Abortion from a Atheist viewpoint

nij

I am against abortion entirely

Dades wrote: »

Jasus, I didn't call you a Nazi but your notion of "testing" people for parental suitability is pretty far out. Population control would be useful, to be sure, but it would inevitably involve stamping the bejesus out of people's human rights.

What, a simple test would stamp all over people's "human rights"? What if a couple cannot support a child financially? What if they are monsters who shouldn't interact with other people, let alone have a child? With new laws we could avoid having teenagers squeeze out babies in school toilets only to throw them in the bin as soon as they have them.

If you want to talk about stamping the bejesus out of rights, you could talk about how we sterilise animals we don't want reproducing, and cutting their balls off. We already do that to animals, yet you're talking about my proposed test as if I'm suggesting we do the same to humans.

Zombrex

Myksyk wrote: »

DNA does far more than determine physical attributes. It has direct connection to mental, emotional and behavioural attributes, a fact i thought most people here would be up on.

Those are physical attributes.

Your brain is a physical thing. Your DNA effects how it physically develops.

Myksyk wrote: »

None of this takes from the fact that a zygote constitutes a specific person rather than the statistically probable person referred to when speaking of sperm/egg pairings.

Only if you define a person as being a zygote onwards, and the sperm/egg pair as not being a person.

Which makes your "fact" some what cyclical.

Zombrex

nij wrote: »

What, a simple test would stamp all over people's "human rights"? What if a couple cannot support a child financially?

Define, in detail, "support a child financially" and how you would assess that with a "simple test"

Myksyk

I am against abortion entirely

Wicknight wrote: »

Those are physical attributes.

Your brain is a physical thing. Your DNA effects how it physically develops.

They are not physical in the way I undertsood such attributes were being referred to by Mark Hamill. He was referring to DNA as being responsible for your physical body and not your cognitive, emotional and behavioural patterns (your personality). DNA is directly and indirectly responsible for all of these (in conjunction with your exposure to your environment).

Only if you define a person as being a zygote onwards, and the sperm/egg pair as not being a person.

A zygote actually exists as a specific code for a specific person. It is a knowable, identifiable entity and as such seems to me to be an obvious point at which to seriously consider the beginning of 'a person'. Sperm/egg pairs don't actually exist except as a probabilistic thought experiment. Even in IVF multiple sperm are used to try to fertilise the egg. there is no identifiable 'sperm/egg' pair until the pairing is complete, until a zygote is formed. Talk of them individually as 'human' seems to me entirely untenable.

Dades

nij wrote: »

What, a simple test would stamp all over people's "human rights"?

The test wouldn't stamp on someone human rights - a result telling them they were precluded by law from reproducing, would.

Don't misunderstand me - I work on the quays, and see junkies everyday with toddlers hanging out on the streets and think "those people shouldn't be allowed children". But you just can't do that, because ultimately you're placing the decision as to who can contribute to the gene pool in the hands of another human. It's unfathomable.

Interestingly, the notion of a 'license' to have a child is a very common theme in sci-fi, but is never painted in a progressive light.

Zombrex

Myksyk wrote: »

DNA is directly and indirectly responsible for all of these (in conjunction with your exposure to your environment).

Well, yes, but it is responsible for that by effecting the physical structure of your brain, which is part of your physical body.

Perhaps that is what you meant, but it sounded like you were implying some connection between your DNA and some sort of spiritual concept.

Myksyk wrote: »

A zygote actually exists as a specific code for a specific person.

True, but no one has yet explained why that does or should be crucial in defining an individual person.

As I asked other posters, if you and me shared the exact same DNA (we were clones) would we be considered the same person?

Myksyk wrote: »

It is a knowable, identifiable entity and as such seems to me to be an obvious point at which to seriously consider the beginning of 'a person'.

Why? Why does being knowable and identifiable mean it is a good place to consider a person? Is that simply because it is easy?

Myksyk wrote: »

Sperm/egg pairs don't actually exist except as a probabilistic thought experiment.

Sperm and egg pairings do exist, otherwise you wouldn't be here.

The fact that before conception we don't know which sperm is going to join with which egg is rather irrelevant. Something can exist without us knowing it does.

Also as I said in earlier posts using a condom destroys all possible pairings

Myksyk wrote: »

Even in IVF multiple sperm are used to try to fertilise the egg. there is no identifiable 'sperm/egg' pair until the pairing is complete, until a zygote is formed. Talk of them individually as 'human' seems to me entirely untenable.

Only if one considered being identifiable as a required property of personhood.

Which is a bit of an ego-centric way of looking at it - "You aren't a person unless I can identify you are"

Personhood should really be defined by the properties of the life form, not our ability to observe or identify those properties, since our ability to observe things is often flawed.

pH

I am against abortion entirely

Here's a question.

A woman is driving a car and through her own negligence has an accident. In one scenario her 1 month old baby is killed, in another she's one month pregnant and miscarries due to the accident.

Are both scenarios equivalent? Should we as a society treat both equally? (in terms of law and justice)

Is a woman accidentally killing her 4 week foetus morally equivalent to accidentally killing her living child? If so, what about a 4 day foetus?

Given that we as a state would investigate the death of a child, should we investigate all miscarriages? Should all miscarriages be reported to the police so that a proper investigation be carried out?

Mark Hamill

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Perhaps the difference between you and me is that the possibilty that I might have been aborted doesn't bother me - if that had happened then I accept that I just wasn't meant to exist, whereas you would presumably be disturbed by the notion that once you were conceived, you could have been killed.

It doesn't bother me because I could have been aborted, it bothers me that other babies can be aborted.

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Empathy differs from person to person. I have huge empathy for those starving in Africa, and have more desire to give charitably than many people

Vegetarians feel empathy for animals, whereas many others don't. Some are not opposed to eating animals but are against animal suffering. Vegans are against any kind of exploitation of animals for human benefit. It's an area, like abortion, where people's opinions and empathies are extremely varied. In any situation like this, where there are no massive reprecussions for human society depending on which side is embraced, there should be no legal restrictions, it's only logical.

While I don't believe that legal restrictions should be based purely on empathy (it can be very subjective at times), there are things that can have massive reprecussions for human society if things aren't done about them, eg the people dying of starvation and disease in Africa.

Mark Hamill

Wicknight wrote: »

As I asked other posters, if you and me shared the exact same DNA (we were clones) would we be considered the same person?

This would depend on how long ago your clone was made and whether he was made with all your memories.

If your clone was made when you were born and put into a completely different family then his upbringing would have been different than yours and resulted in a different person. You both may have the same neurological trends in cognitive ability and temperment etc, but if you where brought up by strict parents who encouraged your intelligence, while he was brought up in family where the parents didn't care or have the ability to raise the clone well then you would have two different people. The older the both of you got, the more different the both of you would become in your different enviroments.

If your clone was an instaneous copy made right now with all your memories up to this point, then for the exact instant that he was made, you would be the same people as you would have the same DNA and the same memories. But tomorrow, next week, month or year? You would start being differnt as you enviroments would be slightly different and you would have different situations to react and adapt to. You may be far along in your life, and long since past the period of youth when personality and mentality is easiest changed and so the changes between you and your instaneous clone would very small, but there would still be changes.

Mark Hamill

pH wrote: »

Here's a question.

A woman is driving a car and through her own negligence has an accident. In one scenario her 1 month old baby is killed, in another she's one month pregnant and miscarries due to the accident.

Are both scenarios equivalent? Should we as a society treat both equally? (in terms of law and justice)

Is a woman accidentally killing her 4 week foetus morally equivalent to accidentally killing her living child? If so, what about a 4 day foetus?

Given that we as a state would investigate the death of a child, should we investigate all miscarriages? Should all miscarriages be reported to the police so that a proper investigation be carried out?

If I remember correctly one of those killed in the omagh bombing was a pregnant woman carrying twins (she was 7 months in, I think), and the twins where counted among the victims. Does anyone think that the unborn twins should not have been counted among the victims, or should not be counted as equal to the rest of the dead.

Zombrex

pH wrote: »

Here's a question.

That is the question

pH wrote: »

A woman is driving a car and through her own negligence has an accident. In one scenario her 1 month old baby is killed, in another she's one month pregnant and miscarries due to the accident.

Are both scenarios equivalent? Should we as a society treat both equally? (in terms of law and justice)

No, not if you don't consider a 1 month old fetus to be a person, which I don't

pH wrote: »

Given that we as a state would investigate the death of a child, should we investigate all miscarriages? Should all miscarriages be reported to the police so that a proper investigation be carried out?

Again, only if the fetus is considered a person. Then a miscarriage should be investigated if foul play is suspected, just like with the death of any other person.

Zombrex

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Does anyone think that the unborn twins should not have been counted among the victims, or should not be counted as equal to the rest of the dead.

How far along in development were the fetuses?

Zombrex

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If your clone was an instaneous copy made right now with all your memories up to this point, then for the exact instant that he was made, you would be the same people as you would have the same DNA and the same memories. But tomorrow, next week, month or year? You would start being differnt as you enviroments would be slightly different and you would have different situations to react and adapt to.

That is the point.

We aren't the same, even if we have the same DNA, or the same memories.

Neither of those things define personhood.

The idea then that a person doesn't exist until the unique DNA in the zygote is formed doesn't hold. The forming of unique DNA is irrelevant, because DNA is not what we consider to be the valuable part of human existence. DNA shapes the traits of the person, but it doesn't define if something is or is not a person. It helps define who you are, but not if you are.

As you detail, two different persons can have the same DNA. And, since we are dealing with sci-fi examples, I could have my consciousness transfered to a human with different DNA to my original body, and still be considered a person in this new body. Or more extreme, if I was transfered to an artificial body with no DNA, I would still be considered a person.

It is the existence of my consciousness, no matter what form that existence takes, that is the valuable bit in all this.

pH

I am against abortion entirely

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If I remember correctly one of those killed in the omagh bombing was a pregnant woman carrying twins (she was 7 months in, I think), and the twins where counted among the victims. Does anyone think that the unborn twins should not have been counted among the victims, or should not be counted as equal to the rest of the dead.

I agree, only this is an example of someone else causing the 'deaths' and at 7 months (28 weeks) it's very close to (in fact beyond) the line that even most 'pro-choicers' would draw.

What are your thoughts on the original question, about when the harm comes from the woman carrying the child? Is there any graduation in seriousness or from the second the sperm and egg fuse? Is the death of that embryo exactly equivalent to the death of a living person?

Wicknight wrote: »

That is the question

No, not if you don't consider a 1 month old fetus to be a person, which I don't

The question was aimed at those arguing that something special happens the instant of conception, and once that happens nothing else in the foetus's development is important.

I'm just wondering if those arguing that (you know who you are) truly believe that the accidental death of a 7 second, 7 day or 7 week embryo is *exactly* the same as the accidental death of a child.

And this isn't a question of morals or ethics, it's a question of *law* and forcing people (on threat of punishment) not to do certain things. Clearly no one is talking about forcing anyone to have an abortion, those who don't agree with/don't want abortions are unaffected by any abortion law.

Abortion: Is it Possible to be both “Pro-life” and “Pro-Choice”? - Carl Sagan

Dades

pH wrote: »

The question was aimed at those arguing that something special happens the instant of conception, and once that happens nothing else in the foetus's development is important.

pH wrote: »

I'm just wondering if those arguing that (you know who you are) truly believe that the accidental death of a 7 second, 7 day or 7 week embryo is *exactly* the same as the accidental death of a child

I think it's important to note that these are two distinct opinions. I would agree with the first argument, but not the second.

Myksyk

I am against abortion entirely

Wicknight wrote: »

Perhaps that is what you meant, but it sounded like you were implying some connection between your DNA and some sort of spiritual concept.

Not sure where you got that but no, I wasn't.

True, but no one has yet explained why that does or should be crucial in defining an individual person.

Because a zygote constitutes the first cells of a person. It is in effect a person's soma or body. The only thing that will change from now on from a biological point of view is the number of cells.

As I asked other posters, if you and me shared the exact same DNA (we were clones) would we be considered the same person?

Very obviously not as no-one considers identical twins the same person.

Why? Why does being knowable and identifiable mean it is a good place to consider a person? Is that simply because it is easy?

As above it is the beginning of a person. It is very obviously the first cells of a particualr human being. I'm not saying it's the final answer to 'when does a person begin?' but if I had to choose between that and your idea that we can consider sperm as human, I would choose the former ... but that's just me.

Sperm and egg pairings do exist, otherwise you wouldn't be here.

The fact that before conception we don't know which sperm is going to join with which egg is rather irrelevant. Something can exist without us knowing it does.

Naturally they exist ... after they pair off. They do not exist before that point. Their pairing off is essentially random and not fated. Arguing retrospectively that, because they have now paired off, they were then a pair beforehand is nonsense. Are all oxygen atoms really water molecules because someday some of them they might be paired off with hydrogen atoms?

Arguing that it is irrelevant whether we know what sperm is going to pair off with what egg sounds almost obtuse. We would quickly find ourselves mired in ludicrous ethical scenarios where we would have to consider all sperm as human ... it's hard enough to deal with the ethical and philosophical minefield associated with the zygote - the 'actual' first cells of a specific human being.

Only if one considered being identifiable as a required property of personhood.

Which is a bit of an ego-centric way of looking at it - "You aren't a person unless I can identify you are"

I wasn't arguing that 'identifiability' is the key. I was arguing that 'actuality' is. A zygote is actually the first cells of the body of a specific human being. Some 'might be' pairing that can be only identified after the fact hardly constitures a good place to begin our considerations. Individual sperm and eggs are the 'necessary but not sufficient' part of the equation. They are, in my opinion, not human as you suggest.

Personhood should really be defined by the properties of the life form, not our ability to observe or identify those properties, since our ability to observe things is often flawed.

This is a rather self-defeating argument. Why should it be so defined? And if we cannot observe or identify these properties, then how can we assess what they are and if they consitute personhood? If unidentifiable/unobservable/unknowable, they are rendered useless as a criterion for deciding if a person is in fact a person.

The idea that a 'person' does not really exist until consciousness is evident is a very poor criterion in my opinion. It may or may not be evident and it may be evident at different levels ... are we to discriminate on this basis? For example, what of the status of people in comas, people with alzheimers, people with profound intellectual disabilities ... in each case the consciousness of the person is severely compromised or may not be evident at all. Are these people not really people?

I would be closer to Dawkins who is of the opinion that, although the question is ultimately one of ethics and morality, it can be informed by science. He feels that the crucial point might be when the developing organism is capable of suffering which would correlate with a particular stage in the neurological development of the fetus. This point can be generally identified as occurring at a set number of weeks of development (the exact point may always remain unknowable).

JC 2K3

I am against abortion entirely

Myksyk wrote: »

We would quickly find ourselves mired in ludicrous ethical scenarios where we would have to consider all sperm as human ... it's hard enough to deal with the ethical and philosophical minefield associated with the zygote

Exactly, so why not just apply this reasoning to zygotes?

Dades

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Exactly, so why not just apply this reasoning to zygotes?

For the other reasons outlined in the post?

Zombrex

Myksyk wrote: »

Because a zygote constitutes the first cells of a person.

I would disagree with that. The sperm and egg are both human cells, I would consider them the first cells of the new life form.

Myksyk wrote: »

The only thing that will change from now on from a biological point of view is the number of cells.

That isn't true at all. The DNA won't change (much), but the cells would go through massive changes in structure and purpose.

Myksyk wrote: »

Very obviously not as no-one considers identical twins the same person.

Well there you go. So why is DNA important in this then?

Both the sperm and egg cells contain human DNA, but you don't consider them the first cells of a new person because the DNA is altered during the process of conception. But why would this have any bearing on if the life form is or is not considered a person?

Myksyk wrote: »

We would quickly find ourselves mired in ludicrous ethical scenarios where we would have to consider all sperm as human

Well yes, that is the point.

If you have sex and use a condom you are going to kill a lot of sperm and the odds are you will kill a sperm that probably is the first cell of a new life form, thus destroying that life form.

The point is that no one gives a hoot about that.

So why do people get so worked up over killing a zygote, the 3rd cell of a new lifeform?

Myksyk wrote: »

A zygote is actually the first cells of the body of a specific human being. Some 'might be' pairing that can be only identified after the fact hardly constitures a good place to begin our considerations.

If it is identifiable after the fact then it existed before the fact, we just didn't know about it at that point.

A sperm and egg don't just randomly find each other. There is a complicated biological process involved. No one would suggest that the zygote and the womb wall just find each other, or that until they do no relationship exists between the zygote and the mother.

Myksyk wrote: »

This is a rather self-defeating argument. Why should it be so defined?

Because us lacking the ability to identify something doesn't effect what that thing is or isn't

Myksyk wrote: »

And if we cannot observe or identify these properties, then how can we assess what they are and if they consitute personhood?

We might not be able to. But that isn't a reason to say well it ain't a person. We decide what properties constitute personhood and if we can't determine if something has or doesn't have those properties we simply say we don't know, and probably air on the side of caution.

Myksyk wrote: »

in each case the consciousness of the person is severely compromised or may not be evident at all. Are these people not really people?

That is the question. We don't know, and as I said above it is best to air on the side of caution.

A more clear cut case would be someone who has suffered massive damage to their brain and is considered legally brain dead. Then it is considered not only ok to cut life support and allow that person to die, but some consider that the ethical choice because without the consciousness of the person contained in their brain, they aren't considered a person any more, simply a shell.

If on the other hand you consider a person to be their collection of cells containing unique DNA, then the consciousness in the persons brain is irrelevant to this, they should be kept alive for a long as possible, even if their brain is gone. But then I doubt many would agree with that if they actually thought about it.

Myksyk wrote: »

I would be closer to Dawkins who is of the opinion that, although the question is ultimately one of ethics and morality, it can be informed by science. He feels that the crucial point might be when the developing organism is capable of suffering which would correlate with a particular stage in the neurological development of the fetus. This point can be generally identified as occurring at a set number of weeks of development (the exact point may always remain unknowable).

Well that is slightly inaccurate. When a fetus "suffers" depends on how you define suffering. Is it a response of the nervous system. Is it when the body experiences the natural but unconscious feeling of stress (raised heart beat etc). Or is it when the the person is consciously aware of the pain.

For example does a person knocked out on an operating table "suffer"? Most people I would imagine would say no, despite the persons body going through large amounts of stress due to the operation. He isn't suffering because he isn't consciously aware of the pain his body is registering.

So can a fetus suffer if it doesn't yet possess the ability to process such pain in a human like way.

When does one determine if it can do this. And if one has determined it can then surely this suggests that it is does possess consciousness already, which would be fitting my original criteria.

JC 2K3

I am against abortion entirely

Dades wrote: »

For the other reasons outlined in the post?

Yes, but those other reasons are logically inconsistant if they can apply this reasoning to sperm and not to zygotes.

Dades

JC 2K3 wrote: »

Yes, but those other reasons are logically inconsistant if they can apply this reasoning to sperm and not to zygotes.

I assume by this then that you are agreeing with Wicknight? That neither of you see a zygote as any more a 'person' than an individual sperm?

I can't help but think that stance is deliberately obtuse. Nobody (in this particular stand-off) is suggesting that because a zygote is more a person than a sperm that the case is closed and the thread locked. Just that in attempting to apply a non-scientific label such as 'personhood' to a biological process, that the point of conception at least offers one possible specific point at which you could do so. Then we can talk about nervous systems, viability etc.

You remind me of creationists clinging to a young earth view because they think conceding it to be false will ruin their credibility!

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

I assume by this then that you are agreeing with Wicknight? That neither of you see a zygote as any more a 'person' than an individual sperm?

I can't help but think that stance is deliberately obtuse. Nobody (in this particular stand-off) is suggesting that because a zygote is more a person than a sperm that the case is closed and the thread locked. Just that in attempting to apply a non-scientific label such as 'personhood' to a biological process, that the point of conception at least offers one possible specific point at which you could do so. Then we can talk about nervous systems, viability etc.

You remind me of creationists clinging to a young earth view because they think conceding it to be false will ruin their credibility!

Well no offense Dades, but personally I think the insistence that something out of the ordinary happens at conception is just ethical laziness. Humans like simple things, and it is simple to think of a new person in terms of an single point of instant of creation.

The reality is that biological life really really doesn't work like that.

It is not really that I object to people saying personhood starts at conception, it is that I object to people forcing nature into a certain shaped box simply because it then becomes easier for them to view the process in a manner that they are familiar and comfortable with.

That, in my opinion, does a disservice to the rather important questions being asked here about the nature and value of personhood.

Dades

Wicknight wrote: »

It is not really that I object to people saying personhood starts at conception, it is that I object to people forcing nature into a certain shaped box simply because it then becomes easier for them to view the process in a manner that they are familiar and comfortable with.

If it were just disagreeing that 'personhood' doesn't start at conception that would be fine, but its the stance that a zygote is no further toward being a person than a single sperm I find so difficult to fathom.

Zombrex

Dades wrote: »

If it were just disagreeing that 'personhood' doesn't start at conception that would be fine, but its the stance that a zygote is no further toward being a person than a single sperm I find so difficult to fathom.

I'm not sure what you mean by "further towards" ... a zygote is further on the reproduction cycle to a sperm/egg pair, and a embryo is further than a zygote. A fetus is further than an embryo ...

I don't think anyone claimed that a zygote wasn't a further step in the process. The point is that it isn't of any greater significance than any other step towards the production a person.

Tim Robbins

Undecided

Wicknight wrote: »

I seriously doubt you think there is much difference in terms of selfishness of stopping something that has a 3 out of 7 chance of happening (made up statistic) and something that has a 4 out of 5 chance of happening (made up statistic)

I was approximating because the purpose of the argument was to show there was a differential in probability not deduce what the exact difference was. I thought this was obvious. You could make more accurate estimates at the probability but the principle of the argument is the same. Anyway you gave out me being pedantic in post 339 and now you are giving out about me using approximate statistics. You can't have it both ways.

Dave!

I am against abortion entirely

Oh, this is back.......

Burial

ok, I only read the title of the thread (Will read the rest in awhile). Anyway, I'm not atheist but I agree everyone should have their own choice, because everyone won't be a yes and everyone won't be a no. I'm personally feel that you can have an abortion if you want. Ireland shouldn't force you to goto England to get it done.


*EDIT*

F**K that! 30 pages.... No thanks.

Mena

I am against abortion entirely

Burial wrote: »

*EDIT*

F**K that! 30 pages.... No thanks.

If you set your options to show 40 posts per page it's only 12 pages to wade through :pac:

Dades

Burial wrote: »

F**K that! 30 pages.... No thanks.

OR you could read the first 5 pages, 6 times over - same thing!

Orion

only 15 pages for me - I like multiples of 5 :pac: