain activity; that is the obvious location for the line. No one who opposes this line bothers to explain precisely what's wrong with it; instead, they resort to bullshit such as claiming that future potentials should be treated as actualities (which leads directly to the Catholic position on contraception) or simply denying that it is possible to declare any point at all, hence the "line in the sand" rhetoric.

No, we can't dtermine at what poitn the fetus starts to show human-like self aware brain activity, any more than we can tell whether the creators of the Oldowan industry were fully self aware and complex thinkers. We don't understand neuroscience nearly enough to be able to draw that line.
Obviously a zygote isn't a person, and obvioously a neonate is, but the priocess between the two is a gradual one, not one that occurs in major steps - the division of pregnancy into 3 trimestors is entirely arbitary,

This is more important than drawing a driving age or drinking age, because we're talking about defining murder here, not a night in the cells for being pissed. And drawing an arbitary line absolutely refuses to take in situations.

The major problem with saying 'only 1st trimester' is, of course, that many women who would choose an abortion are young girls who did something stupid. It is fairly common for these girls to put off worrying about the issue, and try to hide it, hoping it would go away. It is only until the bump starts to show (about 3 months) that they start to seriously think about options. Add to that that in the UK at least, two doctors approval is needed for the operation - and getting that depends on the doctor's personal politics - and there is a waiting list at most hopsitals and clinics.

The flip side of that is one of my friends' sister was born at 5 months, and is now 18 years old. So even very early fetuses are viable (the alternative to the 'brain activity' line)

[Darth Wong]

This is more important than drawing a driving age or drinking age, because we're talking about defining murder here, not a night in the cells for being pissed. And drawing an arbitary line absolutely refuses to take in situations.

Fine, then produce a better solution. It's all too easy to stand there and say "I see that your solution is flawed", but unless you've got a better idea, I don't see what you're driving at. There MUST be some point of brain activity and development where we can categorically state that it is a full-fledged human being with rights, and we need to figure out what the point is.

The major problem with saying 'only 1st trimester' is, of course, that many women who would choose an abortion are young girls who did something stupid. It is fairly common for these girls to put off worrying about the issue, and try to hide it, hoping it would go away. It is only until the bump starts to show (about 3 months) that they start to seriously think about options. Add to that that in the UK at least, two doctors approval is needed for the operation - and getting that depends on the doctor's personal politics - and there is a waiting list at most hopsitals and clinics.

I don't know why people insist on splitting it up into trimesters for these deliberations. What's wrong with splitting the pregnancy in half?

The flip side of that is one of my friends' sister was born at 5 months, and is now 18 years old. So even very early fetuses are viable (the alternative to the 'brain activity' line)

More evidence in favour of my preferred solution of splitting the pregnancy in half rather than forcing us into a false dilemma between the 3-month and 6-month marks.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Just to note my position, I stated that we can defineably prove that the fetus is self aware by the beginning of the third trimester; that is to say, abortions in the third trimester are definitely wrong no matter what. Self awareness occurs sometime during the 5th or 6th month, most likely the sixth. I'm actually in favour of setting the law for when abortions are illegal at halfway through the second trimester - 4.5 months - to put a shave in until we're able to pin the date down with more accuracy.

P.S. Don't even bother debating philosophy with me until you at least learn some basic latin terms.

[Darth Wong]

Just to note my position, I stated that we can defineably prove that the fetus is self aware by the beginning of the third trimester; that is to say, abortions in the third trimester are definitely wrong no matter what. Self awareness occurs sometime during the 5th or 6th month, most likely the sixth. I'm actually in favour of setting the law for when abortions are illegal at halfway through the second trimester - 4.5 months - to put a shave in until we're able to pin the date down with more accuracy.

We agree on something!

*listens for the sound of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse*

Of course, I couldn't let the following go without comment ...

P.S. Don't even bother debating philosophy with me until you at least learn some basic latin terms.

Of course, since the use of latin automatically confers a superior debating position and knowledge of logic

Perhaps the "style over substance" fallacy escaped your philosophical studies? Oh wait, maybe I should have used the latin name for it, in order to make the point stronger.

[Steve]

I think it's because Marina wants someone she can discuss philosophy with in the original Latin.

[Nova Andromeda]

Just to note my position, I stated that we can defineably prove that the fetus is self aware by the beginning of the third trimester; that is to say, abortions in the third trimester are definitely wrong no matter what. Self awareness occurs sometime during the 5th or 6th month, most likely the sixth. I'm actually in favour of setting the law for when abortions are illegal at halfway through the second trimester - 4.5 months - to put a shave in until we're able to pin the date down with more accuracy.

P.S. Don't even bother debating philosophy with me until you at least learn some basic latin terms.

--I have serious doubts about a fetus being self aware anytime during pregnancy or even after it for some time. What evidence is there. Dreams simply don't count since my cat appears to dream, but I doubt she is self aware. In addition, I recall only being just barely self aware at the age of 3 or 4 and mostly governed by primal instinct rather than reason as far as decision making was concerned. Furthermore, shouldn't we extend rights to all beings that are self aware and not just humans if that is the criteria we are going to use? If so what about animals like douphins who may very well be self aware?
-Personally, I support a graduated scale of rights. A fetus which is just barely self aware (if one exists) should be aforded rights that are over riden by most of the rights of a fully aware human such as an adult. As the mind of the fetus developes towards the full awareness of a human their rights scale up until they match that of a fully aware human.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Of course, I couldn't let the following go without comment ...

P.S. Don't even bother debating philosophy with me until you at least learn some basic latin terms.

Of course, since the use of latin automatically confers a superior debating position and knowledge of logic

Perhaps the "style over substance" fallacy escaped your philosophical studies? Oh wait, maybe I should have used the latin name for it, in order to make the point stronger.

Come now. Considering the intelligence of the person in question, couldn't you allow me the latitude of attacking their lack of culture? If he'd actually had a point to make I'd have been less contemptuous.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

I suspect we agree more often than we realize on social issues... There's just been a fair number of political debates recently which have dominated things.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You know, just to illustrate how dumb LoL's argument is: since his argument seems based primarily on form, it would apparently be reasonable to conclude he also thinks we should give animatronic robots the same rights as human beings (unless he has some stupid stipulation like we shouldn't give rights to non-carbon based lifeforms).

[Edi]

--I have serious doubts about a fetus being self aware anytime during pregnancy or even after it for some time. What evidence is there. Dreams simply don't count since my cat appears to dream, but I doubt she is self aware. In addition, I recall only being just barely self aware at the age of 3 or 4 and mostly governed by primal instinct rather than reason as far as decision making was concerned. Furthermore, shouldn't we extend rights to all beings that are self aware and not just humans if that is the criteria we are going to use? If so what about animals like douphins who may very well be self aware?
-Personally, I support a graduated scale of rights. A fetus which is just barely self aware (if one exists) should be aforded rights that are over riden by most of the rights of a fully aware human such as an adult. As the mind of the fetus developes towards the full awareness of a human their rights scale up until they match that of a fully aware human.

Why did you have to bring up the selfawareness of animals here? Because I just have to comment on that. I've got two cats, and they are both definitely self-aware. They have individual names they recognize, they like companionship and in fact ask for or outright demand it at times, showing their pleasure when they are granted it or sulking when ignored. They have shown most of the range of the same emotions we humans feel, as well as certain reasoning and deductive capabilities. Of course, they are not capable of complex abstract thought or other complex mental processes when compared to humans, but they are definitely selfaware. As far as I know, the same is true of other mammalian life forms, and of some non-mammalian ones as well (birds, certain reptiles, and some invertebrates, namely squids and octopi).

They are not humans, obviously, so human rights do not apply to them, and other mechanisms must be applied. If we define selfawareness and capability for complex thought as the divide that determines the presence or absence of rights, then logically all animals should have rights in proportion to their capacity for these. However, here we run into the fact that humans are predators and it really comes down to issue of having rights applicable to our own species, but not to others unless we so choose. Of course, given the similarities between us and e.g. chimps, gorillas and orangutangs, it can be successfully argued that it is immoral to treat certain animals as if they had no rights while it is okay to do so to others (e.g. squids).

That whole issue deserves its own thread however, instead of trying to hijack this one.

Edi