Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Abortion from a Atheist viewpoint

Options
1…34689…17

Comments

  • Options
    #152
    CtrlSource
    Registered Users Posts: 825 ✭✭✭CtrlSource


    I am against abortion except for in cases of rape
    Stumbled across this thread and in a rush of blood to the head, voted on the poll. Then i realised that you are supposed to be Atheist or Agnostic to vote, so i really shouldn't have! (well i go through phases of Agnosticism, but am not an Atheist)

    *Wanders off mumbling*


  • Options
    #153
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,776 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Dave! wrote: »
    You think that 'as punishment' is a good reason for forcing someone to bear a child? Is that likely to encourage a healthy and positive parent-child relationship?

    Why is it punishment to have to follow through with your responsibilities? Do you honestly believe that if anything goes wrong for you in life that you should get a do-over?
    Dave! wrote: »
    Sorry immature 15 year old girl from broken and unstable home, you had sex (you, a child, who is not yet responsible) -- now you have to carry a baby for 9 months and squeeze it out of you.

    And if an "immature 15 year old boy" goes and knifes someone, should they get off scott free because they came from a "broken and unstable home"? If someone doesn't want to have a kid then they can either not have sex or get a visectomy or tubal ligation.
    Dave! wrote: »
    Well you apparantly consider it a living human being inside the pregnant woman. Not everyone does.

    If its not a living human being what is it, a rock?
    Dave! wrote: »
    These people, when they accidentally get pregnant, may have an abortion. Surely that's dealing with their responsibilities?

    No its avoiding their responsibilites.
    Malari wrote:
    What a ridiculous attitude. The protection IS taking responsibility.

    Sometimes when you try to take responsibility it fails, things don't work out. Do you just give up straight away because its a hassle? Is that really taking responsibility?
    Malari wrote:
    I'm not just talking about some 15 year old who gets pregnant out of ignorance, I'm talking about two consenting adults in a long term relationship who have discussed having children and don't want any.

    Ok and these 2 consenting adults decide they don't want kids and get an abortion, but 5 years later decide they want kids and so get pregnant. What then? How do they tell their kid the only reason he/she is alive is because it was a convienient time for them to have kids. How would you feel if your parents told you that?


  • Options
    #154
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    CtrlSource wrote: »
    well i go through phases of Agnosticism, but am not an Atheist
    Good enough!

    Methinks a lot of the recent threads here are not expressly for the attention of atheists, but those who would consider their opinions not influenced by a particular god or religion.


  • Options
    #155
    OK-Cancel-Apply
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,528 ✭✭✭OK-Cancel-Apply


    I am against abortion entirely
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    LOL argument by analogy.

    And no rebuttal!

    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    No potentiality is used in many philosophical debates. No need for the Bible.

    Outside out Christian dogma, your potentiality argument doesn't really make much sense (to me at least).


  • Options
    #156
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    No. Because the egg has no potentiality on its own. The foetus has potentiality.
    That is the point of the condom. The sperm and egg during sex have potential to produce a baby, which is why people use a condom. If the sperm/egg didn't have this potential you wouldn't need to.

    Equally, the fetus has no potential on its own. It needs the woman's body. That is the point of the abortion.

    Why is it selfish to not want a baby and have an abortion, but not selfish to not want a baby and use a condom.

    To me they are both equally selfish actions, both are actions that stop a child being produced.
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    The state is a stakeholder. My heart operation would be funded by state and tax payer.
    That isn't really what stake holder means.

    Perhaps we should back up and you could explain in more detail what context you are talking about. Are you saying that the State should have the right to decide on an individual basis the "choice" of a woman if the State is paying for the abortion?
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    I think this is a little more complicated that that.
    Firstly we are back to causality versue free will debate. Secondly, if free will exists, when does it begin. The foetus / unborn baby may very well be actively making a choice to live and survive, killing it is just denying it that choice.
    I don't think there is any way one can say that seriously in any context of intelligence and the ability to choose, that I'm aware of.
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Well if perhaps you're too lazy to say why or I am too lazy to check if you already have.

