an abortion referendum

Typedef

quote:Again, why must one have lungs, to have a right to life?

Originally posted by Sparks
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?

Gotcha.

Sparks, you just said that a child born without lungs, doesn't have a right to life.
But, since it has brain activity, doesn't that make it a person?

Thus, you are contending that physical disability is grounds for the denial of a right to life.

I contend, you don't "have" to take care of such a child, but, it does, have a right to be alive.

Also, since I don't accept the seperate entity argument, I similarly don't accept the correlation between one born with physical disability, or being equally unindependant of one's gestation vechicle (the mother) is suitable grounds for a denial of the basic inalienable human right to be alive.

Wait

[point 1]
Me
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.


You
Correct. But since when have you needed a right to something to be given it?
[/point 1]

[point 2]
Me
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.

You
Incorrect. You have a right to treatment because you're a person.
[/point 2]

Point one implies not point 2.
You're not making sense.

You're saying a child born without lungs is not a person. When earlier on you said that a coma patient is a person by virtue of that fact that said person was 'once' concious, but, since a child with no lungs has more brain activity.... doesn't that make it, more of a person... by your stated criteria?

Sparks

Originally posted by Typedef
Sparks, you just said that a child born without lungs, doesn't have a right to life.
But, since it has brain activity, doesn't that make it a person?

Not quite.
As I said earlier on page 7 and then reposted on page 9 in that summary post:
"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."

In other words, the brain activity you see in the fetus is a gray area. Put it this way - I'd feel uncomfortable about it, because I wouldn't know with 100% certainty.

Thus, you are contending that physical disability is grounds for the denial of a right to life.

Physical disability? Not having lungs is a terminal condition, not a disability.

Also, since I don't accept the seperate entity argument, I similarly don't accept the correlation between one born with physical disability, or being equally unindependant of one's gestation vechicle (the mother) is suitable grounds for a denial of the basic inalienable human right to be alive.

Then I think we're strongly disagreeing over an impossible situation. (Last time I looked, a baby born without lungs was usually stillborn anyway).

As an aside, you do realise you're arguing out of context, yes?
The origin of this thread was that a fetus was not viable when young because it's lungs hadn't yet formed, not a birth defect that causes a terminal condition:

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.

Point one implies not point 2.
You're not making sense.

I am. You're assuming that the fetus in point one is viable like the person in point two. That's an incorrect assumption. If you're born without lungs (and you're not stillborn, which would surprise me), then there's nothing medical science can currently do to save your life.
I said that the right to life begins when the fetus becomes viable. That may be at 20 weeks, 22, 24, 26, or even never. It's sad, to be certain - you put in 8 months of nurturing a fetus only to have it die at birth - but that doesn't make it a viable fetus.

You're saying a child born without lungs is not a person.

No, I'm not. As I explained above.

When earlier on you said that a coma patient is a person by virtue of that fact that said person was 'once' concious, but, since a child with no lungs has more brain activity.... doesn't that make it, more of a person... by your stated criteria?

Who said that a coma patient has no brain activity? Or that a coma patient has no signs of not being sentient?
A dead coma patient, maybe, but that's kindof out of the scope really, isn't it?


BTW, "Gotcha"????
What are you, a reporter for the Sun???

Originally posted by Sparks
Man, I'm saying that the fetus is not viable. Not that a mother should be compelled to undergo that procedure against her wishes.

Thats avoiding my statement regarding why one should have the right to choose which foetus has the right to become what you and I have become.

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.

Surely thats the nub of our disagreement here,I could not condone that choice or the preferential selection of who is to live and who is to die.
You can, and thats where we have reached our impasse.

By your logic, every sperm is sacred...

What now... are you assuming,that I hold Catholic beliefs or that I'm a monty Python Fan?
mm

Sparks

Originally posted by Man
Thats avoiding my statement regarding why one should have the right to choose which foetus has the right to become what you and I have become.

The answer to "why" is that the one making the choice has to put her health at risk to gestate the fetus. No-one else has a right to make that choice.

What now... are you assuming,that I hold Catholic beliefs or that I'm a monty Python Fan?

Neither, though I've never understood those that weren't the latter
I'm saying that if the potential to be a person is the thing that gives a fetus it's intrinsic value, then the same value should apply to sperm and egg cells as they have the potential to become adult humans, given a lot of luck (80% or more of fertilised eggs fail to become adults) and a willing mother. Which means that masturbation on the part of the male and remaining un-pregnant on the part of the female (from the date of the female's first ovulation) is to destroy something with the potential to be an adult human and therefore it should be ethically unsupportable, in the same manner but not to the same magnitude as abortion.
Which is not in keeping with common sense.
Hence the sarcasm.

Originally posted by Sparks
The answer to "why" is that the one making the choice has to put her health at risk to gestate the fetus. No-one else has a right to make that choice.

Again sparks, that argument doesn't wash with me,as unless there is a medical reason , one pregnant womans pregnancy is no different to the next.
If there is a medical risk with the pregnancy, then thats an entirely different case to elective abortion and one i wouldn't argue with.

I'm saying that if the potential to be a person is the thing that gives a fetus it's intrinsic value, then the same value should apply to sperm and egg cells as they have the potential to become adult humans, given a lot of luck (80% or more of fertilised eggs fail to become adults) and a willing mother. Which means that masturbation on the part of the male and remaining un-pregnant on the part of the female (from the date of the female's first ovulation) is to destroy something with the potential to be an adult human and therefore it should be ethically unsupportable, in the same manner but not to the same magnitude as abortion.

Thats an interesting one, so you reckon, that by my reasoning,Condoms should be banned and indeed, all acts of sexual intercourse or deliberate removal of sperm via masturbation, should be for the purpose of making Babies.
I wouldn't concur as I'm sure a mans sperm, is done away with naturally when he doesn't have Sex or doesn't masturbate.
Likewise with Females and what happens with their eggs when they aren't fertilised.
Thats nature taking it's course.
However elective abortion is an entirely aided process and not a consequence of the natural workings of the human body.
It is a very deliberate choice to end something that if left alone could become what you and I became.
mm

sovtek

I think that no matter wether or not you consider a fetus a "person" or not doesn't really address the problems of the state telling a women that she has to take pregnancy to term once concieved.
Humans have always used some form of birth control as a survival tactic, be it to prevent conception or just leaving the kid to die after birth (like during a famine).
If you take the US as an example:
When abortion was illegal women still got abortions. The only difference was that rich women usually received successful abortions while poor women often didn't and either died or were left with a life altering symptom.

Sparks

Originally posted by Man
Again sparks, that argument doesn't wash with me,as unless there is a medical reason , one pregnant womans pregnancy is no different to the next.
If there is a medical risk with the pregnancy, then thats an entirely different case to elective abortion and one i wouldn't argue with.

Man, go ask a doctor. Every pregnancy carries risks with it. Medical science has been able to reduce those risks, not to eliminate them.

Thats an interesting one, so you reckon, that by my reasoning,Condoms should be banned and indeed, all acts of sexual intercourse or deliberate removal of sperm via masturbation, should be for the purpose of making Babies.

It does follow.

I wouldn't concur as I'm sure a mans sperm, is done away with naturally when he doesn't have Sex or doesn't masturbate.

Yes, but that's not caused by a concious act on the part of the male.

Likewise with Females and what happens with their eggs when they aren't fertilised.

Ah - but letting it happen without attempting to fertilize them is a concious choice too.
See what I mean?

However elective abortion is an entirely aided process and not a consequence of the natural workings of the human body.
It is a very deliberate choice to end something that if left alone could become what you and I became.

Not "if left alone". As I've been continually saying. If it's viable outside the womb, then yes - but otherwise it won't become an adult "if left alone", so no.

Originally posted by Sparks
Every pregnancy carries risks with it. Medical science has been able to reduce those risks, not to eliminate them.

Of Course, but the existance of such risk where there is no underlying medical problem or danger to the Mother is no different to the risk you or I take when we go out on the roads driving.

