an abortion referendum

Sparks

Wicknight, those questions are up there with "What happens when the irresistable force meets the immovable object?". You need to believe that the foetus is not only a person but a child before you can even begin to examine them, and that's a fundamental change in perspective.
As such, the questions are meaningless.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Sparks
You need to believe that the foetus is not only a person but a child before you can even begin to examine them, and that's a fundamental change in perspective.
As such, the questions are meaningless.

Well a child is a person, and a child, adult or what ever have exactly the same human rights, so it is irrelivant to say the that the fetus can be a person but not a child, because being a "child" has no bearing on a persons human rights.

My questions were towards those that believe life begins at conception. If one doesn't believe a fetus becomes a person at conception then the questions are not relivent because the fetus has no human rights.

If one does believe that life begins at conception then they are totally relivent to the discussion.

Originally posted by Sparks
.. and that's a fundamental change in perspective.

A fundamental change in who's perspective?? I am not even following you here.

Please don't dismiss my questions as meaningless because you do not share the intial view point.

Nevyn

The Egyptians used wooden slivers.
The Native Americans used Yarrow tea.
The Victorians used to tighten their corsets and fling themselves downstairs.
And well Nancy Spungen used a coat hanger.

Really honestly does any one think that?
Making abortions illegal will stop them?

Women who wish not to remain pregnant will find away they always have.

The above are considered extreme but
It was knows that if you were with in 6 weeks of being pregnant it was possible to pull a fast on a doctor and get fitted with a coil that induces a period and hence a miscarriage or if you have enough money and contacts well a D&C could be arranged privately in this country up to 8 weeks as well there not
THAT much foetal tissue.

Unless they take all the pregnancy tests off the shelves in the chemist and after a test at a doctors watch women constantly they will never be able to enforce it.

As for the artificial womb as nice as it may be to think that it would be developed and used to bring to term un wanted pregnancies but lets face it, it would be open to far too much abuse. The amount of foetus’ alone that would have o be used in the development of it would be staggering and then that scientists would have access to the all the secrets of what happens from implantation to complete gestation in an environment they completely control.

Perfect for eugenics and gene tinkering, what happens if we do x, y, or z oh oh lets gestate it and see and it is totally messed up we can then dissect it and start over.

Originally posted by Sparks

The two issues (the right to life and the legal (and moral) status of person) are seperate ones and need have no connection.

Only if you believe that the unborn is not a person.
I believe it is both a person and a human and couldn't condone the elective killing of such an entity save in absolutely unavoidable circumstances.
That wouldn't include the convenience of the mother, economic or otherwise.
mm

Zombrex

Originally posted by Man
Only if you believe that the unborn is not a person.
I believe it is both a person and a human and couldn't condone the elective killing of such an entity save in absolutely unavoidable circumstances.
That wouldn't include the convenience of the mother, economic or otherwise.
mm

Do you believe that the state has a right (on behalf of the fetus) to force a woman to be pregant until the child is born?

Do you believe that the mother does not have the right to terminate the connection between her and the fetus (a seperate individual entity), that she must maintain pregancy, against her will, so that the child can survive?

Does the childs right to continued life override the mothers right to choose how and what her body does?

(I am not attacking you, I actually want to know what people think about this)

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
Which is something JC said too - but you both missed the point.
We have adults, minors, and children, as well as a few other forms of subdivision, enshrined as fundamental classifications of person in law.
Which implies that we think of person as being something other than a single homogenous group. It's not a binary thing in other words, it doesn't apply instantly to an entity (other than a legal construct like a company).
Which in turn means that you can't say a foetus is a person, because not only do you not have a solid definition of what a person even is, you've no idea of what class of person you want to call it.

As has been pointed out to you adults, minors, and children as persons are entitled to the basic rights afforded to all persons and are ultimately protected equally in the eyes of the law.

Again TC, you're abusing the term humanism. And probably the term utilitarianism too.

Not at all in both cases.

EVERYAnd your calling it a utilitarianist set of ethics is ignoring completely the damage done to the mother by forcing an unwanted pregnancy on her, which is not a medically risk-free procedure, even if she resigns herself to it, which she shouldn't have to.

No because it is logical to value the known utility of the mother over the potential utility of a foetus and so terminate it so as to spare the mother said unwanted pregnancy. I’ve stated this to be a valid utilitarian argument before.

JC talks of human rights, but what he should say is really person's rights, since human generally means "a member of the species homo sapiens", but that's a bit misleading in this specific discussion.

Oh dear, did you just imply that not all homo sapiens are persons?

And what you're doing TC, is saying that weighing the humanistic interests of the mother and the foetus is a utilitarian choice - which pretty much ignores the fact that the mother's rights are clearly established but the foetus' aren't - and you're giving unestablished rights priority over established ones by ruling abortion unethical.

Thank you for echoing my utilitarian argument above.

If you could prove the foetus is a person, it'd be different; But you cannot, and in the last hundred years or more, noone else in the entire human race has been able to either.
All that has been proven is that neonates don't exhibit self-awareness. And that does not support the theory that the foetus is a person.

As much as I hate to repeat myself (and I do):

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?postid=1034998#post1034998

You are ironically still viewing this from a very black and white perspective. For example when I questioned the nondirective nature of many clinics, I said and meant both pro and anti abortion - not just the one side. Yet you came out with the following gem...

