Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
an abortion referendum
Options
Comments
-
On the topic of pro-abortion / pro-choice
No-one seems to have a problem when label those who wish to legalise cannabis "pro-cannabis". I'm sure very few people actually believe that "pro-abortion" and "pro-cannabis" wish to force women to abort every child, or force every person to smoke a spliff; respectively.
Unless you want to call the group that wish to legalise cannabis "pro-choice" too. And if you do that, it can be expanded to any group that wishes to legalise something that is currently illegal. Want to legalise prostitution? You're pro-choice. Want to legalise stealing? Well, you're pro-choice.
Pro-choice is a confusing and vague term. Pro-abortion is similarly confusing, but at least it's not vague.
On "the cop-out"
Already, there is a point at which a person is no longer a person. This is at the point of death.
The main reason why some of us believe you're reaching for a cop-out is, quite frankly, you argue that a person is a person once they have satisfied certain criteria or if they have satisfied those criteria in the past. If the first set of criteria are enough to put a person into the group "persons" why is not satisfying them not enough to remove them from that group?
Furthermore, you also argue that self-awareness defines personhood*. It appears that children do not exhibit self-awareness until many months into their lives. All of your arguments claim that these are not persons (don't fall back on "well legally there are" because legally a foetus is also a person, though you claim otherwise). Should killing a 2-day old baby be considered murder or property damage?
* Well, you do and you don't. I could drudge up quotes on request.
Eh, WTF?
Eh, wtf? Abortion is in the child's best interests?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?
Very few people believe that the disabled are better of not being born. And yet you give this choice to the mother of the child?
I'm not talking about the choice to abort a child. I'm talking about deciding that the child would be better off dead. That's far beyond human knowledge.
Nothing about a pregnant woman qualifies her to be capable of making this decision.
Edit: Fixed typo.0 -
This is new. We can prove a foetus is not a person?Originally posted by Sparks
Why does putting the rights of those we know are people over those we can prove are not cause such abhorrance to you?
Present your proof.0 -
well considering, I think that elective abortion, save in extreme medical urgency equates to Murder, then the answer to your question is obvious.Originally posted by Sparks
Man,
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?
Regarding poverty, there are options other than what I consider to be murder you know.
I can do exactly as you did yourself and point out that I have came across personally, cases where Economic or Social convenience excuses have been used as reasons for abortion.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.
Can you point out the study or stastics for that?
In more than one experience,the person who had the abortion, regretted the experience totally.
As you know , when you kill the unborn, theres no going back.
My point from the start on this aspect, is that it is possible to kill the unborn for that reason, and in my opinion it shouldn't be.
And you'll have to argue that every single, unborn is not capable of reaching the state of being that you and I have reached.you'll have to argue that someone with no brain activity is a concious, self-aware person.
Thats where , you and I will reach an impasse.
I think it's unfair and wrong to give anyone the right to choose which unborn can reach their potential and which cannot.
You don't share that view and that is your right.
I trust her with her unborn Child, untill the decision to abort for Economic or social convenience reasons is taken.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?
To abort for those reasons , as I've said already equates to Murder in my book.
mm0 -
Actually, a dolphin will actually never develop that criteria, it’s evolutionary descendants may in a few million years, the dolphin will not. And that’s independent of the fact that it’s not of our species (a point that you debatably do not consider important) - so it’s not difficult to show that your point hold no water.Originally posted by Sparks
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?
It’s also an intrinsic property of the foetus that it will become aware - This is another one of those caveats you seem to require to let your argument work.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.
The manner in which such a defect takes place is completely immaterial (a natural genetic defect as an adult could do something similar) - although you appear to now be adding it to your now lengthening list of caveats - regardless of how it became so deformed, or even whether it would be a kindness to terminate such a person, it does not change that they are people.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).
Actually, you really should be pressed to list out you various exceptions and caveats and to stick to them.
Of course not - any more than I would offer you the same.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?
I didn’t say it was. I said that I would not consider you to be non-directive.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 would have to agree to a degree with JustHalf. The terms like pro-Choice or pro-Life are just propaganda - spin, if you will. It simply is not politik to be either pro or anti abortion.
Nonetheless, your definition of the status of the foetus is so extreme that it could potently be applied to post-natal termination (unless you’re going to slip in a few more caveats). As such, given your position, it is difficult to consider when you would ever council against abortion - such cases would appear to be few and far between in your eyes. Such a position could not be called non-directive, not least of all because your obsession with labels and sides (at least your obsession with knowing my side) would seem to indicate ideological motivation.
Sure it’s not fanaticism. Nice rant, btw. :rolleyes: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.
It does if it clouds your reason - passion tends to.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.
Emotive propaganda. And you accused me of rhetoric?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.
You base your definition of humanity on two principle criteria - sentience and viability. Opinion on such criteria are not absolute but have been debated within the scientific and medical community for decades.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.
Even if one accepts your criteria (given it ignores other possible criteria, such as even the basic one of same species), what is believed to be foetal self-awareness (or perhaps more correctly awareness to it’s environment) has been observed at fairly early ages of development. Additionally, were one to apply a more strict definition of self-awareness, we would have to rule out post-natal infants from being self-aware.
Additionally, with the help of incubators, many premature babies that could legally be aborted in many States, survive - casting some doubt on your viability criteria.
Ultimately, you have adopted a set of criteria that are not accepted by scientific and medical community, but are still a matter for debate, as fact.
And even if it was accepted scientific opinion, historically this opinion has argued that many Homo sapiens were not human. Possibly the most recent reversal was the Australian aborigine, who was not classified as human and was even covered by the Australian department of Flora and Fauna as late as 1960. Hence you base your definition of humanity, of personhood, on a definition that may be no more accurate than any of the accepted scientific definitions that have come in the past. Or are you sure we would have it right this time?
So if then your criteria cannot be classified as reliable, and both history and the scientific and medical community would appear to suggest this, then is it appropriate to terminate ‘something’ that may well be a ‘someone’? From a humanistic perspective, such an act is illogical - the assumption that one gives human life the benefit of the doubt, even if it is not fully proven, is one of it’s cornerstones.
One of the fundamental differences of opinion and philosophies that there exists is that you will not ascribe humanity unless it is proven, while others will not negate the same humanity unless it is disproven. As I’ve said before, that can be an acceptable philosophy, but at least be honest and don’t claim that you’re a humanist.
Finally, add to this, your need to place caveats at every twist and turn on your criteria, to allow them to work - it does not take long before one raises an eyebrow and wonder if you’re not just making this up as you’re going along, so as to justify a predetermined position.
In fairness, I doubt that any of the above will make a blind sight of difference to what you believe - but that would have nothing to do with either reason or evidence.0 -
The Corinthian,
That implies that you have definitive proof that dolphins are not self-aware TC. I can think of a few marine biologists that would love for you to share that proof with them...Actually, a dolphin will actually never develop that criteria, it’s evolutionary descendants may in a few million years, the dolphin will not.
Except that you required some proof to do that, and you haven't shown it. We know dolphins have a complex set of vocalisations. Some argue that the level of complexity suggests language. And if they are correct, it could be an indicator of self-awareness.And that’s independent of the fact that it’s not of our species (a point that you debatably do not consider important) - so it’s not difficult to show that your point hold no water.
No, it's not. It will become aware if carried to term. But a fetus on it's own is not viable and thus will die. So if the mother chooses to allow it, a fetus can (assuming no miscarriages or other problems) become a person. But that's an external factor, not an intrinsic property.It’s also an intrinsic property of the foetus that it will become aware - This is another one of those caveats you seem to require to let your argument work.The manner in which such a defect takes place is completely immaterial (a natural genetic defect as an adult could do something similar) - although you appear to now be adding it to your now lengthening list of caveats - regardless of how it became so deformed, or even whether it would be a kindness to terminate such a person, it does not change that they are people.
TC, I gave the example to point out that being a member of a species did not make you a person. I'd like you to now please explain how an organism with no brain past the brain stem (ie. no cortex) can be self-aware, or a person.
TC, I've stated and restated my position as clearly as I honestly can, with no subterfuge involved. You, on the other hand, seem to delight in sophistric attacks on individual statements I make while advancing no underlying point of your own.Actually, you really should be pressed to list out you various exceptions and caveats and to stick to them.
So how about you lay off the accusations of underhandedness?
Okay, my mistake.I didn’t say it was.
Except that pro-Choice means exactly that - supporting the availability of abortion as a choice for the mother. Not as a mandatory course.I would have to agree to a degree with JustHalf. The terms like pro-Choice or pro-Life are just propaganda - spin, if you will. It simply is not politik to be either pro or anti abortion.
You are incorrect and you haven't been reading my earlier posts.Nonetheless, your definition of the status of the foetus is so extreme that it could potently be applied to post-natal termination (unless you’re going to slip in a few more caveats).
Again, you've not been reading my earlier posts.As such, given your position, it is difficult to consider when you would ever council against abortion
Equally nice ad hominem attack btw...Sure it’s not fanaticism. Nice rant, btw
So shall we do the handbags-at-dawn routine or will you actually argue a point rather than attack every statement independently?
It's not emotive or propaganda, it's accurate:Emotive propaganda. And you accused me of rhetoric?
Thaed earlier pointed out that there are approximately 100,000 women in Ireland today that have had elective abortions in England. If you are correct, and a fetus is a person, then they are guilty of planning and executing a murder.
That's not emotive, it's simple logic. And it's not propaganda, it's fact.
Similar reactions have been observed in the fetuses of non-sentient animals as well. You need to find a criteria that cannot be attributed to anything bar self-awareness. Now, at a stretch I'd be willing to accept the activity that shows up in the brain at the end of the second trimester (usually at 18-20 weeks). It's weak evidence, but I can't disprove it and it's not arguably a reflex action.You base your definition of humanity on two principle criteria - sentience and viability. Opinion on such criteria are not absolute but have been debated within the scientific and medical community for decades.
Even if one accepts your criteria (given it ignores other possible criteria, such as even the basic one of same species), what is believed to be foetal self-awareness (or perhaps more correctly awareness to it’s environment) has been observed at fairly early ages of development.
That might well be correct. However, post-natal infants are viable. In fact, pre-natal fetuses are viable after about 24 weeks or so.Additionally, were one to apply a more strict definition of self-awareness, we would have to rule out post-natal infants from being self-aware.
Nope. Unless you're stating that the legal system in the states is a valid argument for the morality of abortion, in contradiction to your earlier arguments.Additionally, with the help of incubators, many premature babies that could legally be aborted in many States, survive - casting some doubt on your viability criteria.
Actually, the scientific and medical community do accept that a fetus is viable after about 24 weeks and that humans don't exhibit marked self-awareness until well after birth.Ultimately, you have adopted a set of criteria that are not accepted by scientific and medical community, but are still a matter for debate, as fact.
No, it hasn't. Opinions looked at different ethnicities and argued that they were not people based on external factors (ie. what those presenting the argument thought, and which could not be measured independently).And even if it was accepted scientific opinion, historically this opinion has argued that many Homo sapiens were not human.
A fetus is not viable prior to 24 weeks. That's independent of your ideology.
A fetus does not have brain activity in all regions of the brain until around 18-20 weeks. That's independent of your ideology.
This isn't a case of looking at IQ scores from a culturally biased exam or the bumps in your skull or the like.
Except that they don't in fact suggest that...So if then your criteria cannot be classified as reliable, and both history and the scientific and medical community would appear to suggest this,
"That may well be", or "that one day may become"?then is it appropriate to terminate ‘something’ that may well be a ‘someone’?
Bollocks. Humanism has no such principle. It says that human life has intrinsic worth, as opposed to divine worth - but it is referring to the life of a person.From a humanistic perspective, such an act is illogical - the assumption that one gives human life the benefit of the doubt, even if it is not fully proven, is one of it’s cornerstones.
Thing is, I can disprove a fetus' humanity. No higher brain activity - no person. Hell, that's even used in trauma cases to decide on when to cease attempts to revive a patient.One of the fundamental differences of opinion and philosophies that there exists is that you will not ascribe humanity unless it is proven, while others will not negate the same humanity unless it is disproven.
I am being honest. And since my position agrees with that put forward by the AIH, the BHC and the other Humanist organisations, you'll need to prove that it's not a humanist philosophy.As I’ve said before, that can be an acceptable philosophy, but at least be honest and don’t claim that you’re a humanist.
I don't put caveats at every twist and turn.Finally, add to this, your need to place caveats at every twist and turn on your criteria, to allow them to work - it does not take long before one raises an eyebrow and wonder if you’re not just making this up as you’re going along, so as to justify a predetermined position.
And can you lay off with the ad hominem arguments?
Again, you're incorrect.In fairness, I doubt that any of the above will make a blind sight of difference to what you believe - but that would have nothing to do with either reason or evidence.
By the way, you got though your entire post without presenting any evidence yourself.
I'll repeat my request so.How about you give me some actual evidence and see what happens?
Man,
But you can't prove your viewpoint is correct without relying on the "because I say so" line of reasoning, so why would your opinion be valid?well considering, I think that elective abortion, save in extreme medical urgency equates to Murder, then the answer to your question is obvious.
Indeed. But those options are not yours to select from.Regarding poverty, there are options other than what I consider to be murder you know.
Nope, I don't have to. It's a proven fact. Remove a fetus from the womb before the 24th week and it's not viable.And you'll have to argue that every single, unborn is not capable of reaching the state of being that you and I have reached.
Therefore it's not intrinsicly able to reach the stage of development we reached.
And I don't think it's fair or right to deny a mother control over her own body.I think it's unfair and wrong to give anyone the right to choose which unborn can reach their potential and which cannot.
Man, that's not trust.I trust her with her unborn Child, untill the decision to abort for Economic or social convenience reasons is taken.0 -
Advertisement
-
JustHalf
For the Nth time, not only do we not see definite indications of self-awareness in humans until well after birth, we do not see full brain activity in the fetus until around the end of the second trimester. That's my proof. Without higher brain activity, you can't possibly be self-aware.This is new. We can prove a foetus is not a person?
Present your proof.
Pro-choice is still the accurate term here, and in the other scenarios you presented.No-one seems to have a problem when label those who wish to legalise cannabis "pro-cannabis". I'm sure very few people actually believe that "pro-abortion" and "pro-cannabis" wish to force women to abort every child, or force every person to smoke a spliff; respectively.
Pro-choice. Meaning to support the idea of giving the mother the choice. It's a damn sight less confusing than Pro-life, which is a term that is in fact promoting the removal of a choice (so you're actually anti-choice, rather than pro-life) and a term that implies that being opposed to it means you're anti-life, which is quite inaccurate in and of itself.Pro-choice is a confusing and vague term. Pro-abortion is similarly confusing, but at least it's not vague.
What it boils down to though, is that someone tried to sum up a complex situation into a simple term. Which is never going to give a perfect result.
Yes, but at that point, your legal status as a person remains intact - it's just that you've ceased to live. No-one took away your legal status.Already, there is a point at which a person is no longer a person. This is at the point of death.
Because humans do not regress from sentience naturally until they die. Their intelligence level can fall from injury or disease, they may have radically different cognitive responses (autistic people, for example), but they remain self-aware.The main reason why some of us believe you're reaching for a cop-out is, quite frankly, you argue that a person is a person once they have satisfied certain criteria or if they have satisfied those criteria in the past. If the first set of criteria are enough to put a person into the group "persons" why is not satisfying them not enough to remove them from that group?
Hence the viability metrestick.Furthermore, you also argue that self-awareness defines personhood*. It appears that children do not exhibit self-awareness until many months into their lives. All of your arguments claim that these are not persons (don't fall back on "well legally there are" because legally a foetus is also a person, though you claim otherwise). Should killing a 2-day old baby be considered murder or property damage?
Hell, you're not allowed to kill certain animal species and that's nothing to do with being sentient - so what makes you think that cannot apply to humans?
Watson's point was that it was better not to bring a child to term with serious dehabilitating and incurable defects or diseases. He argues that gene therapy should be used where possible. But he has stated that abortion would be preferable if that wasn't a viable prospect.Eh, wtf? Abortion is in the child's best interests?
Yes. Who's going to have to care for the child, watch it suffer and eventually watch it die? The mother. You'll notice that the pro-life proponents tend not to stick around for twenty years offering support for parents. Hence, the mother should have the choice.Very few people believe that the disabled are better of not being born. And yet you give this choice to the mother of the child?
And you're saying that bringing a fetus to term when you know the resulting child will suffer and die and that you cannot cure it, is a better choice?I'm not talking about the choice to abort a child. I'm talking about deciding that the child would be better off dead. That's far beyond human knowledge.
How come that answer isn't beyond human knowlege then?0 -
Strangely enough, you went spare when I made this argument. Which you claimed was emotive.Originally posted by Sparks
It's not emotive or propaganda, it's accurate:
Thaed earlier pointed out that there are approximately 100,000 women in Ireland today that have had elective abortions in England. If you are correct, and a fetus is a person, then they are guilty of planning and executing a murder.
That's not emotive, it's simple logic. And it's not propaganda, it's fact.
Viability and self-awareness define a person?Originally posted by Sparks
That might well be correct. However, post-natal infants are viable. In fact, pre-natal fetuses are viable after about 24 weeks or so.
-- snip --
Actually, the scientific and medical community do accept that a fetus is viable after about 24 weeks and that humans don't exhibit marked self-awareness until well after birth.
Hang on. Both of us believe that children exhibit signs of self-awareness only months after birth.
But viability is only dependent on our technology. It is forseeable that there will come a point in the future were a foetus is viable from the two week point. Are these people then? Oh no, they're not sentient. But hang on, doesn't sentience only appear several months after birth?
So either there is no moral problem with killing very young children (other than property damage) or whether or not you are a person is dependent on the technology of the day. You can't have it both ways.
Bollocks. Pro-choice similarly implies that the opponents are anti-choice in general. Moreover, pro-choice implies that the proponents are pro-choice in general.Originally posted by Sparks
Pro-choice. Meaning to support the idea of giving the mother the choice. It's a damn sight less confusing than Pro-life, which is a term that is in fact promoting the removal of a choice (so you're actually anti-choice, rather than pro-life) and a term that implies that being opposed to it means you're anti-life, which is quite inaccurate in and of itself.
Should those who support legalisation of cannabis, but not legalising abortion, call themselves pro-choice? Or must you support the legalisation of cannabis and the legalisation of abortion to be referred to as pro-choice?
This extends to the full repeal of all laws... must you support the repeal of all laws, and a dissolution of society into total anarchy, to be referred to as pro-choice?
Now who's being emotive?Originally posted by Sparks
Yes. Who's going to have to care for the child, watch it suffer and eventually watch it die? The mother. You'll notice that the pro-life proponents tend not to stick around for twenty years offering support for parents. Hence, the mother should have the choice.
I didn't say it wasn't beyond human knowledge. Humanity knows nothing about the experience of non-existence, so we can't possibly make value judgements about it.Originally posted by Sparks
And you're saying that bringing a fetus to term when you know the resulting child will suffer and die and that you cannot cure it, is a better choice?
How come that answer isn't beyond human knowlege then?0 -
Yup - 'cos you left out the if.Originally posted by JustHalf
Strangely enough, you went spare when I made this argument. which you claimed was emotive.
Nope, self-awareness defines a person.Viability and self-awareness define a person?
Viability determines right to life.
Read my earlier posts.
Correct.Bollocks. Pro-choice similarly implies that the opponents are anti-choice in general. Moreover, pro-choice implies that the proponents are pro-choice in general.
Nope, you just have to specify which choice you're supporting.Should those who support legalisation of cannabis, but not legalising abortion, call themselves pro-choice? Or must you support the legalisation of cannabis and the legalisation of abortion to be referred to as pro-choice?
And the point is verging on the assinine anyway.
As I said in the last post, "What it boils down to though, is that someone tried to sum up a complex situation into a simple term. Which is never going to give a perfect result."
Not me, I'm just pointing out the reality of the situation.Now who's being emotive?
Pain or no pain.I didn't say it wasn't beyond human knowledge. Humanity knows nothing about the experience of non-existence, so we can't possibly make value judgements about it.
Seems simple enough to me.0 -
Haven't I asked you to prove to me that every single Foetus hasn't the potential to become what you and I are, in the same way that you and I have.Originally posted by Sparks
Man,
But you can't prove your viewpoint is correct without relying on the "because I say so" line of reasoning, so why would your opinion be valid?
[/B]
Untill you can,My opinion on the matter is very valid .
Removing the foetus by abortion makes it unviable as it's been killed.Remove a fetus from the womb before the 24th week and it's not viable.Therefore it's not intrinsicly able to reach the stage of development we reached.
Leaving it there, untill it is born gives it the same chance as You or I had.
If it is miscarried at any time it has died, but it hasn't been killed( unless foul play is involved ).
If it has for some medical reason to be removed at an early stage, and dies even after medical intervention to save it, that is not abortion.
It's removing the foetus from the womb uncessarily prior to it's term in the first place that I disagree with.
So telling me that if you take it out prior to 24 weeks , that it will most likely die, does not answer my point, when it's blatantly obvious that I am arguing against taking out the unborn Child in question in the first place.
Of course it is Trust.I trust her with her unborn Child, untill the decision to abort for Economic or social convenience reasons is taken.
Man, that's not trust.
If I trust someone to look after something and they purposely destroy that something, they have ended my trust in them not the other way around.
mm0 -
First of all I don't believe anyone has the right to judge someone who decides to have an abortion, I'd rather women didn't have abortions I'd love to see adoption instead.
But I have no right to judge any womans situation or choice, I know someone who decided to have one and for her it was really the only option, I know people will disagree with that but she really couldn't have had the child.
I have to say I was impressed with the system, she had to undergo a large ammount of councelling before she was allowed to travel for the abortion.
Everyday women go to england to have this procedure why should they have to travel out of the country??0 -
Advertisement
-
Fair enough, they may will be and probably deserve the benefit of the doubt. However, they are not my species, criteria I would consider, even if you find it inconvenient.Originally posted by Sparks
That implies that you have definitive proof that dolphins are not self-aware TC. I can think of a few marine biologists that would love for you to share that proof with them...
What? What’s that got to do with it being “independent of the fact that it’s not of our species”? I’ve plenty of proof that dolphins are not my species.Except that you required some proof to do that, and you haven't shown it. We know dolphins have a complex set of vocalisations.
Without oxygen, we will die. That is an intrinsic property to our nature. Adding an infinite number of convenient caveats will not change the fact that as organisms we are all dependant at one stage or other to various environments.No, it's not. It will become aware if carried to term. But a fetus on it's own is not viable and thus will die. So if the mother chooses to allow it, a fetus can (assuming no miscarriages or other problems) become a person. But that's an external factor, not an intrinsic property.
Should we allow premature babies to die, then?
I never said they would be self-aware, only a person. Neither would a person in a coma be self-aware, but is a person in your reasoning only by virtue of your caveats.TC, I gave the example to point out that being a member of a species did not make you a person. I'd like you to now please explain how an organism with no brain past the brain stem (ie. no cortex) can be self-aware, or a person.
I’ve never accused you of being underhanded. Only blinkered and deluded as any member of the faithful - be to this World or the next - would tend to be.So how about you lay off the accusations of underhandedness?
Sure it does. While pro-Life, no doubt, is propaganda?Except that pro-Choice means exactly that - supporting the availability of abortion as a choice for the mother. Not as a mandatory course.
Well that’s put me in my place... :rolleyes:You are incorrect and you haven't been reading my earlier posts.
You said first-degree murder. If they do not consider or realize that this is the case, then it cannot be first-degree murder. That’s emotive propaganda.It's not emotive or propaganda, it's accurate:
Thaed earlier pointed out that there are approximately 100,000 women in Ireland today that have had elective abortions in England. If you are correct, and a fetus is a person, then they are guilty of planning and executing a murder.
That's not emotive, it's simple logic. And it's not propaganda, it's fact.
Hello? Species? Ironically, given all this talk of proof, I’ve not seen any satisfactory evidence to rule out that as criteria from you.Similar reactions have been observed in the fetuses of non-sentient animals as well. You need to find a criteria that cannot be attributed to anything bar self-awareness.
Try leaving a post-natal infant to his own devices for 24 hours and let’s see how viable he/she is.That might well be correct. However, post-natal infants are viable. In fact, pre-natal fetuses are viable after about 24 weeks or so.
Nation States as opposed to the USA.Nope. Unless you're stating that the legal system in the states is a valid argument for the morality of abortion, in contradiction to your earlier arguments.
No, they don’t, and they further would not agree on these as being credible criteria of humanity, which is my point. Please point to credible evidence of this consensus you speak of.Actually, the scientific and medical community do accept that a fetus is viable after about 24 weeks and that humans don't exhibit marked self-awareness until well after birth.
How you interpret traits is dependant on your ideology. Or how do you explain all those other scientific facts that classified various ethnic groups as not entirely human?No, it hasn't. Opinions looked at different ethnicities and argued that they were not people based on external factors (ie. what those presenting the argument thought, and which could not be measured independently).
A fetus is not viable prior to 24 weeks. That's independent of your ideology.
A fetus does not have brain activity in all regions of the brain until around 18-20 weeks. That's independent of your ideology.
This isn't a case of looking at IQ scores from a culturally biased exam or the bumps in your skull or the like.
And if we’re not discussing a person, they you are quite right. However, if not, they you are the one talking bollocks.Bollocks. Humanism has no such principle. It says that human life has intrinsic worth, as opposed to divine worth - but it is referring to the life of a person.
By your criteria, which given the number of caveats they require are suspect to say the least. Hell, if we all got to pick our own criteria, we’d all be right...Thing is, I can disprove a fetus' humanity. No higher brain activity - no person.
I’ve already done that. Repeatedly. Read my posts.I am being honest. And since my position agrees with that put forward by the AIH, the BHC and the other Humanist organisations, you'll need to prove that it's not a humanist philosophy.
But, in fairness, you do. No one else has. And I still think you should list them at this stage.I don't put caveats at every twist and turn.
Well if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck...And can you lay off with the ad hominem arguments?
I did. Certainly no less than you - probably more as you seem intent to accept that the onus is on others to disprove your view rather than your having to prove it.By the way, you got though your entire post without presenting any evidence yourself.0 -
And didn't I answer your question in the following post?Originally posted by Man
Haven't I asked you to prove to me that every single Foetus hasn't the potential to become what you and I are, in the same way that you and I have.
Untill you can,My opinion on the matter is very valid .
Nope. Remove the foetus by inducing delivery or whatever method you specify that does not kill the foetus and then give the foetus as much care as you wish. It won't live if you do this before the 24th week. That's not because of anything you did, it's because the fetus is not viable as a seperate entity.Removing the foetus by abortion makes it unviable as it's been killed.
Indeed. But neither you nor I have the right to demand that that be done for anyone else.Leaving it there, untill it is born gives it the same chance as You or I had.