Thats an interesting one, so you reckon, that by my reasoning,Condoms should be banned and indeed, all acts of sexual intercourse or deliberate removal of sperm via masturbation, should be for the purpose of making Babies.

It does follow.

How?
Theres an unborn Baby in one case and in the other there isn't.

I wouldn't concur as I'm sure a mans sperm, is done away with naturally when he doesn't have Sex or doesn't masturbate.

Yes, but that's not caused by a concious act on the part of the male.

It's natures decision that the sperm should be done away with though in all cases when not in use.
Nature doesn't decide to do away with an unborn child in all cases, it happens only in some cases mostly due to a medical problem associated with a particular individual.

Likewise with Females and what happens with their eggs when they aren't fertilised.
Ah - but letting it happen without attempting to fertilize them is a concious choice too.
See what I mean?

Again, this is natures way with the ingredients for reproduction, it's natural for every sperm not to be used and likewise for every egg.
Nature doesn't generally throw away, the unborn child like it does un used Sperms and eggs though, save where there is a particular medical problem.

Incidently, the woman mightn't want to consiously choose not to use her eggs, the man simply might not be in the mood;)

Not "if left alone". As I've been continually saying. If it's viable outside the womb, then yes - but otherwise it won't become an adult "if left alone", so no.

Now you must know after a whole day discussing this with me, that by being "left alone" I was refering to the unborn child being left in it's mothers womb to term, like I was.
In which case I clearly mean that I wouldn't condone choosing which unborn child has more of a right to become what you and I have become.
I thought we had reached that impasse, several times already...
mm

Sparks

Originally posted by Man
Of Course, but the existance of such risk where there is no underlying medical problem or danger to the Mother is no different to the risk you or I take when we go out on the roads driving.

That's not a really non-trivial risk level there Man.

How?
Theres an unborn Baby in one case and in the other there isn't.

Nope. There's a sperm cell in one and a fetus in the other. Logically, both are potential humans by the criteria you've set out. Though not of the same value, obviously, since few egg cells survive to the fetus stage.

It's natures decision that the sperm should be done away with though in all cases when not in use.

Ah, but it could be donated to a sperm bank and put on ice for future use.
So it could be saved and made into a human.
See what I mean?

Nature doesn't decide to do away with an unborn child in all cases, it happens only in some cases mostly due to a medical problem associated with a particular individual.

Actually Man, 80% or more of all fertilized eggs fail to become fetuses, let alone adults.
So it's not that rare an occourance.

Incidently, the woman mightn't want to consiously choose not to use her eggs, the man simply might not be in the mood;)

Sperm banks.

Now you must know after a whole day discussing this with me, that by being "left alone" I was refering to the unborn child being left in it's mothers womb to term, like I was.

But after a full day's discussion, you have to know that that's not being left alone - it's receiving support from the mother as a concious choice.

Originally posted by Sparks
That's not a really non-trivial risk level there Man.

It's risky.

Nope. There's a sperm cell in one and a fetus in the other. Logically, both are potential humans by the criteria you've set out. Though not of the same value, obviously, since few egg cells survive to the fetus stage.

Actually, I hadn't spoken about sperms and eggs at all,untill you mentioned them, I was speaking about an unborn child.
By your logic, if we are to draw it out further, I should not give the importance that I do, to the unborn Child in it's Mothers womb unless I give the same importance to the sperm and the egg.
Nice one sparks, next you will be asking me to attach a similar importance to www.maybefriends.com because it facilitates the meeting of the man and the woman in the first place and thereby potential life as well.
Remember we are discussing here the topic of the abortion of something in the womb, not something outside it.

But after a full day's discussion, you have to know that that's not being left alone - it's receiving support from the mother as a concious choice.

Again we are back at the impasse as I would replace the word concious in that statement with the word "right" as clearly I couldnt condone in my conscience the killing of an unborn Child whereas you have a more open view on that which entirely conflicts with mine.
mm

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
Not inconvienent, irrelevant.

Why so? Prove it. If you claim to have done so already quote your proof.

And none that they're not self-aware.

Don’t obfuscate what I was saying. You attempted to answer my point by responding to a point I never made.

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.

A womb, like the rest of our reproductive process is equally natural unless interfered with. Of course a mother can miscarry, but then again a man or woman can also suffocate or drown. Your point does not hold water.

Pre-answered several posts back.

If you answered it please quote your proof. The only reference I could find to the topic was your sidestepping the issue.

So you need not be self-aware to be a person?
Well, my coffee table isn't self-aware, should I ask it it's name?
:rolleyes:

And people in comas, in the latter stages of conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, etc. are not people then? Oh, but that’s different, I hear you say? Well, no, not really. Certainly not you said above.

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.

Sorry, you - who have been so fond of demanding proof from others that a foetus is self-aware - should prove that a person in a coma is self aware.

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.

But you have repeatedly used tearful examples of abused pregnant mothers, beaten into giving birth – you can call it what you will, I’ll call it emotive propaganda as I’ve not had to stoop to such devices.

As you’re your caveats, there are so many exceptions to the arbitrary rules you are putting forward that one cannot help but doubt the soundness of your logic.

But in short, yes.

And you wonder why I wouldn’t consider you non-directive?

It's true though. You keep asking questions my earlier posts have answered.

Sidestepped, not answered. If you claim to have done so already quote your proof.

They knew they were killing the fetus. They planned to kill the fetus. They carried out the killing of the fetus.
Now if the fetus is accepted to be a person, that act becomes murder.
That's not emotive.

It is, because the foetus is not accepted to be a person. If that was the case, then you would be correct.

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.

Back to the coma sufferers, et al.

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.

Does that mean that if you had needed use of a respirator as an infant you should have been left to die as you were not viable?

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?

Are you sure an infant would be fine left in even a cot for 24-hours then?

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.

Please remind me where I said that as I can’t see it anywhere.

Nonetheless, what I did say that has prompted this response:

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.

Which actually demonstrates that law is not a valid piece of evidence in deciding a moral question. So I don’t know why you’re trying to make your accusation, as it’s patently untrue.

24 weeks -
self-awareness after birth -

What on earth is that? Something you’ll point to as your rebuttal a few posts down?

Dying because of an inability to live is a pretty non-ideological resut, wouldn't you say?

I thought the point to abortion was that you died because someone gave you a hand in the inability to live stakes. So yes, you’re pretty ideologically motivated.

List them off TC. What facts are you referring to?

Are you denying that the scientific and medical community has not shown scientific evidence to support the theory that many groups in Society were not human; such as Blacks, Irish, Jews and Aborigines?

I’m sure I could Google some site that would document these facts - if you don’t accept my point I shall.

Again with the ad hominem.

Diddums...

Then it's an ad hominem attack?
Yes, which is why I asked you to lay off it.

Not what I meant.

"It’s also an intrinsic property of the foetus that it will become aware"
Which I showed was wrong.

How so? Prove it. If you claim to have done so already quote your proof.

"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.

First don’t misquote me – I also added in parenthisis “or perhaps more correctly awareness to it’s environment”. Second, prove it. If you claim to have done so already quote your proof.

" 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.

How so? Prove it. If you claim to have done so already quote your proof.

"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.

Why maintain it if it’s not a person then?

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.

Lucky for you I don’t subscribe to the New England Journal then...

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.

Again, no less evidence than yourself. However, my argument has been all along (feel free to check all my posts) that your criteria are flawed and that we cannot realistically say for certain whether the foetus is a person or not. After that, it is not a question of proof, but philosophy.

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 have presented no independently verifiable evidence.

JustHalf

Originally posted by Sparks
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...

No problem. I've faced a similar dillema on a Christianity thread on Humanities.

Originally posted by Sparks
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.

Based on your arbitrary decision on what makes a "person", that is the case. But not only are these criteria unproven, very few people would agree with you that newborn babies are not "persons" simply because they lack self-awareness. Furthermore, you haven't explained why viability must confer a right to life.