I personally got a close-up view of one of the clinics that TC mentioned that say they're nondirective, but in fact are very directive and have no compunction about stooping to any level to prevent the mother from even considering an abortion.

...as if it is only pro-Life groups that get up to that sort of thing. News flash - they all do.

As such, you seem incapable of viewing the issue from both sides, so I can continue repeating these points indefinitely, but if you ignore them (as you’ll often do), there’s not much else I can do.

Originally posted by Wicknight
A lot of this discussion is focusing on the human status of the child as if it is a give that if the fetus is a person then the pregancy cannot be aborted.

On the assumption that the foetus is a human being...

Does the woman have the right to refuse to continue the pregancy, even thought this will result in the death of the child?
Or does the woman have a moral, legal etc responsibility to continue using her body so that the child will survive until birth?

The first is that while both mother and pre-born have equal rights, the basic right to life of an individual is paramount and would supersede all other rights. As such, most terminations would not qualify, in that the only case that could morally challenge the right to life of one individual is the right to life of another.

Does the child, being a human being, have to right to sustain it's own life at the suffering of the mother?
Or does the child have no right to use the mothers body, and can only continue to do so if the mother is willing?

On the flip side of my previous argument, for example and by the same logic, were someone to desperately need a lung transplant and you were the only available donor, could that person force you to donate a lung because his or her right to life supersedes your right to perfect health?

Originally posted by Thaed
Really honestly does any one think that?
Making abortions illegal will stop them?

No, but I think the focus of the debate left the legal question behind a while back.

Zombrex

Originally posted by The Corinthian
The first is that while both mother and pre-born have equal rights, the basic right to life of an individual is paramount and would supersede all other rights. As such, most terminations would not qualify, in that the only case that could morally challenge the right to life of one individual is the right to life of another.

But what about medicated abortion or non-terminal surgical abortion (not sure if that is the correct term), where the mother does not actually kill the fetus, she merely removes the connection that results in the death of the child.

The example of the person needing a lung comes into play here. If I do not give you a lung you will die, but am I killing you? Does your right to life supperceed my right to bodily privacy (ie to choose to keep my lung). Can the state force a person to give of their body to continue the life of another.

Another example would be if you and I where hooked up by some blood transfusion system, that was necessary to save my life. Once we are connected do you have no right to walk away because my right to live exceeds your right to privacy and to choose how your body is used.

(not necessarily direct this to you TC, just throwing some stuff out there to see if anyone else has some views on this)

Sparks

Originally posted by Man
Only if you believe that the unborn is not a person.

Nope.
There's no reason to require that condition in order to maintain the two as seperate issues.

TC,

As has been pointed out to you adults, minors, and children as persons are entitled to the basic rights afforded to all persons and are ultimately protected equally in the eyes of the law.

Except that that's incorrect. Children and Minors receive more protection from the law.
Which is rather beside the point that we have different categories of person for at least legal purposes, which points to an underlying gradient of "personhood".

No because it is logical to value the known utility of the mother over the potential utility of a foetus and so terminate it so as to spare the mother said unwanted pregnancy. I’ve stated this to be a valid utilitarian argument before.

There is a utilitarian argument, true. But there's an equally valid humanist argument along the same lines.

Oh dear, did you just imply that not all homo sapiens are persons?

And what have we been discussing? That the foetus (which is genetically a member of the species) is not a person (which is a less biological term). And that there are different classes of person (child, minor, adult, etc.).

You are ironically still viewing this from a very black and white perspective.

Not quite black and white TC, I just happen to have an opinion on this, I've thought a lot about it for a little over a decade now, and noone has yet presented any evidence here that throws any doubt on that opinion. Should I have a more flexible opinion so that unsupported opinions of others can sway it?

For example when I questioned the nondirective nature of many clinics, I said and meant both pro and anti abortion - not just the one side. Yet you came out with the following gem...

Yes, I realise that there probably are pro-abortion (and no, I don't mean pro-choice, but actually pro-abortion) clinics out there. I just haven't been to any. Who exactly counts as a pro-abortion clinic anyway? The closest I know of is the Well Woman Clinic and they're pro-choice, not pro-abortion.

On the assumption that the foetus is a human being...

Define human being - do you mean a member of this species, or a person?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Wicknight
But what about medicated abortion or non-terminal surgical abortion (not sure if that is the correct term), where the mother does not actually kill the fetus, she merely removes the connection that results in the death of the child.

Would that not be much the same thing? Would starving an infant not be killing it through omission of action?

The example of the person needing a lung comes into play here. If I do not give you a lung you will die, but am I killing you? Does your right to life supperceed my right to bodily privacy (ie to choose to keep my lung). Can the state force a person to give of their body to continue the life of another.

That is the question, isn’t it? (Actually I don’t have an answer to it).

Originally posted by Sparks
Which is rather beside the point that we have different categories of person for at least legal purposes, which points to an underlying gradient of "personhood".

You’ll have to explain gradient of "personhood" to me here, as it’s beginning to sound very much like “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others”.

There is a utilitarian argument, true. But there's an equally valid humanist argument along the same lines.

The only humanist arguments I’ve heard for abortion have been flawed and the only utilitarian arguments I’ve heard against abortion have been flawed.

And what have we been discussing? That the foetus (which is genetically a member of the species) is not a person (which is a less biological term). And that there are different classes of person (child, minor, adult, etc.).

Why is it not a person? To date you have used various metre sticks measuring sentience and ability to survive independently of the mother, all of which are fairly open to interpretation. The only absolute we know is that it is a Homo Sapiens, which you do not seem to accept as a badge of humanity.

Not quite black and white TC, I just happen to have an opinion on this, I've thought a lot about it for a little over a decade now, and noone has yet presented any evidence here that throws any doubt on that opinion. Should I have a more flexible opinion so that unsupported opinions of others can sway it?

My example of your interpretation of my comments on the subject clinics was meant to highlight for you that you interpret all arguments in the assumption that your view is correct. Hence it seemed natural for you to automatically assume that my comments were only directed towards supporting your view.

For you to be more ‘flexible’ would be a form of capitulation, hence you will never do so. For me to be more ‘objective’ is a means to tease out the truth from discussion, in the knowledge that what you walk away from them is rarely what you brought to them. This is where we differ.

Yes, I realise that there probably are pro-abortion (and no, I don't mean pro-choice, but actually pro-abortion) clinics out there. I just haven't been to any. Who exactly counts as a pro-abortion clinic anyway? The closest I know of is the Well Woman Clinic and they're pro-choice, not pro-abortion.

Now you actually first concede that there probably are pro-abortion clinics and then go on to throw doubt on that first concession, given that you’ve not experienced those.

You’re really quite fanatical aren’t you?

Define human being - do you mean a member of this species, or a person?

What, do you mean like Herrenvolk and Untermench, Sparkie?

Sparks

You’ll have to explain gradient of "personhood" to me here, as it’s beginning to sound very much like “all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others”.

Thought I had explained it pretty well actually.

Why is it not a person?

Because it's not self-aware.

To date you have used various metre sticks measuring sentience and ability to survive independently of the mother, all of which are fairly open to interpretation.

No. I have two metre-sticks. One, based on self-awareness, which is for determining if it's a person, the other, based on self-sufficency, which determines whether or not it has the right to life.
The first metrestick is somewhat vague, I'll readily admit. We don't have any way of saying "yes, this entity is self-aware". We do have means to say "no, this entity is decidedly not self-aware". There is a gray area in between. Thing is, the gray area is in the neo-natal period, not the gestation period.

The only absolute we know is that it is a Homo Sapiens, which you do not seem to accept as a badge of humanity.

It depends on what you mean by humanity.
Remember, being a member of a species is determined by only one criteria - can you breed successfully with a member of that species.
Technically, you could take a foetus with a birth defect that prevents the growth of a head past a basic brain stem, gestate it, let it grow to physical maturity by feeding it intravenously and so on, and then mate with the resulting... organism. I doubt most people would consider it a person though. But it would be a member of the species.
Head or no head.

My example of your interpretation of my comments on the subject clinics was meant to highlight for you that you interpret all arguments in the assumption that your view is correct. Hence it seemed natural for you to automatically assume that my comments were only directed towards supporting your view.

That's one interpretation of what I wrote. It's incorrect though. I gave the example I have experience with. That's all. I'd have given an example of a pro-abortion clinic if I had one to give.

For you to be more ‘flexible’ would be a form of capitulation, hence you will never do so.

If by flexible, you mean give up my opinions without proof, then yes. If however, you mean give them up as a result of proof to refute them being offered, then you are quite wrong.

Now you actually first concede that there probably are pro-abortion clinics and then go on to throw doubt on that first concession, given that you’ve not experienced those.

That's not what I said.
I said that there probably are pro-abortion clinics (it's a big world, after all), and asked you for an example. I don't have an example to give. But you stated that there were such clinics, so you must have an example to give. Right?

You’re really quite fanatical aren’t you?

Nope. I believe what I believe because of years of thinking about it, personal experience and scientific evidence. Fanatacism is defined by intense and uncritical devotion. Which doesn't describe my position on this.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
Thought I had explained it pretty well actually.

If you did, then I was on the right track with the Animal Farm reference.

No. I have two metre-sticks. One, based on self-awareness, which is for determining if it's a person, the other, based on self-sufficency, which determines whether or not it has the right to life.
The first metrestick is somewhat vague, I'll readily admit. We don't have any way of saying "yes, this entity is self-aware". We do have means to say "no, this entity is decidedly not self-aware". There is a gray area in between. Thing is, the gray area is in the neo-natal period, not the gestation period.

And back we go in a circle :rolleyes:

There is a fine line between using the logic of “this foetus is not a person because they are not aware or self-sufficient” to “this Parkinson’s patient is no longer a person because they are not aware or self-sufficient” - all we need to do is move the goal posts a little.

Technically, you could take a foetus with a birth defect that prevents the growth of a head past a basic brain stem, gestate it, let it grow to physical maturity by feeding it intravenously and so on, and then mate with the resulting... organism. I doubt most people would consider it a person though. But it would be a member of the species.

You can do much the same surgically to an adult, you know, so your point is fairly irrelevant.

That's one interpretation of what I wrote. It's incorrect though. I gave the example I have experience with. That's all. I'd have given an example of a pro-abortion clinic if I had one to give.

No, you gave your spin on it, based upon the fact that you would automatically assume such a conclusion.

If by flexible, you mean give up my opinions without proof, then yes. If however, you mean give them up as a result of proof to refute them being offered, then you are quite wrong.

No. I mean flexible enough to simply question your opinions. I’ve never seen you do so here.

That's not what I said.
I said that there probably are pro-abortion clinics (it's a big world, after all), and asked you for an example. I don't have an example to give. But you stated that there were such clinics, so you must have an example to give. Right?

Examples are irrelevant - neither of us gave any - the point is in that you that this only occurred on one side of the argument. You did not even countance that it may occur on both sides.

Fanatacism is defined by intense and uncritical devotion. Which doesn't describe my position on this.

Yet you have been repeatedly passionate in your defence of the pro-Choice position and have yet to even question this position anywhere these discussions. Hence you are a fanatic by your own definition.

Originally posted by Sparks

Only if you believe that the unborn is not a person.

Nope.
There's no reason to require that condition in order to maintain the two as seperate issues.

As I said , if one believes that the unborn is a person and human then there is no question that when they are inside the womb, they deserve the right to life.
Indeed most pregnant women I know,who are looking foward to the birth of their child would be very carefull in the months prior to the birth so as not to harm the child.
It's very unfair to my mind to make a distinction between the exact same forms of life depending on either economic circumstance or the convenience of the mothers lifestyle.
In a lot of cases, thats what elective abortion boils down to, it's inconvenient , so lets kill it or as I would see it lets murder it.
Worse than that, there even a lot of cases where elective abortion permits the parent to kill the unborn because it might have downs syndrome or something similar.
mm

Sparks

Originally posted by The Corinthian
back we go in a circle :rolleyes:
There is a fine line between using the logic of “this foetus is not a person because they are not aware or self-sufficient” to “this Parkinson’s patient is no longer a person because they are not aware or self-sufficient” - all we need to do is move the goal posts a little.

We sure have gone back. You're saying that the introduction of a totally new concept (the taking away of an entity's status as a person, which doesn't exist today) is just a little shift of the goal posts (by which, I assume, you mean the point at which we say someone is self-aware). So moving the threshold in a test taken once is somehow the same as introducing a whole new legal principle at the other end of life?
Doubtful.

You can do much the same surgically to an adult, you know, so your point is fairly irrelevant.

Nope. Again, you're assuming I'm saying that you can take away someone's legal status as a person. I'm not.

No, you gave your spin on it, based upon the fact that you would automatically assume such a conclusion.

TC, if you want to call me a liar, go ahead and do so. Don't hide the accusation like that. The fact is, I had an example and gave it. That's more than you've done here so far.

No. I mean flexible enough to simply question your opinions. I’ve never seen you do so here.

What, you want me to type in several years of thought on this into the thread? Or you want me to enter any and all further thoughts on it?
As soon as I get given evidence that in any way contradicts my opinions, I'll reconsider them. That hasn't happened so far in this discussion.

Examples are irrelevant - neither of us gave any - the point is in that you that this only occurred on one side of the argument. You did not even countance that it may occur on both sides.

Actually, I did. And when you misunderstood me doing so, I corrected you. So I'll ask again, more clearly: TC, can you give us an example of a pro-abortion clinic (as opposed to a pro-choice clinic) because I don't happen to have one handy.

Yet you have been repeatedly passionate in your defence of the pro-Choice position and have yet to even question this position anywhere these discussions. Hence you are a fanatic by your own definition.

Nope. I've repeatedly said that if given evidence, I will question my position. No-one has given me any. And yet, I see people being treated badly by those that hold a different position to mine and they are not willing to question their position even when confronted with scientific and reproducible evidence, because to do so would question their religious faith.
Any wonder then, why I tend to be defensive?


Man,

As I said , if one believes that the unborn is a person and human then there is no question that when they are inside the womb, they deserve the right to life.

Assuming that what you believe is in fact correct, that is true. (I add the disclaimer because despite the beliefs of the flat earth society, the world is round).

Indeed most pregnant women I know,who are looking foward to the birth of their child would be very carefull in the months prior to the birth so as not to harm the child.

Foetus. But yes, you are correct. And there's no reason why that shouldn't be the case - if you want a child, you take pains to ensure the best development of the foetus. There's no conflict here.

It's very unfair to my mind to make a distinction between the exact same forms of life depending on either economic circumstance or the convenience of the mothers lifestyle.

And who is doing that?

In a lot of cases, thats what elective abortion boils down to, it's inconvenient , so lets kill it

And yet, people have little or no compunction about doing that to other organisms they don't consider people. And there's no stigmata attached to that act.

Worse than that, there even a lot of cases where elective abortion permits the parent to kill the unborn because it might have downs syndrome or something similar.

And now we've entered the realm of the designer baby.
Frankly at this point, I'll hand over to Dr. Watson, he's more qualified on this area than I am. And he's pointed out that the idea of bringing a child that you know has a dehabilitating illness that means a slow uncomfortable premature death with no hope of a cure, is an inhumane act. And he ought to know.

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,

Assuming that what you believe is in fact correct, that is true. (I add the disclaimer because despite the beliefs of the flat earth society, the world is round).

Well you could use that argument as a defense against any belief you disagree with. I suppose, thats easy enough from an athesists perspective. To draw it out further, whenever we both die, I hope to be waiting for you at the other side...Elevator up or down:D ( only then will we really know who is right or wrong on the beliefs aspect of this, in the meantime we can hold our respective views )

It's very unfair to my mind to make a distinction between the exact same forms of life depending on either economic circumstance or the convenience of the mothers lifestyle.

And who's doing that?

Anyone that has an abortion for that reason where the law permits it.
There definitely is a distinction there being made between the right to life of various unborn entities( and the potential that you and I had ) where a Foetus is nurtured instead of being killed depending on whether it is wanted by it's mother or not.

In a lot of cases, thats what elective abortion boils down to, it's inconvenient , so lets kill it
And yet, people have little or no compunction about doing that to other organisms they don't consider people. And there's no stigmata attached to that act.

Well you would be talking about non human organisms in the same fashion as potential human beings there.
If I was driving and had to swerve to avoid a dog or cat rather than hit a pedestrian, I think you know which I would choose, no matter how nice the dog looks.
I simply apply the same rule with potential humans Vs potential whatever else.
From my viewpoint, I couldn't condone , giving anyone the power to kill an unborn child ( yes Child ) where the choice is specifically for an economic or social convenience reason.

And now we've entered the realm of the designer baby.
Frankly at this point, I'll hand over to Dr. Watson, he's more qualified on this area than I am. And he's pointed out that the idea of bringing a child that you know has a dehabilitating illness that means a slow uncomfortable premature death with no hope of a cure, is an inhumane act. And he ought to know.

Well I specifically mentioned a kid with downs syndrome or something similar.Elective abortion can allow a parent to kill their unborn child based on the fact that they may have that syndrome or something similar.
I doubt if Dr Watsons views on the subject would have been popular at the special olympics.
Indeed handicapped Kids can be very loving and giving to their parents and most do have feelings.
mm

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
We sure have gone back. You're saying that the introduction of a totally new concept (the taking away of an entity's status as a person, which doesn't exist today) is just a little shift of the goal posts (by which, I assume, you mean the point at which we say someone is self-aware). So moving the threshold in a test taken once is somehow the same as introducing a whole new legal principle at the other end of life?
Doubtful.

Not at all. It can easily be rationalized. You begin by setting criteria for humanity, then pop in an additional caveat that once humanity is ascribed it cannot be revoked - yet you do not explain the logic behind your caveat.

Surely by your logic, if it does not fulfil your conditions it cannot be human, regardless of whether it once was?

Nope. Again, you're assuming I'm saying that you can take away someone's legal status as a person. I'm not.

No, I’m just pointing out that you can play Dr. Frankenstein on anyone, adult or foetus, and it doesn’t change their status as a person - making your point irrelevant.

TC, if you want to call me a liar, go ahead and do so. Don't hide the accusation like that. The fact is, I had an example and gave it. That's more than you've done here so far.

You consider this to be an example?

I personally got a close-up view of one of the clinics that TC mentioned that say they're nondirective, but in fact are very directive and have no compunction about stooping to any level to prevent the mother from even considering an abortion.

If so, then I’ve also seen some fairly close-up views in the past.

Beyond that, the only other ‘example’ you give is of the Well Woman Centre, where you’re at pains to point out that they are pro-Choice rather than pro-Abortion. If this makes them as non-directive as your good self, then I would probably challenge that assertion.

And no, I don’t think you a liar. I think you believe everything you say.

As soon as I get given evidence that in any way contradicts my opinions, I'll reconsider them. That hasn't happened so far in this discussion.

It never will to your satisfaction. Even if presented with evidence that would even give you pause to refine your position, you appear too orthodox to accept it. That’s the nature of blind faith.

Nope. I've repeatedly said that if given evidence, I will question my position. No-one has given me any. And yet, I see people being treated badly by those that hold a different position to mine and they are not willing to question their position even when confronted with scientific and reproducible evidence, because to do so would question their religious faith.
Any wonder then, why I tend to be defensive?

For much the same reason a religious zealot is.

The fact remains that you have been both passionate and indignant on numerous occasions on this issue - even now, discussing seeing people being treated badly, as if this has something to do with this debate. How exactly does this affect the status of a foetus?

And despite numerous arguments to the contrary you have not even questioned, let alone conceded the most minor of points. Under such a barrage of arguments and evidence, much of which you fail to address but retreat to the aforementioned indignation as a response, it would seem incredulous that you would not seem to accept some points. Your convictions are as immutable as those you seem to criticise, regardless of amount of argument or evidence.

Seriously, look in the mirror.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
We sure have gone back. You're saying that the introduction of a totally new concept (the taking away of an entity's status as a person, which doesn't exist today)

I must have missed something along the way, but how can you possibly say that the status of "person" does not exist today? Does not exist in what sense?

We have laws made by lawyers. We have courts who's purpose it is to define in practice exactly what that means - who is guaranteed what, and when it may or may not apply. The implications and applications of a law are at least as significant (if not moreseo) as the wording, when dealing with anything legal.

Thats the fundamental principles of how our legal system works - and something I know you are well aware of (so sorry if I sound patronising in stating the obvious)....and yet here you are telling us that there is no such legal entity/status as a "person".

So on what grounds is there no such legal entity? We have a constitutional right to life, and through court decisions, it has been determined that in this state, this protection must be extended to the unborn. So exactly what degree of definition of "person" is missing here......other than the fact that we use "person" where I believe the constitution uses a different term.

At best, you seem to be arguing that our system doesn't define the groups you believe in - that the people who could be terminated through euthenasia or abortion aren't solidly classified as "ok-to-kill Homo Sapiens" or whatever term you'd like to give them. But surely thats not a failing of the system. What use would be defining terms for what are minority groups that our system does not treat specifically as such.


jc

Sparks

I must have missed something along the way, but how can you possibly say that the status of "person" does not exist today? Does not exist in what sense?

The principle I referred to was the taking away of the status of person, JC.

JustHalf

It's a big copout to claim that:

• To be a person you must satisfy certain criteria
• Once you've been granted the legal status of person, you're still an actual person even if you no longer satisfy any of the previous criteria

Sparks

Originally posted by JustHalf
It's a big copout to claim that:

• To be a person you must satisfy certain criteria
• Once you've been granted the legal status of person, you're still an actual person even if you no longer satisfy any of the previous criteria

Nope, it's not. It's taking into account the fact that people have accidents, suffer dehabilitating diseases, and so on.

JustHalf

All I can see is: "It's not a copout. It's a copout"

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
Nope, it's not. It's taking into account the fact that people have accidents, suffer dehabilitating diseases, and so on.

Why take that into account and not that 'people' may be in the process of developing your criteria? Selective logic.

Of course, I've already questioned the logic behind your caveat, but you appear to be selective in your hearing too...

Nevyn

true we dont Yet have the legal definations of at what point a person comes into being or when while the body is still fucntioning it is not a person.

Hence the lack of DnRs in our medical services or living wills. currently all we can do is leave word of what we wished done in these cases and hope that our family honours it.:rolleyes:

Sparks

Why take that into account and not that 'people' may be in the process of developing your criteria? Selective logic.

Nope. Technically, a dolphin might be in the process of developing my criteria. I note that we still kill them without much protest from the masses though. If it's okay to kill one organism that might be developing the criteria but hasn't displayed them yet, why isn't it okay for another?

Besides which, the fundamental difference here is that a foetus hasn't become self-aware yet. That's an intrinsic property of the foetus. Whereas someone suffering from injury or disease is being affected by an external factor, not an intrinsic condition.

All I can see is: "It's not a copout. It's a copout"

Then you need to reread it.

Not at all. It can easily be rationalized. You begin by setting criteria for humanity, then pop in an additional caveat that once humanity is ascribed it cannot be revoked - yet you do not explain the logic behind your caveat.

Does the above paragraph clarify it TC?

No, I’m just pointing out that you can play Dr. Frankenstein on anyone, adult or foetus, and it doesn’t change their status as a person - making your point irrelevant.

TC, it's not playing Dr. Frankenstein. My example did not suggest creating a deformed fetus artifically, but presupposed the existance of an organism, genetically human but with a natural birth defect that resulted in the foetus not developing a head or central nervous system beyond the brain stem. You give it care to keep it alive and it is technically alive and a member of the species - but in every single other way, it is not a person. Which was the point (that being a member of homo sapiens does not make you a person).

You consider this to be an example?

What are you expecting TC? You want the time, date, the name, address and telephone number of the woman involved? Would you think that I had any right to give those out?

If so, then I’ve also seen some fairly close-up views in the past.

If you'd gone through the process, then you ought to understand why I get defensive TC.

Beyond that, the only other ‘example’ you give is of the Well Woman Centre, where you’re at pains to point out that they are pro-Choice rather than pro-Abortion. If this makes them as non-directive as your good self, then I would probably challenge that assertion.

*sigh*
TC, firstly (just in case someone reading this with a personal need for the information gets confused), where did I say the WWC is a directive clinic? I said that they were the closest to a directive clinic I knew of - that doesn't mean they are one. The Well Woman Center is non-directive, in that they give the mother options and discuss them with her - and offer support for all the options. Not just the ones they agree with - because what the WWC is there to do is to promote the mother's health. Not to promote any other agenda.

Secondly, I am non-directive - more so than those arguing that abortion is immoral. I am pro-choice, not pro-abortion. I've not said anywhere in the last few pages that a mother has to get an abortion - I've said that she should have that option. She still has to choose it.

It never will to your satisfaction. Even if presented with evidence that would even give you pause to refine your position, you appear too orthodox to accept it. That’s the nature of blind faith.

Now that's a faith-based assertion there TC. How about you give me some actual evidence and see what happens?

Any wonder then, why I tend to be defensive?

For much the same reason a religious zealot is.

Bollocks.
I saw friends getting hurt by the pro-life campaign in this country TC. One day I'll have kids (hopefully). It'll be a concious choice. And I think it'd be a bloody stupid attitude to leave a system in place that hurts people now so that one day some child of mine could be hurt by it.
That is my underlying motivation. Not fanaticism.

The fact remains that you have been both passionate and indignant on numerous occasions on this issue - even now, discussing seeing people being treated badly, as if this has something to do with this debate. How exactly does this affect the status of a foetus?

The mistreatment does not affect the question of the status of a foetus - the question of the status of a foetus creates the mistreatment.
Hence the indignation.

And despite numerous arguments to the contrary you have not even questioned, let alone conceded the most minor of points.

That's rhetoric.
List a few points and cite your evidence that my view is wrong on those points. As I said above, try giving me evidence and see whether I change my mind.
And do not complain that I'd set a high standard for that evidence. The standard is that it be objecctive and repeatable. If your evidence proves me wrong, then you've just reclassified 100,000 women in Ireland today as first-degree murderers. That's a serious outcome - so the evidence has to be of a high standard.

Under such a barrage of arguments and evidence

WHAT EVIDENCE???
You've given NONE! You've given arguments, legal points, and rhetoric - NONE of which is relevant to whether or not the foetus is a person.

Man,

Well you could use that argument as a defense against any belief you disagree with.

Nope. Just the beliefs with no proof to back them up.

I suppose, thats easy enough from an athesists perspective. To draw it out further, whenever we both die, I hope to be waiting for you at the other side...Elevator up or down ( only then will we really know who is right or wrong on the beliefs aspect of this, in the meantime we can hold our respective views )

Tell you what, if you're right, I'll apologise and buy the first pint. :rolleyes:

Anyone that has an abortion for that reason where the law permits it.

So you'd give the right to have an abortion to women, but only to those that use it the way you like?

There definitely is a distinction there being made between the right to life of various unborn entities( and the potential that you and I had ) where a Foetus is nurtured instead of being killed depending on whether it is wanted by it's mother or not.

You're assuming that I think a foetus has a right to life again...

In a lot of cases, thats what elective abortion boils down to, it's inconvenient , so lets kill it

Wow, that was crass.
How many cases did you examine to come to that conclusion?

Well you would be talking about non human organisms in the same fashion as potential human beings there.

Yes, I would be. If a potential human is a valued thing, then I'm committing an immoral act every time I use contraception or masturbate, because I'm destroying cells that have the capability to become a human.
:rolleyes:
As you can imagine, that's a rather difficult proposition for me to accept.

I simply apply the same rule with potential humans Vs potential whatever else.

I'd love to see how that applies in even a hypothetical situation!

From my viewpoint, I couldn't condone , giving anyone the power to kill an unborn child ( yes Child ) where the choice is specifically for an economic or social convenience reason.

Economic reasons are not trivial, you've got no evidence beyond blind faith to support your viewpoint, and your viewpoint says that 100,000 women in Ireland are guilty of first-degree murder.

Well I specifically mentioned a kid with downs syndrome or something similar.Elective abortion can allow a parent to kill their unborn child based on the fact that they may have that syndrome or something similar.
I doubt if Dr Watsons views on the subject would have been popular at the special olympics. Indeed handicapped Kids can be very loving and giving to their parents and most do have feelings.

Dr. Watson's younger son has a serious variant of an autistic disability. I think he's probably uniquely qualified to talk on the whole designer baby area as a result. And I go with his conclusion, which is that you should give the mother every option she wants - abortion, gene-line therapy, the works. After all, you'll trust her to spend twenty years or more raising the child. Why then would you not trust her to have the child's best interests at heart during pregnancy?

daveg

My own view:

I would vote no to legalising abortion. My reasons are not because I disagree with it but because I would not want it to become contraceptive as it is used (literally) in the Uk & the States. At the moment if a women finds herself pregnant she has the option to travel to the UK to have an abortion. Now I know this is not ideal but at least it makes the situation easy enough that she can go through with it if she wants to but hard enough that it will not be used as a contraceptive.

This is purely my own view. Feel free to rip it to shreds

Originally posted by Sparks

Economic reasons are not trivial, you've got no evidence beyond blind faith to support your viewpoint, and your viewpoint says that 100,000 women in Ireland are guilty of first-degree murder.

Economic reasons most certainly are trivial reasons for killing an unborn child.
Who says I have no evidence that no abortion carried out is ever for an economic reason.
I reserve the right to the same anonomity in my evidence that you have proclaimed in your discussion with TC above regarding the abortion clinic that you have experience of.
I can tell you that there are plenty of cases of Economic or social convenience being a reason why someone kills their unborn child and it is wrong, very wrong.
The law in many countries allows it, that doesn't mean I have to agree with it.

So you'd give the right to have an abortion to women, but only to those that use it the way you like?

No.
Abortion is wrong in my book, except in cases of extreme medical emergency for the mother.

After all, you'll trust her to spend twenty years or more raising the child. Why then would you not trust her to have the child's best interests at heart during pregnancy?

I would trust a mother to have the best interests of her unborn child at heart, certainly, but that doesn't include condoning the killing of it because the mother thinks it's in that unborn childs best interest not to live as She cannot look after it or, that it's upbringing would interfere with her work or social life.
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
No abortion is wrong in my book, except in cases of extreme medical emergency for the mother.

You would mean "no abortion is right", I assume, or else this statement is kinda at odds with the rest of your presented argument.

jc

bonkey

Just as a matter of interest....here's a question for anyone who would argue for the pro-choice side fo things

If we are to say that abortion (up to a certain point) is permissable, then we ultimately do so because we declare that (prior to the defined point) that the unborn is not considered Human (in the sense of being covered by Human Rights, and the laws persuant from these).

Now, if thats the case....what is the situation if someone other than the mother decides to terminate the life growing inside her. For example - if the father decided that he didn't want the responsibility....does he have the right to force a termination - with or without the mother's permission? Or, indeed, what happens in the case of physical abuse...e.g. the mother is involved as the victim in a violent crime, the end-result of which is that she is not hurt physically herself, but loses the child as a result.

In these cases, would there be any reprecussions for the taking of the life of the unborn? Or is it just the mother who can treat the unborn child's life as she wishes, while the rest of us must be bound by other rules?

jc

Originally posted by bonkey
You would mean "no abortion is right", I assume, or else this statement is kinda at odds with the rest of your presented argument.

jc

Correct, Bonkey.
I have edited my post above, putting in a full stop and a comma , so to clear up any confusion as to what I meant.
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
One day I'll have kids (hopefully). It'll be a concious choice. And I think it'd be a bloody stupid attitude to leave a system in place that hurts people now so that one day some child of mine could be hurt by it.

I find it somewhat ironic that you advocate the changing of a system to one which will somehow protect a future child from being hurt, by proposing that we give parents an increased ability to prevent many future children from being born.

That will stop them being hurt alright...they wont exist.

Of course....you weren't talking about "children" were you...you were talking about "your child".

No offence, but if your argument is about your child not getting hurt, then you're considering what is best personally rather than societally, and then advocating that society would be better off by pandering to these personal tastes.

Indeed, you are arguing that you would like to see societal law changed in order to help make your unborn child's future a bit brighter.....by denying many other unborn children the possibility of life at all.

You're being very harsh on other unborns there....but I guess they dont deserve any better cause they're not Human / a person / whatever term you wish to use for a Homo Sapien who doesn't qualify for Human Rights.....but your descendants should be protected by you because they (will) be family or something.

You are perfectly entitled to do this, but its hard to argue that its a valid reason for society to adopt your stance....but that seems to be what you're driving at.

jc

Sparks

Man,

Economic reasons most certainly are trivial reasons for killing an unborn child.

So you'd prefer to raise a child in poverty instead of aborting a fetus until the mother was financially able to raise a child?

Who says I have no evidence that no abortion carried out is ever for an economic reason.

Well, me for a start. You've presented none. Anonymity need not be a factor here, you can present statistics or quote studies.

I reserve the right to the same anonomity in my evidence that you have proclaimed in your discussion with TC above regarding the abortion clinic that you have experience of.

That's fine by me, obviously enough, just quote other sources then.

I can tell you that there are plenty of cases of Economic or social convenience being a reason why someone kills their unborn child and it is wrong, very wrong.

Can you point out the study or stastics for that?

No.
Abortion is wrong in my book, except in cases of extreme medical emergency for the mother.

Which does prompt the question "Why is it wrong?", the answer to which is presumably "Because the fetus is a person" at which point, I have to ask you to prove it.
And since brain activity doesn't show up in all areas of the brain until the latter half of the second trimester (around 18-20 weeks or so), you'll have to argue that someone with no brain activity is a concious, self-aware person.
I'd like to see how that's possible...

I would trust a mother to have the best interests of her unborn child at heart, certainly, but that doesn't include condoning the killing of it because the mother thinks it's in that unborn childs best interest not to live as She cannot look after it or, that it's upbringing would interfere with her work or social life.

You'd trust her to raise it for 10 years but not to carry it for 8 months, in other words. Does that not seem irrational to you?

Bonkey,

Now, if thats the case....what is the situation if someone other than the mother decides to terminate the life growing inside her.

It's a medical procedure carried out against the patient's wishes. We already have laws and ethics regarding that.

For example - if the father decided that he didn't want the responsibility....does he have the right to force a termination - with or without the mother's permission?

Why would one person be granted rights over the body of another?

Or, indeed, what happens in the case of physical abuse...e.g. the mother is involved as the victim in a violent crime, the end-result of which is that she is not hurt physically herself, but loses the child as a result.

Now that is an interesting ethical question. Off-hand, I'd say it would cconstitute Actual Bodily Harm. I'll need to think more about that though.

In these cases, would there be any reprecussions for the taking of the life of the unborn? Or is it just the mother who can treat the unborn child's life as she wishes, while the rest of us must be bound by other rules?

Nor repercussions? No - but I don't think there'd be repercussions for taking the life of the fetus - more for injuring the mother severly. I'd probably consider the fetus as a part of the mother. Like I said, I need to think about this one.

I find it somewhat ironic that you advocate the changing of a system to one which will somehow protect a future child from being hurt, by proposing that we give parents an increased ability to prevent many future children from being born.
That will stop them being hurt alright...they wont exist.
Of course....you weren't talking about "children" were you...you were talking about "your child".
No offence, but if your argument is about your child not getting hurt, then you're considering what is best personally rather than societally, and then advocating that society would be better off by pandering to these personal tastes.
Indeed, you are arguing that you would like to see societal law changed in order to help make your unborn child's future a bit brighter.....by denying many other unborn children the possibility of life at all.

Which is an interesting argument - but doesn't mean I'm wrong. Societal laws are generally written to provide the best future for everyone. And what's best for me in this instance does not cause damage to any other member of society. It in facts benefits members of society.
BTW, it's not seeking to protect a future child, but a future adult.

You're being very harsh on other unborns there....but I guess they dont deserve any better cause they're not Human / a person / whatever term you wish to use for a Homo Sapien who doesn't qualify for Human Rights.....but your descendants should be protected by you because they (will) be family or something.

Why does putting the rights of those we know are people over those we can prove are not cause such abhorrance to you?

You are perfectly entitled to do this, but its hard to argue that its a valid reason for society to adopt your stance....but that seems to be what you're driving at.

Well, if you deliberately frame it so that I sound like I'm advocating politically-motivated eugenics, I would imagine that yes, people would be worried. But since that's not what I'm advocating, I'd sue for slander and use that to point out what I am arguing for - which is that the rights of the mother are clear and well established whereas the fetus is not a person and as such has no more rights than your kidney or spleen does.