No, it's not trusting someone to do something if you then monitor them continously and step im to stop them doing it in a way you disagree with.Of course it is Trust.0 -
Not inconvienent, irrelevant.Originally posted by The Corinthian
Fair enough, they may will be and probably deserve the benefit of the doubt. However, they are not my species, criteria I would consider, even if you find it inconvenient.
And none that they're not self-aware.What? What’s that got to do with it being “independent of the fact that it’s not of our species”? I’ve plenty of proof that dolphins are not my species.
Except that oxygen is a part of our environment. And we survive with it. A fetus will not survive, even if provided with pure oxygen.Without oxygen, we will die. That is an intrinsic property to our nature. Adding an infinite number of convenient caveats will not change the fact that as organisms we are all dependant at one stage or other to various environments.
Pre-answered several posts back.Should we allow premature babies to die, then?
So you need not be self-aware to be a person?I never said they would be self-aware, only a person.
Well, my coffee table isn't self-aware, should I ask it it's name?
:rolleyes:
You are incorrect. There is no evidence to suggest that a person in a coma is not self-aware, any more than there is to suggest that a person who is sleeping is not self-aware. As shown by people who recover from comas without ill-effect.Neither would a person in a coma be self-aware, but is a person in your reasoning only by virtue of your caveats.
On the contrary, you have accused me of introducing a caveats at "every twist and turn", of using "emotive propaganda" and several other methods of supporting a position that I simply have not used.I’ve never accused you of being underhanded. Only blinkered and deluded as any member of the faithful - be to this World or the next - would tend to be.
Answered in my reply to Justhalf.Sure it does. While pro-Life, no doubt, is propaganda?
But in short, yes.
It's true though. You keep asking questions my earlier posts have answered.Well that’s put me in my place... :rolleyes:
They knew they were killing the fetus. They planned to kill the fetus. They carried out the killing of the fetus.You said first-degree murder. If they do not consider or realize that this is the case, then it cannot be first-degree murder. That’s emotive propaganda.
Now if the fetus is accepted to be a person, that act becomes murder.
That's not emotive.
I've given it earlier. You can be a member of homo sapiens and yet not have any higher brain structures, and therefore not be a person.Hello? Species? Ironically, given all this talk of proof, I’ve not seen any satisfactory evidence to rule out that as criteria from you.
Where? On the side of a mountain or in a cot? I don't recall my parents ever having to breathe for me as an infant (understandably, since memories are not formed until the infant is several months old at least) or for them having to do so for either of my younger siblings. In fact, most post-natal infants happily live without needing medical supervision. And since being on the side of a mountain for 24 hours has killed adult humans, it's not really a valid test, is it?Try leaving a post-natal infant to his own devices for 24 hours and let’s see how viable he/she is.
Yes, you earlier argued that the legal system of a nation state was not a valid piece of evidence in deciding a moral question, and then you did an about-face and brought in a specific nation state's legal system to defend your position.Nation States as opposed to the USA.
24 weeks -No, they don’t, and they further would not agree on these as being credible criteria of humanity, which is my point. Please point to credible evidence of this consensus you speak of.
self-awareness after birth -
Dying because of an inability to live is a pretty non-ideological resut, wouldn't you say?How you interpret traits is dependant on your ideology.
List them off TC. What facts are you referring to?Or how do you explain all those other scientific facts that classified various ethnic groups as not entirely human?
Yup.And if we’re not discussing a person, they you are quite right. However, if not, they you are the one talking bollocks.
Thing is, a fetus is not a person.
Again with the ad hominem.By your criteria, which given the number of caveats they require are suspect to say the least. Hell, if we all got to pick our own criteria, we’d all be right...
I have. You just haven't proven it. You've given no evidence past debate, cited no references and stated no position. Yet you claim to know what is a humanist postion with greater credibility than the major humanist organisations in the world today.I’ve already done that. Repeatedly. Read my posts.
*sigh*But, in fairness, you do. No one else has. And I still think you should list them at this stage.
Fine. I'll finish this response and then go back and dig the quotes out of the thread and post them in the next post.
Then it's an ad hominem attack?Well if it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck...
Yes, which is why I asked you to lay off it.
No, you didn't. You said :I did.
"It’s also an intrinsic property of the foetus that it will become aware"
Which I showed was wrong.
"what is believed to be foetal self-awareness"
Which is incorrect, as it's reflex behaviour also seen in the fetuses of non-sentient animals.
" Additionally, were one to apply a more strict definition of self-awareness, we would have to rule out post-natal infants from being self-aware."
Which is completely correct, and totally consistent with what I've been saying.
"Additionally, with the help of incubators, many premature babies that could legally be aborted in many States, survive - casting some doubt on your viability criteria."
Incorrect in that it does not cast doubt on the viability criteria. The criteria, recall, determines the right to life - there's no rule that says you can't try to maintain an unviable fetus. It's just that you'll most likely fail.
It's also incorrect in that it's exceptionally unlikely that a fetus younger than 24 weeks will survive, regardless of the degree of care provided. I'd want to see the actual cases of a fetus younger than that in the New England Journal before crediting them.
And yes, you can legally abort a 25-week-old fetus in the US - but you can't in the UK.
In short TC, not once have you provided evidence to counter my argument. Not one study showing full brain activity in the fetus at 5 or 6 weeks. Not one study showing that a 12-week fetus can survive with medical care. Not one study showing that a human without higher brain structures exhibits any signs of self-awareness. Nothing.
Since I'm the only one I see here with independently verifiable evidence, I'd have to say that that's the way the onus should go.you seem intent to accept that the onus is on others to disprove your view rather than your having to prove it.0 -
Nope.Originally posted by Sparks
Yup - 'cos you left out the if.
So a non-person can have a right to life?Originally posted by Sparks
Nope, self-awareness defines a person.
Viability determines right to life.
Read my earlier posts.
Thanks for ignoring the points that inconvenience your argument.Originally posted by Sparks
Correct.
Then what's the problem with pro-abortion? The term "pro-choice" has all the problems of the term "pro-abortion", but does not have its vagueness.Originally posted by Sparks
Nope, you just have to specify which choice you're supporting.
And the point is verging on the assinine anyway.
As I said in the last post, "What it boils down to though, is that someone tried to sum up a complex situation into a simple term. Which is never going to give a perfect result."
Very simple. Since, in our lives, we all experience pain, it is better that we never lived at all.Originally posted by Sparks
Pain or no pain.
Seems simple enough to me.0 -
Sparks, you ignored this:Originally posted by JustHalf
Viability and self-awareness define a person?
Hang on. Both of us believe that children exhibit signs of self-awareness only months after birth.
But viability is only dependent on our technology. It is forseeable that there will come a point in the future were a foetus is viable from the two week point. Are these people then? Oh no, they're not sentient. But hang on, doesn't sentience only appear several months after birth?
So either there is no moral problem with killing very young children (other than property damage) or whether or not you are a person is dependent on the technology of the day. You can't have it both ways.0 -
But what you describe, would obviously be done , through medical necessity as no Mother in their right mind who was expecting a Baby and wanted it to live would opt for what you describe for any other reason.Originally posted by Sparks
Nope. Remove the foetus by inducing delivery or whatever method you specify that does not kill the foetus and then give the foetus as much care as you wish. It won't live if you do this before the 24th week. That's not because of anything you did, it's because the fetus is not viable as a seperate entity.
so therefore you are still avoiding the question I posed, which is can you show that every single foetus does not have the same opportunity as you or I had if it is not purposely removed from the womb via abortion.
after all inducing Births due to medical necessity is a medical issue, and not abortion.
Elective abortion on the other hand is allowing a choice as to which unborn Child goes on to reach the potential that you or I had and which does not.
Well as I said at the outset, I'm not going to impose my moral values on anyone else, I'll just explain them.Indeed. But neither you nor I have the right to demand that that be done for anyone else.
As you know the law , save in very strict circumstances does impose the demand you talk of, on medical. practioners who operate in the Republic of Ireland.
Eh, ???No, it's not trusting someone to do something if you then monitor them continously and step im to stop them doing it in a way you disagree with.
You are saying I can trust someone to do a job, when they clearly do the opposite to the job I've asked them to do in the first place.
I've been around a long time and it's the first time I've had someone try to tell me that.
I wouldn't include abortion in the list of procedures to be applied to a healthy unborn Child whose Mother I might be trusting to look after it.
mm0 -
Okay TC, here you are. Please point out the inconsistencies, caveats, and other changes of my position.
'Cos I can't see any in there.
page 1:Prove it doesn't? Sure.
In the entire history of medicine, noone has ever been able to identify a physical part of the body that they could call a soul. Not in a foetus, not in a fully-grown adult.
They have however, been able to show that the neocortex is where we do the bulk of our higher level thinking - the stuff that seperates us from what we consider lower forms of life. And that the electrical activity in the neocortex that is associated with that thinking does not arise until some time after birth.Because you can't exist outside the womb?
Once the foetus is capable of survival on it's own, then yes, it has a right to life.
Not before - before that, the only rights are those of the mother.
page 2:
Yes, because they're suffering from an illness, not an inherent and intrinsic condition.Should a person who requires a medicine or a respirator to survive have a right to live?The point was that once legal standing as a person is granted, it can't be revoked under any legal system I've ever heard of.An inherited illness (by which I mean a geneticly passed-on disease, not one passed on through infection from the mother) is a condition. For example, the congenital heart defect commonly referred to as a "hole in the heart". That's a genetic defect, it is a condition but (and this is the important bit), it does not affect your legal right to life by my definition, because if it's serious enough to prevent you from being able to live outside the womb, odds are that you're not going to be curable, and if it's not serious enough, then by my definition, you do have a right to life.
page 4:
By psychological criteria - self-awareness to be specific.What other criteria do you define a person by?
Indeed. However, you don't abort neonatesCertainly, even neonates, aren't self concious, for anytime up to being 9-12 months old, post birth.
And there's no reason a neonate can't have seperate protection under the law. Once it's able to exist on it's own, I'm quite happy to see it granted the legal right to life."Can exist on it's own" means "Can exist on it's own". Exist being the operative word. In other words, seperated from the environment of the womb, the foetus is sufficently developed that it will not die as a sole result of being seperated from the womb. In other words, it's lungs work, it's digestive system is formed, etc, etc.The ability to survive as a seperate entity from the mother. That's my personal metrestick, because at that point delivery and abortion are of equal cost to the mother. At that point, the zygote becomes a potential human (in my eyes at least). From that point on, I don't think that abortion ought to be considered unless medically necessary, since a delivery is an equally viable solution.A radically premature baby in an incubator will survive if given basic care - environmental protection, food, water. A zygote cannot survive as a seperate entity, no matter what care it receives.I don't dictate anything Typedef. A zygote, removed from the mother, cannot, no matter how much care it receives, survive. I didn't make that up, it's a fact of nature. There's no debating here over whether or not the zygote might be the next hitler or the next Bach, it's just a fact of life.Typedef, until you prove otherwise, a zygote is not concious. Not self-aware. And not a person.
page 6 :JustHalf,
I never argued that the conferral of the legal status of person should take place at conception. And several legal systems agree with that.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.Who says that the right to life has to be tied to self-awareness instead of self-sustainability?
I'm arguing (and have been consistently), that the foetus shouldn't have any legal rights until it is capable of existing outside the womb - after that, it ought to be given the right to life. But that doesn't require it to be a person. After all, a child is a person, but we don't demand income tax from it, do we? And we rule it an offence to torture animals and demand they be treated ethicly, but we don't recognise them as people, do we?
The two issues (the right to life and the legal (and moral) status of person) are seperate ones and need have no connection.
page 7:
Because it's not self-aware.Why is it not a person?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.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.
page 8: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.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).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...No, it's not. It will become aware if carried to term. But a fetus on it's own is not viable and thus will die. So if the mother chooses to allow it, a fetus can (assuming no miscarriages or other problems) become a person. But that's an external factor, not an intrinsic property.TC, I gave the example to point out that being a member of a species did not make you a person. I'd like you to now please explain how an organism with no brain past the brain stem (ie. no cortex) can be self-aware, or a person.Similar reactions have been observed in the fetuses of non-sentient animals as well. You need to find a criteria that cannot be attributed to anything bar self-awareness. Now, at a stretch I'd be willing to accept the activity that shows up in the brain at the end of the second trimester (usually at 18-20 weeks). It's weak evidence, but I can't disprove it and it's not arguably a reflex action.That might well be correct. However, post-natal infants are viable. In fact, pre-natal fetuses are viable after about 24 weeks or so.Opinions looked at different ethnicities and argued that they were not people based on external factors (ie. what those presenting the argument thought, and which could not be measured independently).
A fetus is not viable prior to 24 weeks. That's independent of your ideology.
A fetus does not have brain activity in all regions of the brain until around 18-20 weeks. That's independent of your ideology.
This isn't a case of looking at IQ scores from a culturally biased exam or the bumps in your skull or the like.Thing is, I can disprove a fetus' humanity. No higher brain activity - no person. Hell, that's even used in trauma cases to decide on when to cease attempts to revive a patient.For the Nth time, not only do we not see definite indications of self-awareness in humans until well after birth, we do not see full brain activity in the fetus until around the end of the second trimester. That's my proof. Without higher brain activity, you can't possibly be self-aware.Nope, self-awareness defines a person.
Viability determines right to life.
Read my earlier posts.0 -
Originally posted by Sparks
Viability determines right to life.
Then, it's your contention that, a person who is on a life support machine, has no right to life, since that person is not "viable", or is viability only a term you bandy about, to support your abortion arguments?Typedef, until you prove otherwise, a zygote is not concious. Not self-aware. And not a person.
Yet, still, it is illegal to terminate the life of a human, who is in a state of coma and is not self aware.
A person in a coma is similarly dependant on others to survive and so fails your viability criteria.
Indeed the coma patient has a 'potential' to be self aware (assuming no neurological damage) as does the zygote.
So tell me know, why you propose, it should be legal to kill a zygote and not legal to kill a coma patient.
I don't see a wide range of difference in your (a) viability argument or (b) your self awareness argument or (c) your argument on the potential for self awareness.
I think that the abortion argument, is simply an abuse, perpitrated by one agrieved section of society on another, namely women onto unborn children.
The so called right to abort has been predicated on the war cry of radical feminists, yet, on examination, the so called 'right' to abort, requires the 'right' of life an unborn child, perhaps the most important human right, to come second place.
Again, for me, this issue boils down to a human rights issue, not a sufferage issue.
Admitadely as a man, perhaps my opinon counts less, but, then again, it is one of my human rights, to hold that opinion and vote according to my opinions, irrespective of what another person thinks.
Again and again you hear of women who can't access abortion clinics performing self - abortion, but, how, does such a practice diminish the fact that I, think a zygote has a right to have (it's own life) irrespective of the wishes of it's gestational vechicle?
The answer is, it doesn't, not for me.
Don't get me wrong, I feel for women who have unwanted pregnancies, I empathise, I think the state should provide every facility for those women, to be rid of a child they don't want to have as, soon as is possible.
What I don't accept is that (a) a woman is forced to raise a child, she can't abort, since the child a a right to life, (b) I don't accept that because it might be hard for a woman to give an unwanted child up for adoption or to a State run orphanage, that, such a thing is reason enough to deny the right of life to somebody else and (c) I don't accept that it is a symptom of male oppression or religious impositon that a right to be alive is a fundamental human right.
You may bark all day about how a zygote is not human and I won't argue a semantic toss on that issue, what I will say is that a zygote, is simply a state of human development and I don't support the convienent ascription of human rights, to allow the strong (in this case women) have access to freedoms at the expense of the weak (in this case the unborn) since that is immoral and inconsistent with my general philosophy of equality for all humans.
Equality means debt relief, equality means removal of the glass ceiling for women, equality means gay marriage and yes equality means that the unborn has a right to be alive.
To quote a great hippie philosopher.
"Hey ... don't stand on me man".0 -
Nope, you edited your post adding it. I then replied afterwards.Originally posted by JustHalf
Sparks, you ignored this:0 -
Bugger. LEft out the references relating to fetal viability and the development of self-awareness in my reply to TC.
Here you go:
http://www.abortioninfo.net/facts/development4.shtml
http://www.ppacca.org/issues/read.asp?ID=44
http://www.biol.tsukuba.ac.jp/~macer/sg/SG5.html
http://www.brain-mind.com/FetalBrainDevelopment.html
(the last two are especially informative I thought)0 -
Advertisement
-
Hmm. I thought I just deleted a typo here and there. But, I'm not certain, so never mind.Originally posted by Sparks
Nope, you edited your post adding it. I then replied afterwards.
Regardless, I don't see where you replied to it.
Edit: Looks like you just replied to the FIRST LINE of the argument, ignoring the points that cast doubt on your answer to the question posed. Can you deal with those points please?0 -
Man, I'm saying that the fetus is not viable. Not that a mother should be compelled to undergo that procedure against her wishes.Originally posted by Man
But what you describe, would obviously be done , through medical necessity as no Mother in their right mind who was expecting a Baby and wanted it to live would opt for what you describe for any other reason.
Nope, I've answered that. To repeat: you are correct. If the mother chooses to support it, the fetus can become a fully adult human. But not if the mother does not support it.so therefore you are still avoiding the question I posed, which is can you show that every single foetus does not have the same opportunity as you or I had if it is not purposely removed from the womb via abortion.
And that means that the fetus has extrinsic value, not intrinsic value.
After all, by your logic, every sperm is sacred...
I'm saying that you either trust the mother to do what's in a future child's best interests or you don't. And if you don't, how can you allow her to become a mother?You are saying I can trust someone to do a job, when they clearly do the opposite to the job I've asked them to do in the first place.0 -
You need to re-read that post above listing my arguments.Originally posted by Typedef
Then, it's your contention that, a person who is on a life support machine, has no right to life, since that person is not "viable", or is viability only a term you bandy about, to support your abortion arguments?
An accident putting you on life support is not an intrinsic condition of being an adult human.
Not being able to survive because your lungs haven't formed is an intrinsic property of being a fetus.
Ergo, an adult human on life support has a right to life - a fetus doesn't.0 -
The State (and society in general) doesn't have absolute trust in a mother (in fact, either parent) to always act in the child's best interests. That's why we have a Social Welfare system. That's why children can be taken away from their parents.Originally posted by Sparks
I'm saying that you either trust the mother to do what's in a future child's best interests or you don't. And if you don't, how can you allow her to become a mother?0 -
Sparks, here we go. Please deal with the points below
Viability and self-awareness define a person?
Hang on. Both of us believe that children exhibit signs of self-awareness only months after birth.
But viability is only dependent on our technology. It is forseeable that there will come a point in the future were a foetus is viable from the two week point. Are these people then? Oh no, they're not sentient. But hang on, doesn't sentience only appear several months after birth?
So either there is no moral problem with killing very young children (other than property damage) or whether or not you are a person is dependent on the technology of the day. You can't have it both ways.0 -
Non-people do have a right to life at present.Originally posted by JustHalf
So a non-person can have a right to life?
What points? You said:Thanks for ignoring the points that inconvenience your argument.
"Pro-choice similarly implies that the opponents are anti-choice in general. Moreover, pro-choice implies that the proponents are pro-choice in general."
That's a correct statement. Opponents of the pro-choice proponents are anti-choice in general and pro-choice proponents are pro-choice in general.
"pro-abortion" implies that you don't think any option other than abortion is worthwhile. Which isn't true.Then what's the problem with pro-abortion? The term "pro-choice" has all the problems of the term "pro-abortion", but does not have its vagueness.
There's a difference between an incurable disease that causes a constant state of pain until it kills you, and teenage angst.Very simple. Since, in our lives, we all experience pain, it is better that we never lived at all.The State (and society in general) doesn't have absolute trust in a mother (in fact, either parent) to always act in the child's best interests. That's why we have a Social Welfare system. That's why children can be taken away from their parents.
I hit quote on your first post and didn't see the last paragraph. *shrug*Hmm. I thought I just deleted a typo here and there. But, I'm not certain, so never mind.Edit: Looks like you just replied to the FIRST LINE of the argument, ignoring the points that cast doubt on your answer to the question posed. Can you deal with those points please?
Why? The first line was incorrect and your following arguments were dependent on it being correct.0 -
Originally posted by Sparks
You need to re-read that post above listing my arguments.
Great answer, not.An accident putting you on life support is not an intrinsic condition of being an adult human.
How is being a developmental zygote, not a so called "intrinsic condition" of human adulthood or more to the point, if being a zygote is not an "intrinsic condition" of human development (of life as a human) then when does one reach this so-called mecca of equal rights 'instrinsic adulthood', 1 month old, anytime it's impossible to survive outside an incubator (not a normal state of human being, barring accident incidentally), 18 years old?
I think that your ascription of humanity is servile to a basic desire to allow abortion and that is why your definition of when and where to ascribe human rights is so malleable and difficult to pin down and hidden behind non descriptive catch phrases like 'intrinsic condition of adulthood'.Not being able to survive because your lungs haven't formed is an intrinsic property of being a fetus.
Ergo, an adult human on life support has a right to life - a fetus doesn't.
Again, why must one have lungs, to have a right to life?
What you've just said implies that if you are born without lungs or kidneys, or any form of defect that you don't have a right to treatment for that condition.
By your criteria, if your kidneys fail, then hey... that's your problem, since it's a stage of your development and you have 'no right' to a transplant, if available.
That's real generous of you Sparks.Non-people do have a right to life at present.
Non people hmm?
At different stages of civilisation, many groups of what are genetically speaking full members of the hominid strain Homo Sapiens where considered not to be human, due to sex, ethnicity, religion, skin colour or socio-political beliefs.
I would be very careful in what I define as a non-person and who has no right to life if I were you.
Many despotic regiemes have rationalised basic hatred of one ethnic group and the diminution of that group's rights based on the propaganda that such people were 'not human' aka non-people.
Who is to say that such an ascritpion, is not being used here, such that the goal (abortion) can be realised at the expense of a weak group in society, the unborn?
In fact, that's exactly what I'm saying.
You say that unborn foetuses are not human, whilst I say, that, such an ascription of humanity is simply an arbitrary label that is being proposed by you, because, it suits your base case, namely a desire to see abortion on demand.
Feel free to refute this contention.0 -
The first line was a yes or no question. How can a yes or no question be either correct or incorrect?Originally posted by Sparks
Why? The first line was incorrect and your following arguments were dependent on it being correct.
If you meant the second line; well, the pointI make is something we both agree on, unless you now disagree with this:Originally posted by Sparks
All that has been proven is that neonates don't exhibit self-awareness.
As you have made this point more than once, I don't think that's likely. It's possible you don't understand the meaning of neonates, but I don't think that's likely either.
The rest of the quoted section attacks one of your arguments. You just ignore this. This is the kind of thing TC was referring to as "selective hearing".0 -
Typedef, I just spent twenty minutes hauling out every instance of me putting forward my views on this from all nine pages of this discussion and posted it here. And your question was answered in it. So it was a reasonable answer, if not a great one.Originally posted by Typedef
Great answer, not.
Well, for a start, a zygote is not differentiated. An adult is.How is being a developmental zygote, not a so called "intrinsic condition" of human adulthood
Then there's the size difference, the lack of any organs, and so on.
In short, being a zygote is mutually exculsive with being an adult human - and therefore being a zygote cannot be an intrinsic condition for an adult human.
Answered above in detail. And then summarised in the post above.or more to the point, if being a zygote is not an "intrinsic condition" of human development (of life as a human) then when does one reach this so-called mecca of equal rights 'instrinsic adulthood', 1 month old, anytime it's impossible to survive outside an incubator (not a normal state of human being, barring accident incidentally), 18 years old?
Nope.I think that your ascription of humanity is servile to a basic desire to allow abortion and that is why your definition of when and where to ascribe human rights is so malleable and difficult to pin down and hidden behind non descriptive catch phrases like 'intrinsic condition of adulthood'.
There's no proof that a fetus has higher brain activity at all till the end of the second trimester. Therefore it cannot be self-aware prior to that. Therefore it's not a person.
Because without them you're not a viable seperate entity. And how can you have a right to life if you're not a viable seperate entity?Again, why must one have lungs, to have a right to life?
Correct. But since when have you needed a right to something to be given it?What you've just said implies that if you are born without lungs or kidneys, or any form of defect that you don't have a right to treatment for that condition.
Incorrect. You have a right to treatment because you're a person.By your criteria, if your kidneys fail, then hey... that's your problem, since it's a stage of your development and you have 'no right' to a transplant, if available.That's real generous of you Sparks.
Yeah, we call them protected species. Like bald eagles in the states, pandas in china and so on. They're not people, but their right to life is protected. You're not allowed to kill them.Non people hmm?
I have been. I seem to be getting flack from that because I came to what people seem to be regarding as the wrong answer.I would be very careful in what I define as a non-person and who has no right to life if I were you.
Well, tough. My answer has supporting evidence, is logical and self-consistent. As such it's perfectly valid and correct.
Not any one person, but independent facts, measured by several different people. You might want to read those links I referenced above.Who is to say that such an ascritpion, is not being used here, such that the goal (abortion) can be realised at the expense of a weak group in society, the unborn?
I already have, above.You say that unborn foetuses are not human, whilst I say, that, such an ascription of humanity is simply an arbitrary label that is being proposed by you, because, it suits your base case, namely a desire to see abortion on demand.
Feel free to refute this contention.0 -
Advertisement
-
First a side note, I'm having to touchtype continously here to keep up with the multiple posters replying, so I'm replying to individual posts. Bear with me...
The question was: do you need to be viable and self-aware to have a right to life. The answer was no, because the right to life is a seperate issue to the "are you a person" issue, which is decided by self-awareness.Originally posted by JustHalf
The first line was a yes or no question. How can a yes or no question be either correct or incorrect?
As a result of that seperation, your further statements were incorrect. You said:
Given that the inherent assumption in those paragraphs is that a viable fetus is a person (it's not), they're fundamentally flawed and thus incorrect.Viability and self-awareness define a person?
Hang on. Both of us believe that children exhibit signs of self-awareness only months after birth.
But viability is only dependent on our technology. It is forseeable that there will come a point in the future were a foetus is viable from the two week point. Are these people then? Oh no, they're not sentient. But hang on, doesn't sentience only appear several months after birth?
So either there is no moral problem with killing very young children (other than property damage) or whether or not you are a person is dependent on the technology of the day. You can't have it both ways.
Nope, that was the meaning that that word held for me.As you have made this point more than once, I don't think that's likely. It's possible you don't understand the meaning of neonates, but I don't think that's likely either.
Neonates are not self-aware. As such they're not people. They are however, viable and as such have a right to life. As I've said before.
Yes, I know - and that's the fustrating thing. I didn't respond because I'd shown that those statements were fundamentally flawed, yet you assume I'm just ignoring them. But I'm not - I've just shown that they're wrong.The rest of the quoted section attacks one of your arguments. You just ignore this. This is the kind of thing TC was referring to as "selective hearing".
Clearer now?0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement