Atheism & Abortion

Hivemind187

bonkey wrote: »

We call that society.

For the nth time this thread...that is correct in the same way that we dictate that you cannot use your body to kill another human being, to steal from another human being, etc. without being held accountable for it.

No. Its not. In both of those examples you are interfering with an entity that is supporting its own life - something you have no right to do. A foetus is the product of the mothers anatomy and cellular function, she is providing the materials for its construction. She is paying the price to her own detriment. Since it is the product of her own body she has the right to do with it as she sees fit.

So, I cant agree with your position on that.

bonkey wrote: »

That it is your body is not the issue here...it is the extent to which others are impacted by your actions.

They are of the opinion that your actions do not impinge merely on your own body, but on the body of another - that of the unborn child. The question is not whether or not the expectant mother has a right to do with her own body as she chooses, but rather whether or not she has a right to do with the body of her unborn child as she chooses.

Ah, see this is where the crucial difference comes in. They are saying it is a child. This is an emotional plea, one i whole heartedly understand - in concept. The foetus is the product of the mothers body (with a tiny bit of genetic pattern inhereted from the other, presumably father), as much as a tumour, a toe nail or any number of other things is. As such, the mother is choosing what to do with the mass of cells that she is producing. Applying attributes to the foetus does not change the fact that human beings are walking talking expressions of chemical reactions.

It is precisely the issue that people cannot separate the concept of a "child" from "a mass of cells" that causes this row in the first place.

bonkey wrote: »

I assume you accept that by your own stance it is unacceptable for you to impose this opinion on the rest of society - telling them whether they do or do not have a right to interfere.

Its a slight paradox I'll grant you but I am only stating what "should be" not what actually is, however unfortunate that may be. No one should have to be told not to interfere with another person but that is, sadly, not the way the world works.

bonkey wrote: »

Those who argue in favour of allowing society to make these impositions on others....they could take such a stance, sure. But you've argued that its wrong to impose your one to impose their view of how society should work onto others.....so I assume that means that while you believe the above is how society should work, society can never be made to work that way.

Maybe one day when people can learn to be objective (objectivity does not mean the abandonment of human virtues merely the ability to be able to look at things without an emotional investment - in the context I use it).

Sangre

Scofflaw wrote: »

Nope. Even if it becomes possible to grow zygotes to 'birth' artificially, my position would still be that the embryo is still not a human person by any definition that does not rapidly become ridiculous. It is probably possible to sustain the existence of a finger or other arbitrary body part indefinitely outside the body, but that does not constitute an argument for their having rights. Indeed, I suspect it is easier to keep a finger alive than an embryo, so the embryo is less 'independent' than a finger.

cordially,
Scofflaw

So when you were watching The Island you were on the side of the evil overlords who saw the prisoners as nothing more than walking organ containers.

disgusted,
sangre

Hivemind187

robindch wrote: »

As others have said, it's no more "imposing beliefs" to enact a law prohibiting abortion (or conferring rights on foetuses) than to enact one prohibiting theft. You seem to be missing this point quite dramatically.The kettle calling the pot black. Why are you so emotional about it yourself?

I'm not "emotional" in the same sense. I have passionate beliefs about how things should be sure, I approach things in an aggressive and sometimes I am liable to poke fun but that does not put me in the same category as those who base their opinions on an irrational "hunch" or how they feel about a clump of cells they have mis-attributed rights to.

Your argument is nonsense by the way since you cant steal from yourself.

Hivemind187

Sangre wrote: »

So when you were watching The Island you were on the side of the evil overlords who saw the prisoners as nothing more than walking organ containers.

disgusted,
sangre

Thats very helpful thank you.

Scofflaw

Sangre wrote: »

So when you were watching The Island you were on the side of the evil overlords who saw the prisoners as nothing more than walking organ containers.

Well, I like to think if I were an evil overlord I'd keep my end of things up, certainly. Organ donors, lunch, whatever.

A profound misreading, based on your view that the embryo is human - and rather than work out how to correct my argument, you have simply attributed to me a view that only exists as a corollary of your view :

Argument: an embryo is a clump of cells, and has no more rights than a finger or a toe.

Misreading: an embryo is a human being, and therefore anyone who claims the above thinks that human beings are just clumps of cells and therefore devoid of rights.

Your misreading doesn't even follow. The correct reinterpretation of the argument would be:

an embryo is a clump of cells and a human being by virtue of (?). A finger or a toe is also a clump of cells. If the embryo has rights, so should your organs, unless we can show some meaningful difference between them.

All you need to do is show a meaningful difference between the clump of cells that constitutes an embryo, and the clump of cells that constitute a finger or other organ.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hivemind187

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's not actually about when something is alive, since, as you quite correctly say, there is complete continuity of life throughout the process - indeed, that's the point of it!

The question is when the zygote/foetus becomes a 'human being' or 'person'. In your view that only happens once the foetus is independently viable - up to then it's no different from an eye, or a finger. That's a logical viewpoint, but again it doesn't change the fact that 'person' and 'human being' are pre-scientific concepts, for which there is no formal scientific definition, or at least not one of any use here. That makes your definition neither more nor less valid than any other, no matter how strongly you may feel about it.

Pre-scientific concepts which, for some peculiar reason, people seem happy to slaughter doctors over.

Objectively, creating a law to protect one part of the life cycle to the detriment of another section of the life cycle seems a little counter intuitive. These pre-scientific notions of "life" and "person" are the semantic lynch pin of the pro-life argument and they are, essentially meaningless.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Further, and I really don't think you see this rationally, someone who believes that the foetus is a person has no rational option but to consider abortion murder, and no moral option but to have it made illegal.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I am approaching it rationally Scofflaw, regardless of any levity or errors in concocting my posts. Consider that it is a little hard to sound rational when discussing a topic that is so patently irrational.

I understand the position these people are coming from and you might assume that would allow me to agree with them but it doesnt. I disagree strongly (self evident at this point) with their position but I am not going to force them to have an abortion if they dont want one ... on the other hand they would prevent a woman from having one if she chose to. Do you not see the problem there? That one position is to allow people to make the decision for themselves what to do with the product of their own body and the other is the interference of others in what people may do with their own body.

Philosophically, from my point of view, its a no brainer.

Scofflaw

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Do you not see the problem there? That one position is to allow people to make the decision for themselves what to do with the product of their own body and the other is the interference of others in what people may do with their own body.

OK, I appreciate you're approaching this calmly, despite passionately held beliefs!

The important problem in the sentence above I have highlighted - your argument logically flows from the position that the embryo is nothing more than a "product" of the woman's body, and as such it is extremely presumptuous for someone to assert the right to interfere in her decisions regarding it.

A "pro-lifer" doesn't agree with the fundamental point there - it's not about the woman's rights to control her own body, but about their definition of the embryo as something more than just a product of the woman's body.

Once someone believes that the embryo is a human being, fully deserving of rights, it's a no-brainer that abortion is murder.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hivemind187

Scofflaw wrote: »

OK, I appreciate you're approaching this calmly, despite passionately held beliefs!

The important problem in the sentence above I have highlighted - your argument logically flows from the position that the embryo is nothing more than a "product" of the woman's body, and as such it is extremely presumptuous for someone to assert the right to interfere in her decisions regarding it.

A "pro-lifer" doesn't agree with the fundamental point there - it's not about the woman's rights to control her own body, but about their definition of the embryo as something more than just a product of the woman's body.

Once someone believes that the embryo is a human being, fully deserving of rights, it's a no-brainer that abortion is murder.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I know what you are saying. I understand that it is some kind of moral imperative on people to be horrified at the prospect of dead babies - it horrifies me and I'm a cold, calculating, emotionless fascist (according to some ... ahem). I find the images of injured children in Vietnam upsetting, I find the idea of children being slaughtered wholesale in Darfur and other places abhorrent - indeed the idea of anyone being murdered is reprehensible to me.

The problem I have is with the presumption that life has some intrinsic value other than the emotional reaction we have developed as a species. From a logical and rational perspective a foetus is only the sum of the nutritional intake garnered from the mother.

What I am having trouble with, I guess, is what he pro-life argument is based on in terms of evidence - what is the reason that they believe a foetus has any "rights" before it is capable of taking the responsibility for those rights?

An embryo has no nervous system, no thoughts, no awareness, no dreams, nothing - yet they demand that these must be "saved from evil abortion doctors and babykillers!". Is it divine mandate that affords these "rights"? Scripture? A hunch? Is it the emotional disgust they feel at what they perceive as a "itty-bitty baby"?

What is it that gives these people the perceived right to impose their will on others?

Scofflaw

Hivemind187 wrote: »

The problem I have is with the presumption that life has some intrinsic value other than the emotional reaction we have developed as a species. From a logical and rational perspective a foetus is only the sum of the nutritional intake garnered from the mother.

You are what you eat? By the same logic I have only the rights one would attribute to a random, if large, collection of edible animals and plants.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

What I am having trouble with, I guess, is what he pro-life argument is based on in terms of evidence - what is the reason that they believe a foetus has any "rights" before it is capable of taking the responsibility for those rights?

Well, partly because people have all sorts of different bases on which they ascribe rights. A baby, for example, has the right not to be killed, even though it is frankly incapable of taking any responsibility for such a right.

Hivemind187 wrote: »

An embryo has no nervous system, no thoughts, no awareness, no dreams, nothing - yet they demand that these must be "saved from evil abortion doctors and babykillers!". Is it divine mandate that affords these "rights"? Scripture? A hunch? Is it the emotional disgust they feel at what they perceive as a "itty-bitty baby"?

What is it that gives these people the perceived right to impose their will on others?

You're conflating the two issues. They believe they have the right because they believe they are intervening to prevent the killing of another human being. They believe that it is a human being for various reasons, but the intervention is perfectly logical once one believes that (except that it makes matters worse, really).

cordially,
Scofflaw

bonkey

Hivemind187 wrote: »

No. Its not. In both of those examples you are interfering with an entity that is supporting its own life - something you have no right to do. A foetus is the product of the mothers anatomy and cellular function, she is providing the materials for its construction. She is paying the price to her own detriment. Since it is the product of her own body she has the right to do with it as she sees fit.

So, I cant agree with your position on that.

I'm not asking you to agree with my position. I was hoping you'd disagree with it.

I don't agree that the distinction of who has right is determined by who does the sustaining. You, at the same time, have argued long and hard that it is wrong for one member of society to impose their views on another. So you cannot in all good conscience believe that you can expect me to submit to your point of view - that I should be required to live under your rules.

I, on the other hand, accept fully that in order to function, society must involve some imposition of rules....so I'm allowed believe that I can expect you to be forced to submit to my point of view.

It is precisely the issue that people cannot separate the concept of a "child" from "a mass of cells" that causes this row in the first place.

The issue is not that everyone doesn't agree with your definition, no. Its as much that people like you don't agree with theirs.

No one should have to be told not to interfere with another person but that is, sadly, not the way the world works.

Sadly, the definition of what constitutes a person is also part of the problem.

Some say that the unborn be included in that definition, but you apparently see them as being of no more import than a toenail or a tumor.

Maybe one day when people can learn to be objective (objectivity does not mean the abandonment of human virtues merely the ability to be able to look at things without an emotional investment - in the context I use it).

Objectivity isn't all that hard. Objectively, we can understand that no relevant definition is absolutely accepted.

Thus, we have a choice to make - should we permit some people to commit what others consider murder, or should we prevent some people from comitting acts that they see as being not much different than trimming their toenails....and everything in between.

Objectively, I find it hard to understand why the beliefs of - at least - a significant minority that murder is being comitted do not carry weight.

Hivemind187

Scofflaw wrote: »

You are what you eat? By the same logic I have only the rights one would attribute to a random, if large, collection of edible animals and plants.

Rights are a human construction, the difference I am trying to explain is that no one has the specific right to take away someone elses responsibility.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Well, partly because people have all sorts of different bases on which they ascribe rights. A baby, for example, has the right not to be killed, even though it is frankly incapable of taking any responsibility for such a right.

Ah, this is not exactly what I was saying. My argument, my original one regarding abortion as an act anyway, was that until the organism takes the responsibility to breathe for itself it is relying on the continued altruism of others to survive. When it takes the responsibility for this on to itself it is then its choice whether to continue or to cease breathing - and no one elses.

The analogy of an neonate defending itself against an attacker is missing the point somewhat since the neonates survival is not contingent on any positive boon contributed by the would be murderer only that said murderer "not" do something.

This is in contrast to the active support played by the mother in providing the nutrition etc for its development and existence.

Scofflaw wrote: »

You're conflating the two issues. They believe they have the right because they believe they are intervening to prevent the killing of another human being. They believe that it is a human being for various reasons, but the intervention is perfectly logical once one believes that (except that it makes matters worse, really).

cordially,
Scofflaw

One is required for the other. If the first doesnt make sense then it undermines the later action no?

I'm not saying they dont believe they are right, nor that they dont believe their actions to be justifed. I am asking why they think that and why they think their actions are justified ... or has the burden of proof been shifted to the other party?

Essentially what I am asking is how are they justifying it? If they are basing their actions on nothing other than blind belief or faith in their own righteousness then surely they are no better than suicide bombers? If they cannot justify their actions with reference to evidence that supports their position and refutes the other then, logically, they should not interfere with someone elses choice because they cannot know that they are right - or am I way off here?

Hivemind187

bonkey wrote: »

I'm not asking you to agree with my position. I was hoping you'd disagree with it.

I don't agree that the distinction of who has right is determined by who does the sustaining. You, at the same time, have argued long and hard that it is wrong for one member of society to impose their views on another. So you cannot in all good conscience believe that you can expect me to submit to your point of view - that I should be required to live under your rules.

I, on the other hand, accept fully that in order to function, society must involve some imposition of rules....so I'm allowed believe that I can expect you to be forced to submit to my point of view.

Thats all well and good Bonkey, you can disagree all you like. It doesnt change the fact that a foetus is constructed within, and by using the parent body. Refute that if you will.

As for your concepts of how a society should work, well, all I can say is the next time you are forced to do something you dont want to do or feel that you are being interfered with by someone elses position remember what you said here and realise that you just gave up your right to complain about it or to do anything to change it.

bonkey wrote: »

The issue is not that everyone doesn't agree with your definition, no. Its as much that people like you don't agree with theirs.

Thats a matter of semantics really. By my argument, people have the right to disagree and, in as much as it affect their own bodies and themselves, they have the right to do as they please. When they start interfering with other people or presumptively assume that they can impose their beliefs on others then they are crossing a line. Surely this is the point of liberalism? not that politics really has any place in this argument.

bonkey wrote: »

Sadly, the definition of what constitutes a person is also part of the problem.

Agreed.

bonkey wrote: »

Some say that the unborn be included in that definition, but you apparently see them as being of no more import than a toenail or a tumor.

Now now, quote me in context. The point I was making was that the foetus is a creation of the body it grows in. I never suggested anything about "value". Now that you bring it up I suppose i should clarify. In a sense, if cells can be viewed as property, the foetus is the property of the mother until such time as she ceases to support it in toto. As such, it is her right to do as she wishes with said property. Whether that property be toenail or foetus is irrelevant since no actual value can be scientifically attributed other than work done by the mothers body.

bonkey wrote: »

Objectivity isn't all that hard. Objectively, we can understand that no relevant definition is absolutely accepted.

Thus, we have a choice to make - should we permit some people to commit what others consider murder, or should we prevent some people from committing acts that they see as being not much different than trimming their toenails....and everything in between.

Objectively, I find it hard to understand why the beliefs of - at least - a significant minority that murder is being committed do not carry weight.

That only works IF you call it murder and define it in the same way. My argument is that you cannot. You may want to do so but that does not make it an actuality.

Moreover, people may believe that a murder is being committed every time you make an omlette or eat a steak. We do not start hanging chefs in order to accommodate vegans though.

Scofflaw

bonkey wrote: »

Sadly, the definition of what constitutes a person is also part of the problem.

Some say that the unborn be included in that definition, but you apparently see them as being of no more import than a toenail or a tumor.

That may or may not be true of Hivemind, but it is certainly not necessarily true of someone who supports the legality of abortion. Also, the term "unborn" is very slanted - it is not a technical term, and begs the question of whether embryos are clumps of cells or unborn human beings.

Can you explain on what basis you see an embryo as 'of more import' than the next group of body cells?

bonkey wrote: »

Objectivity isn't all that hard. Objectively, we can understand that no relevant definition is absolutely accepted.

Thus, we have a choice to make - should we permit some people to commit what others consider murder, or should we prevent some people from committing acts that they see as being not much different than trimming their toenails....and everything in between.

Objectively, I find it hard to understand why the beliefs of - at least - a significant minority that murder is being committed do not carry weight.

I would say that it is because there is no general agreement that they are right. They themselves need not carry out what they believe is murder, since there is no "pro-abortion" legislation that mandates abortion - but since there is at least equal weight behind those who believe it is not murder, and who believe that outlawing abortion is unjustified interference with their rights, it seems to lie more in the field of personal ethics than public law.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hivemind187

Scofflaw wrote: »

I would say that it is because there is no general agreement that they are right. They themselves need not carry out what they believe is murder, since there is no "pro-abortion" legislation that mandates abortion - but since there is at least equal weight behind those who believe it is not murder, and who believe that outlawing abortion is unjustified interference with their rights, it seems to lie more in the field of personal ethics than public law.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Almost precisely my argument, at least in part.

Rev Hellfire

Scofflaw wrote: »

Can you explain on what basis you see an embryo as 'of more import' than the next group of body cells?

I would imagine the additional importance of an embryo is its ability to eventually develop into a person, something a toe for example cannot do.

robindch

hivemind wrote:

I approach things in an aggressive and sometimes I am liable to poke fun but that does not put me in the same category as those who base their opinions on an irrational "hunch" or how they feel about a clump of cells they have mis-attributed rights to.

While it's debatable whether or not your passionate approach does put you in the same debate-category as your opponents, I do believe that you are as unable to see, or appreciate, the other side of the argument, very bit as much as they are. And for the reasons which I mentioned in this post from yesterday. As Scofflaw followed up, it comes down to a matter of opinion and at that level, it's your opinion against theirs -- do you see this?

hivemind wrote:

Your argument is nonsense by the way since you cant steal from yourself.

I wasn't talking about stealing itself. I was referring to making laws which proscribe stealing -- you're in favour of these? Or do you believe that society has no right to make laws which override your own wish to steal the property of others without the threat of legal action? The group overriding the will of the individual is what you dislike, as far as I can understand.

BTW, you say that clumps of cells have no human rights. At what point do you believe that clumps of cells do acquire rights, including the right to existence?

Scofflaw

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I would imagine the additional importance of an embryo is its ability to eventually develop into a person, something a toe for example cannot do.

That is certainly the obvious answer. The "ability to eventually develop into a person" unfortunately includes every single sperm and ovum. Indeed, if you take that approach to its absurd limit, then every killing is a mass murder of thousands of innocent potential human beings.

Also, if it became possible to grow a human being from a finger, would that give the finger rights? If we can clone from a body cell, does every part have the rights of the human?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Rev Hellfire

Scofflaw wrote: »

That is certainly the obvious answer. The "ability to eventually develop into a person" unfortunately includes every single sperm and ovum. Indeed, if you take that approach to its absurd limit, then every killing is a mass murder of thousands of innocent potential human beings.

Not really, there are a few differences. Firstly while every sperm and ovum may have the ability to result in a 'potential human' they can not do so on there own.
So its not really comparing like with like.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Also, if it became possible to grow a human being from a finger, would that give the finger rights? If we can clone from a body cell, does every part have the rights of the human?

An interesting question, but perhaps its more correct to ask if the ability to do was available and your started to 'grow' a new human from your toe, would you have the right to stop it. It has at that point ceased to be 'toe'.

Scofflaw

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Not really, there are a few differences. Firstly while every sperm and ovum may have the ability to result in a 'potential human' they can not do so on there own.
So its not really comparing like with like.

And the zygote cannot do so on its own, without the mother, which takes us back to Hivemind's argument from dependency. If the sperm is not a 'human being' because it requires the egg, and the zygote requires the womb, what is the difference?

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

An interesting question, but perhaps its more correct to ask if the ability to do was available and your started to 'grow' a new human from your toe, would you have the right to stop it. It has at that point ceased to be 'toe'.

Again, the zygote cannot do this without the "intervention" of the mother. At what point does it cease to be a "toe"?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Conar

Scofflaw wrote: »

And the zygote cannot do so on its own, without the mother, which takes us back to Hivemind's argument from dependency. If the sperm is not a 'human being' because it requires the egg, and the zygote requires the womb, what is the difference?

Excellent point.

Zombrex

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Not really, there are a few differences. Firstly while every sperm and ovum may have the ability to result in a 'potential human' they can not do so on there own.
So its not really comparing like with like.

As Scofflaw points out, the idea that the zygote can become a human being on its "own" is nonsense. The zygote is one cell. There needs to be a huge amount of machinery put in place for that cell to develop any further, and that machinery is not self contained in the zygote itself.

I think the issue here is the idea that sex itself is a choice humans make, but after sex we view the development as some what automatic. So it seems natural to say that the sex is where it "starts", with that conscious action, because that is that last place we had any choice in the matter.

The point to remember is that nature doesn't view it like that.

To nature two people having sex is as "automatic", as any other part of the process. We, as animals, are directed by our evolution to have sex. We because of our intelligence have a lot more control over that action that a lot of animals. But that is rather irrelevant. To nature this stage is the same as say the womb wall accepting or rejecting the embryo. It is just another stage in the cycle. From natures point of view there is no great significance in the conception.

Rev Hellfire

Scofflaw wrote: »

And the zygote cannot do so on its own, without the mother, which takes us back to Hivemind's argument from dependency. If the sperm is not a 'human being' because it requires the egg, and the zygote requires the womb, what is the difference?

I understand where your particular stance on the matter is coming from, but from my perspective it’s not an accurate one. I view the zygote as distinct from both the sperm, ovum and a detached toe or other body part for the following reason.

When I think of myself, I think of see myself as a single unit containing multiple parts. If you cut of my toe and chop off my arm, they aren’t me (although they once where) I am the sum total of my parts 

The important distinction the zygote gets from this view is as follows (in my view) if I begin to trace back we go from rev, to mini-rev to birth to pre-rev, right back to the zygote. The whole time I remain a unit up until the point at which the ovum and sperm conjoin. Any point which precedes that breaks this union and I cease to be.

The sperm and ovum that ultimately formed me are not me, although I guess I am the sum total of their parts. That in my view is what is unique about the zygote, and why in my view comparing it to sperm, ovum etc is as valid as comparing you to your toe or individual cells you may contain.

Note: I'm not implying that zygote is fully formed person deserving of the rights that go with such a thing, but rather that it is distinct in its nature from the examples you gave.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Again, the zygote cannot do this without the "intervention" of the mother. At what point does it cease to be a "toe"

The toe ceased to be just a toe once your hypothetical process allowed it to reproduce into a new human. Toes don't do that Well maybe your toe does, but once the process started it wasn't just a toe was it anymore ?

As for the idea that something has no rights simply because it requires the supporting infrastructure of the mother seems a bit simplistic to me, by extension then you would consider a pre-term baby as no different than a toe, but that is clearly not the case.

bonkey

Hivemind187 wrote: »

Thats all well and good Bonkey, you can disagree all you like. It doesnt change the fact that a foetus is constructed within, and by using the parent body. Refute that if you will.

I don't need to refute it. I accept fully that a foetus is constructed within, using the parent body. What I have said is that there is no universal acknowledgement of when that "clump of cells" becomes considerable / considered as a human life.

I have also pointed out that while you argue forcefully for your position, you also argue that no-one should be allowed impose their position on others. This is more at the crux of the reason why I posted here. Your stance would be unremarkable if you weren't trying to defend it by effectively saying "we should do things my way, because no-one should be allowed tell anyone else what way they should do things".

As for your concepts of how a society should work, well, all I can say is the next time you are forced to do something you dont want to do or feel that you are being interfered with by someone elses position remember what you said here and realise that you just gave up your right to complain about it or to do anything to change it.

I've never given up my right to complain abou tit, nor my right to do anything about it. I've said only that I have to accept that society involves the existence of rules, which - by their very nature - will involve some group of people being told that they cannot do what they would like to.

While I accept fully that a rule can be wrong, and that wrong imposition is made, I do not accept the argument you make which is that its wrong to impose any restriction in the first place.

By my argument, people have the right to disagree and, in as much as it affect their own bodies and themselves, they have the right to do as they please. When they start interfering with other people or presumptively assume that they can impose their beliefs on others then they are crossing a line.

So then you must agree that the question becomes purely and solely whether the foetus which they are imposing their will on constitutes "other people". Indeed, that question extends beyond abortion, and through into any number of issues.

We need to define what constitutes "other people" clearly before this stance has any real meaning. Your position seems to be that it is wrong for society to make that decision - that it should be to each individual to make it. However, I'm willing to bet that without too much effort I could come up with situations where you'd find that reasoning abhorrent. You'd perhaps argue that I'm deliberately skewing your intent, but the point is that either we agree that society can set the common boundaries, or we agree that there are no common boundaries

Now now, quote me in context. The point I was making was that the foetus is a creation of the body it grows in. I never suggested anything about "value". Now that you bring it up I suppose i should clarify. In a sense, if cells can be viewed as property, the foetus is the property of the mother until such time as she ceases to support it in toto. As such, it is her right to do as she wishes with said property.

Or, put another way, you would see it as no more your or my concern what teh mother does with her foetus-property as it is what she does with her toenail-property. And thats a perfectly fine stance, as long as you're willing to say that society can impose on me that this is simply "the mother's property".

Moreover, people may believe that a murder is being committed every time you make an omlette or eat a steak.

Yes, they do. They do not, in my opinion, form a significant minority. I would, however, be very interested in hearing their point of view, and discussing it with them. I do not think society should just dismiss their point of view out of hand.

We do not start hanging chefs in order to accommodate vegans though.

I'm neither aware of a significant minority for the hanging of doctors who assist in abortions, nor for the hanging of non-vegan chefs....so its hardly surprising that we're not hanging either.

bonkey

Scofflaw wrote: »

That may or may not be true of Hivemind, but it is certainly not necessarily true of someone who supports the legality of abortion.

I wouldn't suggest that it is.

Also, the term "unborn" is very slanted - it is not a technical term, and begs the question of whether embryos are clumps of cells or unborn human beings.

Fair point.

I do not see "human being" as being the inevitable suffix to the term, however. I use it mostly because I'm not aware of a single scientific term which covers the entire term from conception to birth (through zygote, embryo and foetus).

Ironically, I've used more clinical terms in the past, and have also then been judged guilty of using slanted language!!! Its a microcosm of the whole issue, really, isn't it

Anyway...as a result, I try not to read too much into anyone's choice of terminology, except when it becomes central to their argument and intended my own post to be read in a similar manner.
Apologies to anyone who's offended by my choice of terms.

Can you explain on what basis you see an embryo as 'of more import' than the next group of body cells?

I never said that I did.

As I've clarified in my previous post, my main interest in this conversation was to understand how Hivemind could argue on one hand that society has no right to impose one view over another, whilst at the same time effectively arguing that society should impose one view over another...that being the view (supported by Hivemind) that its the mother's choice and that it is not murder in any objective sense.

Unless Hivemind is arguing that anyone should be allowed to commit any act that they can justify to themselves, then the argument that society is wrong to impose restrictions is inherently flawed.

It becomes a question of how should society best achieve this.

coffee_cake

Tar.Aldarion wrote:

A lot of people I have talked to hold the view that believe the child to just be a lump of cells, then they should have no qualms about abortion...no matter how many times somebody does it.
Yet they are also against abortion as a form of contraception, why is this?

You want to know why women shouldn't repeatedly undergo a costly surgical procedure?

JimiTime

bluewolf wrote: »

You want to know why women shouldn't repeatedly undergo a costly surgical procedure?

TBH, it being a 'costly surgical procedure' has nothing to do with what is being discussed. The point is, if one views it as 'just a clump of cells', then they should not have an issue with it as a form of contraception, morally speaking. But for some reason, some people who do view it as 'just a clump of cells', have an issue with it being a contraception method. This view is quite plainly flawed. You either believe its a clump of cells, and you can do what you like with it as often as you like; or you believe its more than that and shouldn't be puposely killed.

coffee_cake

JimiTime wrote: »

TBH, it being a 'costly surgical procedure' has nothing to do with what is being discussed. The point is, if one views it as 'just a clump of cells', then they should not have an issue with it as a form of contraception, morally speaking. But for some reason, some people who do view it as 'just a clump of cells', have an issue with it being a contraception method. This view is quite plainly flawed. You either believe its a clump of cells, and you can do what you like with it as often as you like; or you believe its more than that and shouldn't be puposely killed.

It has everything to do with it. Any surgery, afaik, carries some risk, and it's costly to go over to England or wherever you're going. Doing this repeatedly instead of taking some simple prevention is stupid or highly uninformed, simple as.

JimiTime

bluewolf wrote: »

It has everything to do with it. Any surgery, afaik, carries some risk, and it's costly to go over to England or wherever you're going. Doing this repeatedly instead of taking some simple prevention is stupid or highly uninformed, simple as.

BUT, we are not discussing logistics. We are talking about the rights and wrongs of the procedure. You may very well say its stupid to do it, but that has no moral implications. The point Tar stated implied that those who called it 'a clump of cells' took a moral objection to it being used as contraception, when in fact if its not immoral the first time then why should it become immoral or wrong after a number of times? You may view it as stupid, but thats a different issue.

coffee_cake

JimiTime wrote: »

BUT, we are not discussing logistics. We are talking about the rights and wrongs of the procedure. You may very well say its stupid to do it, but that has no moral implications. The point Tar stated implied that those who called it 'a clump of cells' took a moral objection to it being used as contraception, when in fact if its not immoral the first time then why should it become immoral or wrong after a number of times? You may view it as stupid, but thats a different issue.

He didn't use the words moral/immoral in the text I quoted so it read to me and I answered it as a general question.

I'm not sure how many people would be morally against it.

JimiTime

bluewolf wrote: »

He didn't use the words moral/immoral in the text I quoted so it read to me and I answered it as a general question.

I'm not sure how many people would be morally against it.

I have to say, thats how anyone I've talked to says it. Its like, 'but its not right to use it as a form of contraception'. I am assuming that thats what Tar was talking about, as thats what his point seemed to suggest. maybe he could clarify that one.

Just to clarify your position then. You think its stupid to use it as a contraception, but not wrong?