Should we legalise abortion?

Sparks

Originally posted by earwicker
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.

No, it doesn't. Creatures that avoid danger get to reproduce, ones that don't, don't. Ergo, after a suitably long period of time, creatures will avoid danger. Doesn't mean that they have a sense of self.

And TC, two things. One, don't slander my opinions - they are not characterised fairly by your saying that I change them willy-nilly. In fact, they've remained constant, and you continually throw different situations at them and I point out how they apply.
Two, you've been happily sitting back on the sidelines throughout this entire thread, sniping away at any and all opinions without advancing your own. That's not what I'd call a constructive process.

TomF

Creatures that avoid danger get to reproduce, ones that don't, don't. Ergo, after a suitably long period of time, creatures will avoid danger. Doesn't mean that they have a sense of self.

Huh? Two things. One: is this quote assinine? Two: can someone please make the above quote into one or, if necessary, a string of syllogisms that makes sense?

Sparks

Originally posted by TomF
Huh? Two things. One: is this quote assinine?

I would have said that it was patronising more than anything else, but then , it was prompted by someone who was putting forward the blind watchmaker theory over evolution...

earwicker

Originally posted by Sparks
No, it doesn't. Creatures that avoid danger get to reproduce, ones that don't, don't. Ergo, after a suitably long period of time, creatures will avoid danger. Doesn't mean that they have a sense of self.

More likely that if they'd seen the danger they'd have tried to avoid it. A creature will learn differing behaviour types from others of its ilk. Any animal behaviorist will tell you that. It's also simply empirically verifiable.

Creatures routinely teach other creatures to survive and adapt: parents and their offspring have bonds, hierarchies, etc. Parents teach their young to acquire food, shelter and safety. What are they trying to keep alive? An entire species is only ever composed of individuals. It may be a rudimentary conception of self but it's still identifiable as a sense of self.

Sparks

Originally posted by earwicker
More likely that if they'd seen the danger they'd have tried to avoid it.

You might want to tell that to those scattered few who still believe that evolution is an accurate theory.

A creature will learn differing behaviour types from others of its ilk.

Mimicing other animals does not constitute self-awareness. Ask any parrot...

It may be a rudimentary conception of self but it's still identifiable as a sense of self.

My point is that it is not any kind of sense of self, rudimentary or otherwise. It's an instinct, a kind of advanced form of reflex. It does not constitute any form of self-awareness. If you wish to prove that another species on this planet is self-aware, you'll need better proof than "it runs away from predators". Of course it will run away from predators, any animal that didn't died out long ago and never passed on the gene for running away. Ergo, only those with an instict to run away remain. It's not proof of self-awareness, it's proof of evolution.

earwicker

Originally posted by Sparks

My point is that it is not any kind of sense of self, rudimentary or otherwise. It's an instinct, a kind of advanced form of reflex. It does not constitute any form of self-awareness. If you wish to prove that another species on this planet is self-aware, you'll need better proof than "it runs away from predators".

And I'm saying that the instinct and reflex of self-preservation is consistent with a rudimentary sense of self. It's simple self-preservation. Note the word "self." Sometimes it works, and sometimes not.

You're drawing an arbitrary line between instinct and sense of self and insisting they are incompatible. I'm saying that they can be interpreted as being compatible.

I've read over my other posts and I find it interesting you needed to evoke evolution when it was not at issue, presumably to paint me as some sort of creationist. This is a straw man. I never questioned evolution.

Nothing the theory of evolution has to say contradicts what I've said. In fact, given that the animals I see are alive now, I could say that my observations take place within evolution. You've given no conclusive proof that self-presevation as a rudimentary sense of self is inconsistent with the theory of evolution. But I'll ask this: if you can believe human self-awareness evolved, then why not an animal version?

However, let's say that I were to assume with you that evolution somehow cancels out the sense of self in animals. If I were to push it far enough, then I can say that human sense of self is also illusory because of evolution, since you say they are incompatible. I'll buy that for a dollar, because all I was doing in my original throwaway post was pointing out how your fusion of Darwin and Descartes (!?) doesn't guarantee your arbitrary attempt to separate human from animal.

My $0.02

Anyway, we're drifting off topic, so I'll stop.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
And TC, two things. One, don't slander my opinions - they are not characterised fairly by your saying that I change them willy-nilly.

Stop taking yourself so seriously. Anyway, it’s only slander if it’s not true.

In fact, they've remained constant, and you continually throw different situations at them and I point out how they apply.

Yes, consistently mutable

You base your definition upon a principle that requires a hundred caveats - don’t know about you, but I’d be suspicious logic like that.

Two, you've been happily sitting back on the sidelines throughout this entire thread, sniping away at any and all opinions without advancing your own. That's not what I'd call a constructive process.

So what? We can’t have all the answers like you after all

Sparks

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Stop taking yourself so seriously.

Gee, we're only talking about abortion. I can't imagine why I could possibly have serious and considered opinions on the matter, or why I would possibly defend them.

Yes, consistently mutable

Nope.

You base your definition upon a principle that requires a hundred caveats - don’t know about you, but I’d be suspicious logic like that.

Not caveats. You ask for a simple statement of a complex philosophy. I give a basic (as in fundamental) statement. Then you ask how it applies in a hundred specific situations, and I explain how. Then you say I'm making it up as I go along. Which is, frankly, malicious.

So what?

So if you want your opinion taken seriously, put it forward. So far, the only ones on the table are the pro-life opinion of TomF, and mine. And mine stands up to technical examination somewhat better.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
Gee, we're only talking about abortion. I can't imagine why I could possibly have serious and considered opinions on the matter, or why I would possibly defend them.

Get off the cross, someone needs the wood.

Not caveats. You ask for a simple statement of a complex philosophy. I give a basic (as in fundamental) statement. Then you ask how it applies in a hundred specific situations, and I explain how. Then you say I'm making it up as I go along. Which is, frankly, malicious.

Malicious? You really do take yourself far too seriously.

You consider sentience to be the principle determinant for ‘personhood’, and then when faced with the dilemma of someone who loses their sentience, you argue that it is a right that cannot be removed once given - a new rule, of undetermined reasoning.

As for your definition of sentience to begin with, this is fuzzy to say the least. How sentient is a dog after all, as earwicker postulated? How aware of oneself must one be to be sentient? Most babies would most probably be outwitted by Fido in this regard TBH.

So yes, you have a very dubious principle, which others have been able to question with remarkable ease that you need endless explanations and caveats to prop up.

It’s not a complex philosophy; it’s just a badly formulated one.

So if you want your opinion taken seriously, put it forward. So far, the only ones on the table are the pro-life opinion of TomF, and mine. And mine stands up to technical examination somewhat better.

Actually, had you been listening (reading), there’s been an entire range of opinions expressed, not all of which can be so easily categorised as either pro-Life or pro-Choice.

One, for example, that has been expressed at least twice in this thread accepted the foetus as a human being or person, that abortion would indeed be the killing or even murder of that person, but that ultimately the mother was more important and thus the abortion justified. It certainly was not one that would fit into the accepted ideological camps, and perhaps for this reason I found it to be the most interesting position in the entire thread.

There is more to life than labels, after all, Sparkie.

isolde

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Then you accept the principle that not all people are equal or should have equal rights?

Hey Corinthian.. sorry, I thought this thread was dead and forgot about it but, since it's come back up for air, it appeared in my inbox again. Anyway.. I could answer the above question but then I would just start going on about how I don't see the foetus as a person so it's irrelevant.. and then someone would say (not mentioning any names here;)) that there was an article in the papers the other day which suggested otherwise.. and then I would say, well my views still stand.. and then we'd just be going over old ground again

isolde

Originally posted by Sparks

So if you want your opinion taken seriously, put it forward. So far, the only ones on the table are the pro-life opinion of TomF, and mine. And mine stands up to technical examination somewhat better.

Woah there Sparky. Are myself and yourself reading different threads?? Or do the other 15 odd pages count for nothing?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by isolde
I could answer the above question but then I would just start going on about how I don't see the foetus as a person so it's irrelevant..

That’s not the question I asked though. If you read over your posts running up to my question you’ll see that you stated that you considered the rights of the woman to supersede the foetus regardless of whether it was a human being or not. So I was just asking whether you then would agree with the natural extension of that principle that not all people are equal or should have equal rights?

isolde

If you read over your posts running up to my question you’ll see that you stated that you considered the rights of the woman to supersede the foetus regardless of whether it was a human being or not.

That's correct.

So I was just asking whether you then would agree with the natural extension of that principle that not all people are equal or should have equal rights?

Ah I see. Well. Your question makes logical sense considering that I consider the rights of the woman to supercede those of the foetus regardless. I am reluctant to say that not everyone should have equal rights but at the same time I don't consider the foetus, regardless of its status, equal to the mother. So, I guess it follows that I don't believe that everyone should have equal rights. My viewpoint is better illustrated by saying that I believe everyone should be equal, with the exception of the foetus.

Zulu

Originally posted by isolde
My viewpoint is better illustrated by saying that I believe everyone should be equal, with the exception of the foetus.

In other words. "Everyone is equal - just some are more equal than others!" :rolleyes:

That is (albeit very honest), a very ignorant point of view.

isolde

Heh. No, Zulu.. the thing is.. an ignorant point of view would be an uninformed point of view. And when it comes to abortion, I'm definitely informed. And I know exactly what I'm saying and I've said exactly what I feel, even though it's very un-PC. You may disagree with it, but ignorant it is not.

~isolde.

Zulu

Originally posted by isolde
Heh. No, Zulu.. the thing is.. an ignorant point of view would be an uninformed point of view. And when it comes to abortion, I'm definitely informed. And I know exactly what I'm saying and I've said exactly what I feel, even though it's very un-PC. You may disagree with it, but ignorant it is not.

~isolde.

An opinion can be informed and ignorant, it comes down to the person making the opinion.
I understand you are informed. I understand you are "un-PC". Your opinion is hardly a level, educated one though. It is quite mindless to the concept of human rights (you accept the the foetus MAY be human life, but still feel the mother is a MORE important person); it is oblivious to the life of the child and quite unconscious, with a flippant attitude to human life.

That is hardly the criteria for an educated, unbiased opinion.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Zulu
It is quite mindless to the concept of human rights (you accept the the foetus MAY be human life, but still feel the mother is a MORE important person); it is oblivious to the life of the child and quite unconscious, with a flippant attitude to human life.

In fairness to isolde, whether his / her view that not all humans have equal rights is ‘ignorant’ or not, has simply been stated and cannot be dismissed unless successfully and logically argued against. You’ve simply countered that you think such a position to be wrong or ‘ignorant’, which is your opinion, but logically proves or disproves nothing in itself.

Zulu

Originally posted by The Corinthian
In fairness to isolde, whether his / her view that not all humans have equal rights is ‘ignorant’ or not, has simply been stated and cannot be dismissed unless successfully and logically argued against. You’ve simply countered that you think such a position to be wrong or ‘ignorant’, which is your opinion, but logically proves or disproves nothing in itself.

While I understand that my opinion doesn't prove anything in itself, it's intention was to highlight the intolerant attitude being openly displayed by isolde.
I do not wish to get side tracked into the realms of proving: intolerance is/isn't an ignorant attitude, but I will point out that many people have made that argument before me, and it is taken as the given. (...and yes I understand this also proves nothing...)

What I will say though: in a circumstance such as abortion where there are two people involved (and isolde has already acknowledged that the foetus may be a person), how can you claim not to have an ignorant attitude, and at the same time completely disregard half of the story? How can you so easily negate the life/feelings/opinions of the child based on intellect/convenience and claim to have a level informed tolerant opinion?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Zulu
While I understand that my opinion doesn't prove anything in itself, it's intention was to highlight the intolerant attitude being openly displayed by isolde.

What’s wrong with intolerance? Should we tolerate cruelty, corruption or incompetence, for example? If his / her intolerance is not founded in reason, that’s another matter, but you’ve not established that.

I do not wish to get side tracked into the realms of proving: intolerance is/isn't an ignorant attitude, but I will point out that many people have made that argument before me, and it is taken as the given. (...and yes I understand this also proves nothing...)

Indeed it does not. Ironically, you’re expressing intolerance towards intolerance, while we’re on the subject

Lemming

OT, but ....

my g/f made an interesting comment at the weekend on this thread and the abortion debate in general.

Why are the majority of the anti-abortion brigade all male? Why aren't we hearing more from women, since it is they who would have to "walk the walk" so to speak?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Lemming
Why are the majority of the anti-abortion brigade all male? Why aren't we hearing more from women, since it is they who would have to "walk the walk" so to speak?

Unless you, and your g/f hadn’t noticed the majority of those arguing both pro-life and pro-choice has been male, in this thread, with a comparable female minority arguing both sides also. And this has more to do with the demographics of Boards.ie than the demographics of the abortion debate.

Even if one assumed that a majority of women supported abortion against a majority of men opposing it, that hardly constitutes that it is either right or wrong. After all, women may "walk the walk" so to speak, but "takes too to tango" so to speak, too. And that’s before you consider the position that a foetus could be of either gender.

bonkey

Originally posted by Lemming
Why aren't we hearing more from women, since it is they who would have to "walk the walk" so to speak?

Well, aside from what Corinthian just pointed out regarding demographics, I would add that in my personal experience I have encountered an awful lot of women who aren't interested in discussing it because they don't feel men have any right to have any say in the issue in the first place, so there's no point in discussing it with them.

Not a majority of them espouse this view, by any means, but definitely a significant minority.

jc

Lemming

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Unless you, and your g/f hadn’t noticed the majority of those arguing both pro-life and pro-choice has been male, in this thread, with a comparable female minority arguing both sides also. And this has more to do with the demographics of Boards.ie than the demographics of the abortion debate.

She wasn't just making the comment on boards.ie Corrie, but from life in general. You see them on tv, on O'Connell st. etc etc. And almost all are male.

TBH I could have made that a little clearer in my initial off-topic moment.

Even if one assumed that a majority of women supported abortion against a majority of men opposing it, that hardly constitutes that it is either right or wrong. After all, women may "walk the walk" so to speak, but "takes too to tango" so to speak, too. And that’s before you consider the position that a foetus could be of either gender.

Indeed it does take "two to tango", but one side would appear far more vocal on the topic and in favour of restricting the right to choose (which I should add applies to both genders too) than the other.

Anyway, I'm going wildly off topic from the subject at hand.

Zulu

Originally posted by Lemming
Why are the majority of the anti-abortion brigade all male? Why aren't we hearing more from women, since it is they who would have to "walk the walk" so to speak?

maybe men just care more. :ninja:

Lemming

Originally posted by bonkey
Well, aside from what Corinthian just pointed out regarding demographics, I would add that in my personal experience I have encountered an awful lot of women who aren't interested in discussing it because they don't feel men have any right to have any say in the issue in the first place, so there's no point in discussing it with them.

Not a majority of them espouse this view, by any means, but definitely a significant minority.

jc

Interesting point bonkey, and most certainly what I would consider the extreme opposite of the anti-abortion view (if you follow my distinction).

I would consider the answer to lie in-between. I don't think that men should be treated as such, but nor do I think that we should be tryign to curtail choices that, quite simply, aren't ours to make (in the context of it being another couple's decision that they alone have to make)

rs

ok, I'm stunned that anyone could be against making abortion legal.

The simple reason is this.

Abortion will eventually lead to less knackers.

Who can argue with that?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Lemming
Indeed it does take "two to tango", but one side would appear far more vocal on the topic and in favour of restricting the right to choose (which I should add applies to both genders too) than the other.

You missed the point of what I said; simply because one gender may oppose or support abortion does not make it right or wrong, as either can be seen as affecting human rights (the mother’s, father’s or unborn child) depending upon your position.

That one gender may tend to favour one position against another is probably more to do with selfish reasons rather than moral ones. Men will tend to be against abortion as it supports their right of fatherhood and they don’t have to carry the foetus/child - indeed, the most common reaction of a man is ‘when the egg splits, so does he’. Women on the other hand will tend to favour such an option, as it is more expedient.

Each gender will tend to support a position that promotes their convenience, but this does not mean that either is right or wrong. Ultimately, the morality behind it comes down to our definition of humanity rather than of genders.

Anyway, I'm going wildly off topic from the subject at hand.

You’re not at all - you’re implying that abortion is justifiable given that you believe that a majority of women would support it and they are the one’s who have to carry to term and/or that male opposition to abortion is of secondary importance as we do not. That’s well on topic.

I don't think that men should be treated as such, but nor do I think that we should be tryign to curtail choices that, quite simply, aren't ours to make (in the context of it being another couple's decision that they alone have to make)

Society curtail the choices of others all the time, often because it decides that those choices are frankly not theirs to make in the first place. After all, a parent or couple does not have the right to infanticide, even if they themselves do not believe it to be immoral.

Actually, on that very point

Zulu

Originally posted by Lemming
Interesting point bonkey, and most certainly what I would consider the extreme opposite of the anti-abortion view (if you follow my distinction).

I would consider the answer to lie in-between. I don't think that men should be treated as such, but nor do I think that we should be tryign to curtail choices that, quite simply, aren't ours to make (in the context of it being another couple's decision that they alone have to make)

Well, you see, it is ours to make.
The common (mis)perception is that: it's the womans body, therefore it's her choice. The problem with this logic, is that there is another person involved in the mothers body. So. for example, if I owned a hotel, should I have the right to kill whoever resides inside my hotel? Should you have a say over my actions? - I mean, why should you, a non-hotel owning person, curtail my choices?

If we can't curtail the mothers chioces - why should she be allowed curtail the choices of the child?

As for Rs....

Originally posted by rs
ok, I'm stunned that anyone could be against making abortion legal.

The simple reason is this.

Abortion will eventually lead to less knackers.

Who can argue with that?[/i]

I can't argue with that, your right, I'm converted!

Lemming

Originally posted by The Corinthian
You’re not at all - you’re implying that abortion is justifiable given that you believe that a majority of women would support it and they are the one’s who have to carry to term and/or that male opposition to abortion is of secondary importance as we do not. That’s well on topic.

I actually hadn't intented to imply that at all. I was just wondering why the vast majority of those campaigning against would appear to be men. Not the vast majority of the male sex. Just the majority of those speaking out against it.

I'm interested to hear the (rational, thought-out - that means no "because its my body and not yours" arguments) female perspective on this given that most of the noise would appear to be made by the opposite sex.

Society curtail the choices of others all the time, often because it decides that those choices are frankly not theirs to make in the first place. After all, a parent or couple does not have the right to infanticide, even if they themselves do not believe it to be immoral.

Actually, on that very point

Heh. That reminds me of the Monty Python sketch & song "Every sperm is sacred"

Lemming

Originally posted by Zulu
So. for example, if I owned a hotel, should I have the right to kill whoever resides inside my hotel? Should you have a say over my actions? - I mean, why should you, a non-hotel owning person, curtail my choices?

Terrible, terrible analogy Zulu. You get a 0 for effort. I wont even bother pointing out the one single over-riding flaw in your argument. Yes, it's THAT obvious.

The day that we start stuffing babies into women's bodies for a two week holiday than you can use that analogy.