Should we legalise abortion?

Lemming

Originally posted by gaelic cowboy
Couldn't JOEPC also reverse your arguement and say a woman has no right to decide for her child if she wants to murder it.

First of all ... Godwins law.

Secondly, as I've pointed out elsewhere months ago (when someone mentioned that a mugger should be charged for murder if a woman naturally aborts etc), and still applies to your question:

It has not been born yet, therefore does not fall under the remit of the state. It isn't recognised as a citizen of the state, nor is it recognised as a human being per-se and therefore your argument doesn't hold sway. If it survives the birthing process then all of the above would apply.

Apologies if that reads so clinical, but I've had this debate to death. I'm just pointing out the end result from last time without the "to death" bit (no pun intended)

gaelic cowboy

Originally posted by Lemming
First of all ... Godwins law.

Secondly, as I've pointed out elsewhere months ago (when someone mentioned that a mugger should be charged for murder if a woman naturally aborts etc), and still applies to your question:

It has not been born yet, therefore does not fall under the remit of the state. It isn't recognised as a citizen of the state, nor is it recognised as a human being per-se and therefore your argument doesn't hold sway. If it survives the birthing process then all of the above would apply.

Apologies if that reads so clinical, but I've had this debate to death. I'm just pointing out the end result from last time without the "to death" bit (no pun intended)

I wonder if you ever asked somone who was adopted that question

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Lemming
First of all ... Godwins law.

Does not apply – or did I miss the bit where he mentioned Nazis in his post?

It has not been born yet, therefore does not fall under the remit of the state. It isn't recognised as a citizen of the state, nor is it recognised as a human being per-se and therefore your argument doesn't hold sway. If it survives the birthing process then all of the above would apply.

However, you are countering a moral argument with a legal one. It would be identical to the argument that a homosexual marriage is invalid simply because it is not recognized by the state. Legally you would be correct, but not if the question was a moral and not legal one - apples and oranges.

Lemming

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Does not apply – or did I miss the bit where he mentioned Nazis in his post?

Oops, meant to add the "spirit of" in there. Same mentality. Evoke the emotional to overrule the logical.

However, you are countering a moral argument with a legal one. It would be identical to the argument that a homosexual marriage is invalid simply because it is not recognized by the state. Legally you would be correct, but not if the question was a moral and not legal one - apples and oranges.

I didn't state correctness or not, just that his argument under such conditions as he put it wasn't particularly waterproof.

Lemming

Originally posted by gaelic cowboy
I wonder if you ever asked somone who was adopted that question

WTF?!!!!!!

What, may I ask, has asking an adopted person how they feel about abortion got anythign to do with this? Were they aborted and then adopted? Then, maybe sure. But otherwise you'd just be speaking out your a*se on the subject.

Jesus! Talk about being assinine.

gaelic cowboy

Originally posted by Lemming
WTF?!!!!!!

What, may I ask, has asking an adopted person how they feel about abortion got anythign to do with this? Were they aborted and then adopted? Then, maybe sure. But otherwise you'd just be speaking out your a*se on the subject.

Jesus! Talk about being assinine.

No I'm not because this arguement has strayed into the right to choose area which is code for don't **** up my life baby I want a career. Obviously someone who was adopted had a chance at life instead of being aborted at birth by a mother who would have being unable to raise her child.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Lemming
Oops, meant to add the "spirit of" in there. Same mentality. Evoke the emotional to overrule the logical.

Is that the spirit of Godwin’s Law? New one on me.

As for the use of emotional arguments, he wasn’t particularly, TBH. There have been numerous posters, most notably TomF, that have but his, and the general pro-life, contention is correct then he was technically and morally correct. Nothing particularly, or perhaps avoidably, emotional about it.

I didn't state correctness or not, just that his argument under such conditions as he put it wasn't particularly waterproof.

You failed to demonstrate that as you cannot argue a moral point by using law as your proof.

Lemming

Originally posted by gaelic cowboy
No I'm not because this arguement has strayed into the right to choose area

Ummm. I don't know how to break this to you gaelic cowboy, but uh .....

this whole abortion issue is preeeeeeeeeeetty much down to the "right to choose", so I don't know where it was before it strayed as you claim. Maybe discussing the merits of justin timberlake or some such I don't know.

which is code for don't **** up my life baby I want a career.

Really? :eek:
Well!! I just learnt something new today. Another version of "the code" :rolleyes:

How about knowing that you can't provide any sort of future at the moment in question? How about knowing that you're life is so f*cked up that bringing a child into the world would be catastrophic?

No?

There are other reasons besides "me me me & my career". Everybody's reasons are their own and will be deeply personal.

Obviously someone who was adopted had a chance at life instead of being aborted at birth by a mother who would have being unable to raise her child.

Funnily enough there are a lot of people out there who seem incapable of raising children anyway. Why don't you go ask them? Might be more appropriate.

Lemming

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Is that the spirit of Godwin’s Law? New one on me.

Yes Corrie. yes it is. just shows an old dog can learn new tricks

As for the use of emotional arguments, he wasn’t particularly, TBH. There have been numerous posters, most notably TomF, that have but his, and the general pro-life, contention is correct then he was technically and morally correct. Nothing particularly, or perhaps avoidably, emotional about it.

He used the word "murder" as part of his statement Corrie, which tends to drag up fairly powerful emotional imagery, fairly close in power to what most would perceive of the word "nazi". Hence where I was coming from with that line.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Lemming
Yes Corrie. yes it is. just shows an old dog can learn new tricks

Only is someone is inventing the tricks as they go along.

He used the word "murder" as part of his statement Corrie, which tends to drag up fairly powerful emotional imagery, fairly close in power to what most would perceive of the word "nazi". Hence where I was coming from with that line.

That’s a bit of an exaggeration, TBH. Technically, if one accepts the pro-life premise, murder would be correct. Termination or even killing would be inaccurate euphemisms.

Of course making a statement like “don't **** up my life baby I want a career” is certainly emotive (and an assumption, he’s not given any evidence for it), but simply using the correct terminology is not.

Neither does it fall into the remit of Godwin’s Law - unless you decide to rewrite it.

Lemming

Originally posted by The Corinthian
That’s a bit of an exaggeration, TBH. Technically, if one accepts the pro-life premise, murder would be correct. Termination or even killing would be inaccurate euphemisms.

Of course making a statement like “don't **** up my life baby I want a career” is certainly emotive (and an assumption, he’s not given any evidence for it), but simply using the correct terminology is not.

Herein lies a large problem. The crux of the terminology used by the anti-abortion side appears to be hinged on evoking such imagery & thus only ever serves to polarise the debate to extreme. You must have taken note of that Corrie at some point, irregardless of pro/anti sentiment.

gaelic cowboy

Originally posted by Lemming
Ummm. I don't know how to break this to you gaelic cowboy, but uh .....

this whole abortion issue is preeeeeeeeeeetty much down to the "right to choose", so I don't know where it was before it strayed as you claim. Maybe discussing the merits of justin timberlake or some such I don't know.



Really? :eek:
Well!! I just learnt something new today. Another version of "the code" :rolleyes:

How about knowing that you can't provide any sort of future at the moment in question? How about knowing that you're life is so f*cked up that bringing a child into the world would be catastrophic?

No?

There are other reasons besides "me me me & my career". Everybody's reasons are their own and will be deeply personal.



Funnily enough there are a lot of people out there who seem incapable of raising children anyway. Why don't you go ask them? Might be more appropriate.

They way I see it it should only be for medical reasons not lifestyle choices fullstop maybe I am exagerating but no more than when pro choice try to make the likes of me to be some raving catholic fundamentalist or summit.

Because a person is incapable of raising is not a good enough reason to abort a baby come on admit that at least.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Lemming
Herein lies a large problem. The crux of the terminology used by the anti-abortion side appears to be hinged on evoking such imagery & thus only ever serves to polarise the debate to extreme. You must have taken note of that Corrie at some point, irregardless of pro/anti sentiment.

But you will find the same thing on the pro-choice side. It’s about “a woman’s fundamental human rights” after all - cue cry of “it’s my body”. Not to mention the classic “if it was your daughter” argument.

Even with regard to the procedure itself, emotive language is the last thing that a pro-choice activist would want. Language that could hint at anything being killed off (even a ball of cells) is watered down - after all, it’s not longer even an abortion any more, but a termination. Indeed, no one is either pro or anti abortion - everyone’s pro-life or pro-choice and no one is ever either anti-life or anti-choice.

So yes, I have taken note of that, but also that neither side is particularly innocent in the use and abuse of language and logic to get their point across, and that they both tend to get upset when the other side does.

Lemming

Originally posted by gaelic cowboy
They way I see it it should only be for medical reasons not lifestyle choices fullstop maybe I am exagerating but no more than when pro choice try to make the likes of me to be some raving catholic fundamentalist or summit.

Keeping everything simplstic and black or white as most of the pro-life camp seem to be in favour of, I'll surmise it as thus:

Everything gets boiled down to lifestyle.
Live. Die.


Ergo everything is black or white. One or the other. Never what it really is - a thousand shades of grey in-between.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that you, I, his holiness the Pope in Rome, your nextdoor neighbour and the raving youth-defense maniac with that high powered assault rifle is speaking out the rear end on how someone else should deal with the issue of abortion regarding persons 'mr & mrs X'. It is a deeply personal and traumatic issue that can only be resolved by the two, and only two people involved in the pregnancy. Screams of "murderers" & "baby killers" do not help make a rational decision on what is the best course of action - be it to continue with the pregnancy, adoption, or abortion.

I will not tell another person what they can or cannot do with such an unfortunate personal issue. To do otherwise would be less than human

Because a person is incapable of raising is not a good enough reason to abort a baby come on admit that at least.

That just reminded me of something raised before that many fail to consider. There's such an outcry about the unborn. What about the "born"? Where are the anti-abortion people once a child is born? Where is the support? Where is the solidarity and "standing shoulder to shoulder" to support what was a difficult decision?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Lemming
Ergo everything is black or white. One or the other. Never what it really is - a thousand shades of grey in-between.

Except that morally and philosophically it is black or white.

The crux of the debate is on whether the fetus is a human being or not. Of course one may also argue that even if it is a human being, that it’s rights are rescinded in favour of an adult (namely the biological mother). However, in doing so one must bare in mind that one would be rejecting the principle of equality within Society and that it would simply make it a justified killing or execution rather than a murder in the case of the fetus is recognized as human.

So beyond that little caveat it is ultimately a black or white issue; it either is human or it’s not. If it’s not human it’s just a medical procedure on some excess tissue. If it’s human it is the killing of another person, which is commonly known as murder.

There’s no gray area, I’m afraid.

Sparks

Originally posted by The Corinthian
The crux of the debate is on whether the fetus is a human being or not.

I'd point out that there's a technical meaning to the term "human being" and the word "person" would be a better term to use for the purpose of this debate. "Human Being" is a title decided upon by genetics, not sentience.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
I'd point out that there's a technical meaning to the term "human being" and the word "person" would be a better term to use for the purpose of this debate. "Human Being" is a title decided upon by genetics, not sentience.

That's why I put that little caveat in for you.

Sparks

Originally posted by The Corinthian
That's why I put that little caveat in for you.

Except that the little caveat says that they're "human rights" rather than "person rights", whereas it should be the other way round - remember, it's not unheard of for a birth defect to cause the cortex of a fetus to not develop - end result is a neonate with all the autonomic reactions working, it's self-sufficent, it's genetically human, you could (ewwwww!) breed with it, but it's not a person because there's no brain past the medulla oblongata.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
Except that the little caveat says that they're "human rights" rather than "person rights", whereas it should be the other way round - remember, it's not unheard of for a birth defect to cause the cortex of a fetus to not develop - end result is a neonate with all the autonomic reactions working, it's self-sufficent, it's genetically human, you could (ewwwww!) breed with it, but it's not a person because there's no brain past the medulla oblongata.

I'm sure that can occur, but frankly we're not discussing your favorite episode of Ripley's Believe it or Not.

You have a definition of what is human - a person or being - that others disagree with. In fact you go so far as to create a sub definition of humanity (hence the reference to my caveat) to underline your definition.

But either way, you’re still talking about definition that you accept but others do not - the boolean resolution of the debate remains. Still black and white.

gaelic cowboy

Originally posted by Lemming
That just reminded me of something raised before that many fail to consider. There's such an outcry about the unborn. What about the "born"? Where are the anti-abortion people once a child is born? Where is the support? Where is the solidarity and "standing shoulder to shoulder" to support what was a difficult decision?

True we should have more child care more counselling better facilities for actually having babies more creches etc etc just deciding oh well we don't have those things lets just abort this sponger. Handy isn't it for the goverment not to provide proper facilities just allow em to use abortion. You say I use emotional arguments well you are using to scientific an argument hell all those travellers cause loads of problems lets shoot them what about disabled people waste a money lets gas them. Am I exagerating yes but if we can justify any argument on economics or some other spurious reason were on a dangerous road. The reality is that a lot of this is about responsibility for actions we take are we willing to accept consequences for our actions. Very often most people are not this can take many form's which could be mild like say speeding to very large decisions like abortion. Pro choice arguements can often be stated in a way that makes it sound like a life choice to have a baby like a pet cat it is not it is serious thing. True bad things can happen medically if so I have no problem with abortion on those grounds. But saying oh well I am on low income come from ballyer this kid will be a lost in the cracks in society is a poor arguement indeed give the kid a chance it may turn out totaly differant.

Zulu

For all those who still see the feotus as a "blob of cells" or " a cancerous lump"....


IMAGES showing the 'hidden world' of unborn babies inside the womb, moving limbs, sucking fingers, hiccuping, crying and smiling, have been published for the first time.

The 3D and 4D photographs chart the complex development of the foetus throughout pregnancy and provide the most startling pictures of unborn babies available.

From the defined formation of a foetus just 10 weeks after conception to a range of physical movements later in pregnancy, the pictures exceed the traditional ultrasound test in clarity and quality.

They were captured using a new scanning technique pioneered at the Create Health Centre for Reproduction and Advanced Technology in London by the consultant obstetrician, Professor Stuart Campbell.

The scanning system aims to shed light on the complex development of the foetus, enabling doctors and parents to view the movements of the unborn baby in detail.

"The conventional ultrasounds scans are excellent for measuring the foetus and assessing growth, but convey very little information about the behaviour and emotions of the baby," said Professor Campbell, the former head of obstetrics at King's College Hospital.

"When I first began to use this system and see these images, I was staggered. The advanced scanning techniques have opened a window on a hidden world. You could see the baby developing."

The images released yesterday, which are to be published in a book entitled 'Watch Me Grow', reveal how unborn babies can move their limbs by stretching and kicking as early as 12 weeks after conception. They have prompted a complete re-think by medical professionals, as until recently it was thought babies' eyes remained firmly closed until around 26 weeks.

"This is really the first time we have seen them so early. It's a relex action, but it shows that even at a very early age, babies are learning about their bodies and beginning to practise movement," said Professor Campbell.

At 18 weeks, foetuses were able to open their eyes; while from 26 weeks they displayed an array of moods and actions, including scratching, smiling, sucking and crying.

"Most doctors thought eyelids were fused until 26 weeks and smiling was thought to start six weeks after the birth," said Prof Campbell.

This was the biggest surprise for the professor - the way in which emotional reflexes can be seen developing at an early stage.

"At 26 weeks, you can definitely see them smiling and frowning. There have been times when I've moved them around and you can see the mouth sloping downward as if they're upset at being disturbed. They might not be intellectualising it, but the emotion is there.

"When you see a smile, I think it does indicate both happiness and contentment."

Professor Campbell began collecting the images in an attempt to help parents visualise the pregnancy. But in Britain, the images have already reignited the debate surrounding the deadlines for abortion, which are permitted there until the 24th week of pregnancy.

"I realise that these images are being hijacked by the abortion debate, which was not really my intention," he said.

Nuala Scarisbrick, a trustee of the British pro-life charity LIFE, said: "These are remarkable pictures and show babies in the womb developing much earlier than people realised.

"From our point of view it helps educate people about how a child in the womb is a fully developed person."

http://www.unison.ie/irish_independent/stories.php3?ca=9&si=1207126&issue_id=11069

Sparks

You can smile without being sapient. You cannot be sapient without higher brain activity. Which only shows up in the final trimester of pregnancy.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
You can smile without being sapient. You cannot be sapient without higher brain activity. Which only shows up in the final trimester of pregnancy.

So what? Your contention seems that a person is defined principally by their intellect, regardless of all else, which other than being typically academic is yet another unproven and arbitrary set of criteria based upon a questionable theory.

Zulu

Originally posted by Sparks
You can smile without being sapient. You cannot be sapient without higher brain activity. Which only shows up in the final trimester of pregnancy.

Define "higher brain activity" please.

Do we allocate human rights on intelligence? Should senile people or people suffering from brain diseases lose their basic human rights as their brains deteriorate?

earwicker

It's interesting to note, if slightly off-topic, that under US law a corporation enjoys the rights and privileges of personhood.

Sparks

Originally posted by Zulu
Define "higher brain activity" please.

Electrical activity in the frontal lobes of the brain. Which isn't detected until the last trimester of pregnancy.

Do we allocate human rights on intelligence?

No, nor should we, nor is anyone proposing that we do so - but sapiency and intelligence, while related, are different things.

Should senile people or people suffering from brain diseases lose their basic human rights as their brains deteriorate?

Asked and answered in an earlier thread on this topic. Simple answer, no. Once you have those rights, they should be yours till you die.

TC:

Your contention seems that a person is defined principally by their intellect, regardless of all else, which other than being typically academic is yet another unproven and arbitrary set of criteria based upon a questionable theory.

No, that's not my contention. And since I'm about the only one here who set out my contention explicitly earlier in threads on this topic, I'd expect you to at least know what they are before assaulting them. Intellect and self-awareness are seperate things (though related, in that they're both a function of the brain).
And as to "arbitrary", that's assinine. The only reason that they're "human rights" as opposed to "organism rights" is that we define ourselves by our capacity for self-awareness. Cogito ergo sum and all that.

earwicker

But surely you'd agree that animals are self-aware?

Sparks

Originally posted by earwicker
But surely you'd agree that animals are self-aware?

No, not with such a broad sweeping statement. And certainly not without proof.

earwicker

Originally posted by Sparks
No, not with such a broad sweeping statement. And certainly not without proof.

Okay. Would you agree that animals can sense danger? If they sense danger, then what are they afraid for? Self-preservation is something you can see in most creatures, and it implies a sense of self.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
No, that's not my contention. And since I'm about the only one here who set out my contention explicitly earlier in threads on this topic, I'd expect you to at least know what they are before assaulting them.

I do and have on a number of occasions poked at them only to have you add an endless list of increasingly improbable caveats. I see on the topic of people suffering from brain diseases, you’ve already begun introducing them.

Intellect and self-awareness are seperate things (though related, in that they're both a function of the brain).

Semantics.

And as to "arbitrary", that's assinine.

Asinine? Roffle

They’re arbitrary as they’re subject to individual preference - in this case yours. For all the reasoning you’re used to defend them, they still come down to a personal assumption; you’ve never really proven anything beyond that.

The only reason that they're "human rights" as opposed to "organism rights" is that we define ourselves by our capacity for self-awareness.

No we don’t. Were aliens to land in flying saucers tomorrow, their self-awareness would hardly make them human. You define yourself by your capacity for self-awareness, but many others use other criteria, such as species, the soul or even race – all of which are arbitrary criteria.

Cogito ergo sum and all that.

What does Descartes’ test of methodic doubt and his proof of reality have to do with the criteria for humanity? You’re not trying to be clever again, are you?

Edit: Anyhow it’s hardly ‘Cogito ergo est’