Originally posted by Sparks
Nope, that was the meaning that that word held for me.
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.

But viability is dependent on our technology. The inescapable implication is then that one's right to life is dependent on the technology of the day.

Which is an unpalatable attitude to say the least.

Originally posted by Sparks
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.
Clearer now?

Kind of. I guess I'm kind of confused with ascribing "rights" to non-persons. I think you're confusing what are called "animal rights" with what we call rights that we give to people.

Certain species are classed as protected species, and we are not legally permitted to kill them. We are also not legally permitted to act in a cruel manner to animals. This does not mean that they have rights themselves. "Animal rights" are limitations society places on its members on how they can behave towards animals. These rights are not "inherent" rights. They are put in place because society has decided that it is wrong to behave towards animals this way. Protected species are species that society wishes to preserve.

This is not how human rights are considered. I quote from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

-- snip --

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

-- snip --

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

-- snip --

Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

The argument here is that we are human, we deserve these rights before one another, as opposed to we should protect these species because we want them to survive. The second argument is of course applicable to humans, but the first argument is not applicable to animals.

bonkey

Being a complete Devil's Advocate here (not that this discussion really needs it, but hey, its the weekend)....

Note the following from said Universal Declaration quote :

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

Sparks....you're putting up an interesting case, but I am confused about one thing. You have posted, repeated, and quoted a reference to these yard-sticks of self-awareness and self-sufficiency, which you use to determine "Personhood" and Right To Life respectively (and seperately).

Now, if this is the case, then no seriously injured person, nor seriously handicapped, diseased, etc. person, nor any child below at least the age of 4, nor many of the elderly have a right to life.

Now clearly this is not correct. You have pointed out why this is not the case - why there are other criteria which come into play in these scenarios. And having done so, you then revert to these "absolutes" in your argument against another point....despite having already explained why they're not really absolutes.

I believe you have a clear position, but repeating yourself will not clear up any of the confusion, when it was the initial statements which led to the misunderstandings in the first place.

Personally, I would suspect that our actual positions are not that far removed, but I'm not sure....as I honestly can't see clearly where you draw your lines.

Yes, I know this is a discussion about abortion, and I'm more or less asking you to go off-topic...but I don't think its that off-topic. To take a stance on abortion will ultimately come back to a belief of when the "Right to Life" applies, and when it doesn't....and I'm asking you to clarify when it does and does not apply...which should then make your stance on when abortion is and is not acceptable clear.

You can say no....but I honestly think it would clear up some of the issues, without killing the discussion.

jc

Sparks

Originally posted by Man
It's risky.

Yes. I can't give you an exact figure, though I'm sure it's out there (I just haven't seen it).

Actually, I hadn't spoken about sperms and eggs at all,untill you mentioned them, I was speaking about an unborn child.

Yes, but you'd used the phrase "potential human being". Which is a valid description of the reproductive cells.

By your logic, if we are to draw it out further, I should not give the importance that I do, to the unborn Child in it's Mothers womb unless I give the same importance to the sperm and the egg.

That's where the logic leads. If I remember rightly, that's also why the RC church frowned on masturbation. (I can't remember listening too hard to that particular rule though )

Nice one sparks, next you will be asking me to attach a similar importance to www.maybefriends.com because it facilitates the meeting of the man and the woman in the first place and thereby potential life as well.

Oddly enough, that's also true - and is a factor in the value placed on marriage...

Again we are back at the impasse as I would replace the word concious in that statement with the word "right" as clearly I couldnt condone in my conscience the killing of an unborn Child whereas you have a more open view on that which entirely conflicts with mine.

Yup.

Sparks

Originally posted by JustHalf
Based on your arbitrary decision on what makes a "person", that is the case.

I'd love to hear of your non-arbitary criteria...

But not only are these criteria unproven, very few people would agree with you that newborn babies are not "persons" simply because they lack self-awareness.

Perhaps. Very few people (percentage wise) would agree with me that there are no gods. Doesn't mean that they are right...
And all the available evidence says I'm not wrong.

Furthermore, you haven't explained why viability must confer a right to life.

It's commonly believed that people should have a right to life. That means that that right has to start somewhere. Viability seems to be the most logical place to start, because that's the point where you can become a seperate entity.

But viability is dependent on our technology. The inescapable implication is then that one's right to life is dependent on the technology of the day.

Nope. The inescapable implication is that the point at which one's right to life begins is dependant on the technology of the day.
Frankly, I see nothing wrong with this. In fact, pragmatically it's the better solution for technology to give us an alternative to aborting a fetus because that doesn't create the exceptional ire that pro-life proponents feel towards the procedure.

Kind of. I guess I'm kind of confused with ascribing "rights" to non-persons. I think you're confusing what are called "animal rights" with what we call rights that we give to people.

Nope.
What is the right to life? It's the idea that no other human can take your life with impunity. Now if I can't go skin a panda without consequences, that represents a right to life for the panda. It may not be what you normally consider when you say "right to life", but that doesn't invalidate it. And it doesn't conflict with the existing definitions of human rights, it merely expands them in a gray area.

Sparks

Originally posted by bonkey
Being a complete Devil's Advocate here (not that this discussion really needs it, but hey, its the weekend)....

Oh why not, my ulcer's coming along nicely anyway

Sparks....you're putting up an interesting case, but I am confused about one thing. You have posted, repeated, and quoted a reference to these yard-sticks of self-awareness and self-sufficiency, which you use to determine "Personhood" and Right To Life respectively (and seperately).

Now, if this is the case, then no seriously injured person, nor seriously handicapped, diseased, etc. person, nor any child below at least the age of 4, nor many of the elderly have a right to life.

Nope. They do. They have had their self-sufficency taken away by extrinsic factors. Cure the disease, repair the injury, and they can survive on their own. Ergo, the right to life should not be dependent on extrinsic factors. We did discuss this earlier, by the way.

having already explained why they're not really absolutes.

Except that they're absolutes based on intrinsic properties and you're saying that because they're not affected by extrinsic phenonoma, that they're not absolutes.
Which makes little sense JC.

I believe you have a clear position, but repeating yourself will not clear up any of the confusion, when it was the initial statements which led to the misunderstandings in the first place.

I thought I had made it reasonably clear
Okay, to restate:

Personhood is conferred by becoming self-aware, and by no other criteria. It cannot be rescinded, because there is no process by which humans naturally and intrinsicly revert to a non-self-aware condition. As I said, I can't point to a specific time and say "there it is, that infant just achieved self-awareness", but I can point to a fetus and say "that fetus cannot be self-aware" because we know that you need to have higher brain activity to be self-aware, and a fetus doesn't even have higher brain structures until late in the second trimester. The link on fetal brain development I gave earlier points that out.

The right to life is conferred by becoming a viable seperate entity. It does not require you to be a person (and if you're bhuddist, this should makes sense - assuming I understand the "respect for all life" facet of bhuddism correctly).

That clearer?

TomF

When I was being formed in her body
I could tell she was kind.
My toes my fingers my eyes
my hands my bum my tiny mind
Knew that.
She carried me everywhere.
I couldn't see where I was going.
She did.

from Baby, by Brendan Kennelly

Sparks

Bugger. TC, I'm not ignoring your post, but I just lost twenty minutes of typing it. Bear with me for a bit...

TomF, do you really want to go down the emotive route?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
Bugger. TC, I'm not ignoring your post, but I just lost twenty minutes of typing it. Bear with me for a bit...

Actually, I was rather hoping you would at this stage, given it's the weekend and all...

...and that we're going round in circles anyway.

/me throws TomF a potato, that bares a suspicious resemblance to Jesus, to play with...

Originally posted by Sparks

Yes, but you'd used the phrase "potential human being". Which is a valid description of the reproductive cells.

But I was discussing the abortion of the foetus in the womb as you know and not an entity, which is outside.
Never at any point would you get me to attribute the same importance to sperm and to the egg as you would to what I consider a created unborn child.
If I did I would be spending all day and all night lamenting, the non existance of the dozens of potential brothers and sisters , I should have had :eek:
Regarding the Catholic Church, to be honest, they go on with enough nonsense usually for me to take their utterances with more than a grain of salt.

Nice one sparks, next you will be asking me to attach a similar importance to www.maybefriends.com because it facilitates the meeting of the man and the woman in the first place and thereby potential life as well.
Oddly enough, that's also true - and is a factor in the value placed on marriage...

Well maybe not...! As that site, along with many others facilitates same sex relationships:D which, we all know the silly Vatican disapproves of unless it's amongst them selves at which point they become two-faced.

But As in all discussions, going back to what Bonkey said above, one could carry on, the comparisons and the logic down to the nth ridiculous degree...
But the important thing would on a personal level to come to ones own decision on it and then if/when asked to, one should express that opinion in the formation of what Society will take as the norm.
My own view stops , where I've outlined, yours is much wider of that mark.
We both disagree , theres nothing unusual about that.
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Sparks
They have had their self-sufficency taken away by extrinsic factors. Cure the disease, repair the injury, and they can survive on their own.

Not so with the 4-year old, not so with the people born with degenerative conditions. In neither case are we talking extrinsic factors. In the former, there is no prior self-sufficiency which has been lost (despite you claiming that this angle covered all your bases), and in the latter, there is no extrinsic factor - nothing external has changed to revoke the individual's self-sufficiency, no external factors triggered this loss, and there is often no cure or respite. Indeed, the aged arguably do not lose their self-sufficience due to an extrinsic factor, unless you wish to define the passage of time as extrinsic....which would not seem highly logical as you would then have a problem definining what was intrinsic in the absence of time.

Of these. the 4-year old is the most interesting case, as it has all of the non-viability that you argue makes it ok for a mother to abort a pregnancy. The 4-year-old is equally vulnerable. If you think not, then lets go to 3 years, or 2, or 1, or 6 months. The point is that you will find there is a post-natal life which matches exactly the criteria you lay out for lack of a right to life in terms of self-seufficience.

I have yet to see one clear admission that such a child has no right to life in your book, nor one clear explanation how it actually does have a right to life if self-sufficience is your only yardstick, which you have maintained. Once you can answer that without bringing up any other apparent contradictions in what you've said, I'll be able to understand your position. I want to know where you draw the line (ballpark-wise). At what point does it cease to be ok to terminate the life, and at what point does it start to become wrong to do so, and why is that point significant in terms of your yardstick of Right to Life.

That clearer?

Nope. You've jsut cleared up your definition of Personhood, but you don't apparently attach any significance to it in terms of deciding if someone has a Right to Live or not....so I'm wondering why you're bringing it up all the time at all!!!

By your yardstick, self-sufficiency is all that counts, and even then its simply something you need to achieve once, for a fleeting moment, and then you gain your right to life from then on out, as there is no natural process which can revoke it. Not natural aging, not genetic degeneration, not even death can stop someone being a person apparently On the other hand, this yardstick also appears to allow for the killing of young children, as they are not self-sufficient.

jc

TomF

From what I have experienced in a fairly long life, I know that the arguments pro and con abortion on demand (which is what this thread is really about) boil down to emotion, not reason.

I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing, because our emotions are there to preserve us.

On the side arguing in favor of having abortion on demand, I think most of the active advocates fit three types. The first is the well-muscled and plain-coiffed women who do not like men, and do not like women who like men. The second is the boy-man who does not want to be responsible for supporting anyone but himself and certainly doesn't want to bear the consequences of his girlfriend/wife/shack-up queen telling him that "We're pregnant!" The third is a certain kind of social liberal who takes the stand that freedom to do whatever one wants is absolute as long as acting on those freedoms stop short of one's (or another's) nose. He or she can do amazing mental gymnastics to try to prove that the unborn human has no right to life, and to thereby conclude that aborting one who doesn't know he or she has a nose is moral--oops, sorry, "ethical".

The Corinthian

Originally posted by TomF
From what I have experienced in a fairly long life, I know that the arguments pro and con abortion on demand (which is what this thread is really about) boil down to emotion, not reason.

I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing, because our emotions are there to preserve us.

With the deepest respects, that probably has to be one of the most asinine statements I’ve heard in the last decade or two. Seriously.

To begin with, calling them emotions is simply an adolescent romanticization - it is not our emotions that are there to preserve us but our instincts, and civilization was not built on such instinct, but on its suppression and tempering with reason, as many of these instincts are as destructive and malicious as they are in anyway beneficial or benign.

On the side arguing in favor of having abortion on demand, I think most of the active advocates fit three types. The first is the well-muscled and plain-coiffed women who do not like men, and do not like women who like men. The second is the boy-man who does not want to be responsible for supporting anyone but himself and certainly doesn't want to bear the consequences of his girlfriend/wife/shack-up queen telling him that "We're pregnant!" The third is a certain kind of social liberal who takes the stand that freedom to do whatever one wants is absolute as long as acting on those freedoms stop short of one's (or another's) nose. He or she can do amazing mental gymnastics to try to prove that the unborn human has no right to life, and to thereby conclude that aborting one who doesn't know he or she has a nose is moral--oops, sorry, "ethical".

This is either a troll or you don’t get out much.

Paddy20

God help me, but what ever happened to the humane concept of - Live and let live! - and it is obvious that a lot of abortions if not the majority are carried out on fully developed foetus, or unborn human beings??.. and that to me is tantamountto murder.

Paddy.

Belfast

With contraception being available for many years now why are so many women looking for abortion. Did they not read the instructions ?

sceptre

I don't suppose you live under a bridge, Belfast?

Qadhafi

Yeah im in favour of it. If you use a jonny whats the difference between that and abortion?

what you sayin Belfast foreigner? What about mistakes, one night stand or even Rape?

Belfast

When abortion was made legal in Britain 1967 http://www.prochoiceforum.org.uk/ocrabortlaw4.asp
The prochoice movement calimed this would only be need by a small number of people. 187,402 abortions was reached in 1998
See the following link for the number of abortions after 1967
http://www.care.org.uk/resource/docs/abortionstats.htm
Under the 1967 abortion act 2 doctors are meant to see the Woman and agreed there is a risk to the mother health. In practice this in never done.
If the original aim of making abortion was to carry out a small number of abortion to save women lives for back street abortions, this goal seems to have failed as the number of abortions is now well over 100,000 a year.
Before Ireland goes down the road of making abortion legal I think in would be a good idea to find out why so many abortions take place. Also how many women chose abortions a free choice or where they pressured in to this by boyfriends, husband or family?
The child support agency in the UK now tracks down father of children and demand they pay support. There is an incentive for both father and the state to save money by persuading women to have an abortion. In the case of handy capped children Down syndrome there are major saving for the state in welfare cost. Are we taking about a Woman right to choose or the states and parent right to save money? One option before abortion is considered is to introduce lifestyle cources in secondary schools (cover sex education, relationships, personal finance, personal devolvement, childcare and remarriage guidance). This of coarse would cost money. Before any step can be taken a study needs to be doe to find out why there are so many abortions. In my option solving a problem before you properly understand it is not lightly successful out come. If the problem of the very high number of abortion can be solved the a decision can be made as to should abortion should be allow in the limited number of case such a danger to the life of the mother, etc. Most of the examples of women who require abortion that are sited are extreme cases. If the majority of need for abortions were dealt with by other means this would make it a much cleared choice as to should abortion be legal or not.

bloggs

Hmm seems to be a bit of flaming going on, from the MODS!! :eek:

Anyway, i am indifferent to abortion, people get murdered every day and nothing happens, so what difference does it make if a few more people get killed/murdered? :ninja:

Belfast

Qadhafi why are you calling me a foreigner? Do you have a problem with foreigners.