    Little from column A little from column B ...

    As OK, the argument that if we don't legalise something it will just be done illegal, is flawed on a number of levels, which are probably too numerous to go into here. One could say that if we don't legalise assassination people will just hire illegal assassins who will work to a lower standard and may end up killing innocent by standers. That obviously isn't a reason to legalize assassinations, because the actual act is immoral. If abortion itself is immoral then it should be illegal.

    Equally if abortion itself is immoral because the fetus is considered a person, then the fact that the fetus was conceived as part of a rape is irrelevant to this. Imagine the suggestion that a mother should be able to kill her 5 year old child because he was conceived as part of a rape and having him around is to distressing. The idea would never be entertained because the mothers issue with her rape is irrelevant to the rights of the child.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #157
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    I think there are two reasons for this:
    1. One is the selfish gene type from Dawkins et al.
    2. Secondly is your empathy rating. Perhaps if you have empathy, you cannot help but feel life is sacred.

    sorry, probably should have been clearer. I was looking for the ethical argument for why life is sacred, rather than why humans have an instinct to view human life as sacred.

    I believe human life is valuable because of the human consciousness contained in our brains, as I view my consciousness as valuable, and through a process of empathy and logical assertion, I expand that out to view all human consciousness as equally valuable.

    A fetus that has not yet developed a brain capable of this level of higher human intelligence, is not yet a person in my view. The person does not yet exist, simply the shell, the body that could/will carry that person.


  • Options
    #158
    JC 2K3
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,794 ✭✭✭JC 2K3


    I am against abortion entirely
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    If you're a sponger i.e. not a net contributer to society is the foetus worth more than?
    That's thinking far too much in economic terms.


  • Options
    #159
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,000 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Undecided
    OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »
    And no rebuttal!
    The point is you had no rebuttal. You used an analogy. Big swish.

    Outside out Christian dogma, your potentiality argument doesn't really make much sense (to me at least).
    Potentiality is used in many philosophical debates. Here's one about infanticide, a rebuttal from McGinn to Singer:
    http://www.slate.com/id/2000013/entry/1002123/

    Try to tell me they're bible bashers now :-)


  • Options
    #160
    OK-Cancel-Apply
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,528 ✭✭✭OK-Cancel-Apply


    I am against abortion entirely
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    The point is you had no rebuttal. You used an analogy. Big swish.



    Potentiality is used in many philosophical debates. Here's one about infanticide, a rebuttal from McGinn to Singer:
    http://www.slate.com/id/2000013/entry/1002123/

    Try to tell me they're bible bashers now :-)

    Are you implying that some fallacy has taken place? Yes, I used an analogy, and you haven't answered what I said. I said:
    Me wrote:
    LOL you could use that one to justify just about anything being legalised! Heroin is dealt in backstreets, people swap needles etc. Dog fights take place underground, unregulated and dangerous. Triad/Mafia finger slicing takes place outside the law, and I wouldn't say they sterilise their knives!

    I was pointing out a flaw with your reasoning, as was Wicknight when he said almost exactly the same thing.
    Wicknight wrote:
    One could say that if we don't legalise assassination people will just hire illegal assassins who will work to a lower standard and may end up killing innocent by standers. That obviously isn't a reason to legalize assassinations, because the actual act is immoral. If abortion itself is immoral then it should be illegal.

    You still haven't answered either of us, but it doesn't matter - it's slightly OT anyway.
    Potentiality is used in many philosophical debates. Here's one about infanticide, a rebuttal from McGinn to Singer:
    http://www.slate.com/id/2000013/entry/1002123/

    Try to tell me they're bible bashers now :-)
    We don't have to mention the bible any more if you don't want to, as it's my opinion that all biblical anti-abortion messages come from the same source as the secular standpoints - emotion. And that's sort of what I was originally trying to highlight. I don't know why you keep seeking to point out the 'Potentiality is used in many philosophical debates'. The position, with regard to abortion, doesn't stand up IMO.

    I also find it supremely strange how you cite the 'selfish gene' as one of your reasons why life is 'sacred', when Dawkins himself is so pro-choice. He himself dismantled the whole idea of potentiality when he quite wittily pointed out that by choosing to not have sex with a partner, you are committing the same 'crime' as destroying the embryo. Correct me if that's wrong, but I'm pretty sure he said something extremely close to that, if not that exactly.


  • Options
    #161
    Malari
    Registered Users Posts: 18,150 ✭✭✭✭Malari


    I am against abortion entirely
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    If you're a sponger i.e. not a net contributer to society is the foetus worth more than?

    If you are mentally handicapped, do you contribute to society or should you face the chopper?

    It depends on how you see contributing to society. Even if you're a sponger, you have people who love you, depend on you, maybe children, parents. Nobody can say the same as for a foetus. There is no real emotional attachment.

    A mentally handicapped person is still someone with feelings, memories, and have conferred the same to the people in their family.

    You can't say a societal contribution should be for the benefit of all, rather than just a handful.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #162
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,000 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Undecided
    OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »
    Are you implying that some fallacy has taken place? Yes, I used an analogy, and you haven't answered what I said. I said:
    Analogies aren't a logical way of arguing. They are just a way of wasting time.
    http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic6.html


    We don't have to mention the bible any more if you don't want to, as it's my opinion that all biblical anti-abortion messages come from the same source as the secular standpoints - emotion. And that's sort of what I was originally trying to highlight. I don't know why you keep seeking to point out the 'Potentiality is used in many philosophical debates'. The position, with regard to abortion, doesn't stand up IMO.
    It's not clear whatyour point is here.
    Are you saying it's bad to be emotional or that there are no logical arguments against abortion, there are all just simply emotive arguments by assertion?
    I also find it supremely strange how you cite the 'selfish gene' as one of your reasons why life is 'sacred', when Dawkins himself is so pro-choice. He himself dismantled the whole idea of potentiality when he quite wittily pointed out that by choosing to not have sex with a partner, you are committing the same 'crime' as destroying the embryo. Correct me if that's wrong, but I'm pretty sure he said something extremely close to that, if not that exactly.

    Humans are generally pro humans. Lions are generally pro Lions. This is they way evolution has programmed us. Therefore I am programmed to have a bias to humans over non humans.


  • Options
    #163
    Malari
    Registered Users Posts: 18,150 ✭✭✭✭Malari


    I am against abortion entirely
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Sometimes when you try to take responsibility it fails, things don't work out. Do you just give up straight away because its a hassle? Is that really taking responsibility?

    You seem to think that giving birth is the most important thing that a woman can do if she ever finds herself pregnant, yet you reduce the whole process to a "hassle".
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Ok and these 2 consenting adults decide they don't want kids and get an abortion, but 5 years later decide they want kids and so get pregnant. What then? How do they tell their kid the only reason he/she is alive is because it was a convienient time for them to have kids. How would you feel if your parents told you that?

    I assume my parents, and most other parents, make a decision to have children based on emotional and financial convenience. Now you're turning against people who use a bit of family planning?!


  • Options
    #164
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,000 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Undecided
    Malari wrote: »
    It depends on how you see contributing to society. Even if you're a sponger, you have people who love you, depend on you, maybe children, parents. Nobody can say the same as for a foetus. There is no real emotional attachment.

    A mentally handicapped person is still someone with feelings, memories, and have conferred the same to the people in their family.

    You can't say a societal contribution should be for the benefit of all, rather than just a handful.

    Can you just clarify when you regard the fetus stage ends?
    According to this it's brith.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foetus#Weeks_28-40

    By your logic then, as soon as the baby pops, people start loving him / her can't be killed but an hour earlier, it's ok to kill him / her?

    Is that correct?


  • Options
    #165
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,000 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Undecided
    Wicknight wrote: »
    sorry, probably should have been clearer. I was looking for the ethical argument for why life is sacred, rather than why humans have an instinct to view human life as sacred.
    I see it more as an axiomatic belief.
    You can belief life is not sacred and just kill people.
    I believe human life is valuable because of the human consciousness contained in our brains, as I view my consciousness as valuable, and through a process of empathy and logical assertion, I expand that out to view all human consciousness as equally valuable.

    A fetus that has not yet developed a brain capable of this level of higher human intelligence, is not yet a person in my view. The person does not yet exist, simply the shell, the body that could/will carry that person.
    I don't think you are right there. A fetus has developed conciousness, it doesn't just magically happen due to its location, inside or outside the womb.


  • Options
    #166
    Malari
    Registered Users Posts: 18,150 ✭✭✭✭Malari


    I am against abortion entirely
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Can you just clarify when you regard the fetus stage ends?
    According to this it's brith.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foetus#Weeks_28-40

    By your logic then, as soon as the baby pops, people start loving him / her can't be killed but an hour earlier, it's ok to kill him / her?

    Is that correct?

    We are talking about abortion, so I'm talking about when it's possible to do that legally in Europe, which is considerably more time than just an hour before it "pops".

    I would think it's also a lot more significant a decision to terminate a pregnancy after 23 weeks, than it is after 4 weeks.


  • Options
    #167
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,000 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Undecided
    Wicknight wrote: »
    That is the point of the condom. The sperm and egg during sex have potential to produce a baby, which is why people use a condom. If the sperm/egg didn't have this potential you wouldn't need to.

    Equally, the fetus has no potential on its own. It needs the woman's body. That is the point of the abortion.
    They are not the same.
    The sperm and egg have no potentiality unless they are fertilised.
    If you have sex, each sperm has only about 1 / million chance of making it.
    A fetus has a far higher probability of personhood, about 4 / 5 or so.
    Perhaps we should back up and you could explain in more detail what context you are talking about. Are you saying that the State should have the right to decide on an individual basis the "choice" of a woman if the State is paying for the abortion?
    If the state provides the services, the state (i.e. the collective or democratic opinion of the citizens) should have some sort of say.

    As OK, the argument that if we don't legalise something it will just be done illegal, is flawed on a number of levels, which are probably too numerous to go into here. One could say that if we don't legalise assassination people will just hire illegal assassins who will work to a lower standard and may end up killing innocent by standers. That obviously isn't a reason to legalize assassinations, because the actual act is immoral. If abortion itself is immoral then it should be illegal.
    It comes down to consequentialism.
    What is the consequence of making something illegal or legal.
    Some issues such as speeding at 150 mpH and killing people it makes sense to make illegal. Other issues, Prostitution, Abortion you can make arguments for making the legal.

    In each case, the consequence of illegal, legal must be analysed and is more than likely. If you conflate, or use analogies, you won't realise that.

    Equally if abortion itself is immoral because the fetus is considered a person, then the fact that the fetus was conceived as part of a rape is irrelevant to this. Imagine the suggestion that a mother should be able to kill her 5 year old child because he was conceived as part of a rape and having him around is to distressing. The idea would never be entertained because the mothers issue with her rape is irrelevant to the rights of the child.
    Rape is the exceptional case. If you have to consider all factors. The intent. the consequence. The potentiality. The state. The mother. The father. The level of sentinence. The potentiality.
    Then make you're decision.


  • Options
    #168
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,000 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Undecided
    Malari wrote: »
    We are talking about abortion, so I'm talking about when it's possible to do that legally in Europe, which is considerably more time than just an hour before it "pops".
    The limits are different in each country, are they not?
    I would think it's also a lot more significant a decision to terminate a pregnancy after 23 weeks, than it is after 4 weeks.
    Well yes one would think the level of sentinence is different alright. But why not specify the time you are talking about instead of saying fetus, which is misleading. Actually could all you "pro-choicers" do that?


  • Options
    #169
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    I see it more as an axiomatic belief.
    You can belief life is not sacred and just kill people.

    that is a bit unhelpful. you believe "life" is sacred just because?

    how do apply that in any meaningful fashion?
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    I don't think you are right there. A fetus has developed conciousness

    A fetus does develop these properties before birth, but it doesn't have it simply because it is a fetus. A 1 month fetus is vastly different to a 8 month fetus. The development of the brain happens over a number of weeks. It is hard to say when the brain reaches this stage, but it is clearer when it definiately hasn't


  • Options
    #170
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,000 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Undecided
    Wicknight wrote: »
    that is a bit unhelpful. you believe "life" is sacred just because?

    how do apply that in any meaningful fashion?
    It's axiomatic and I gave evolutionary reason for why that may be.
    Another reason may be that from my experience of life, it seems to be a lot more enjoyable if we adopt that attitude. Reciporcal altruism and all that.

    A fetus does develop these properties before birth, but it doesn't have it simply because it is a fetus. A 1 month fetus is vastly different to a 8 month fetus. The development of the brain happens over a number of weeks. It is hard to say when the brain reaches this stage, but it is clearer when it definiately hasn't
    Well then like malarai, you need to stop to referring to it as fetus. Delineate as you obviously think killing a fetus one hour before birth is a no - no.


  • Options
    #171
    OK-Cancel-Apply
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,528 ✭✭✭OK-Cancel-Apply


    I am against abortion entirely
    Tim you answered Wicknight when he used a similar analogy to me, but you keep dismissing what I said.

    Problem with browser here - can't quote messages. It should be noted that evolution gave us many things, including tailbones, tribal instincts...cancer... Just because evolution gave us a certain instinct, it doesn't mean we should be slaves to it.

    One question I meant to ask you before though: If you say life is 'sacred', why did you vote for abortion in the case of incest?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #172
    Malari
    Registered Users Posts: 18,150 ✭✭✭✭Malari


    I am against abortion entirely
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    The limits are different in each country, are they not?


    Well yes one would think the level of sentinence is different alright. But why not specify the time you are talking about instead of saying fetus, which is misleading. Actually could all you "pro-choicers" do that?

    What should I call it? I specified I was talking about abortion in Europe, which I know is different in every country, but I believe the max is 24 weeks.


  • Options
    #173
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    They are not the same.
    The sperm and egg have no potentiality unless they are fertilised.
    That is the same as saying they have potential, since fertilisation is a natural biological consequence of sex. The zygote has "no potential unless" it embeds in the womb wall, or a thousand other things don't happen.

    That is what "potential" means, it has the ability to become something if the right conditions are met. Its why there are programs to put poor children with "potential" (academic, artistic, sporting etc) into special schools, because left where they are they probably won't reach this.

    A sperm/egg have the potential to become a baby, which is why a person uses a condom to stop this happening. Likewise, a zygote/embryo/fetus has the potential to become a baby, which is why a person has an abortion to stop this happening.

    It is hard to say that one action is any more or less selfish than the other. In both cases the person does not want the potential baby that may result in not carrying out the action they do. Like I said, if the sperm/egg didn't have the potential to produce a baby it would be unnecessary to use a condom. The very fact that people use a condom demonstrates that they have the potential to produce a baby.
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    If you have sex, each sperm has only about 1 / million chance of making it.
    A fetus has a far higher probability of personhood, about 4 / 5 or so.
    True, but then 8 out of 10 embryos are naturally aborted before they reach the fetus stage. The odds increase the further on in the process the fetus makes it.

    But that is all rather irrelevant.

    If you have sex you don't have a 1 in a million chance of having a baby. Each sperm has only a 1 in a million chance of "making it", but it only takes one. The sperm that makes it has no less of a potential because it is surrounded by millions that have no potential.
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    If the state provides the services, the state (i.e. the collective or democratic opinion of the citizens) should have some sort of say.
    The state does have a say. Irish people can't have abortion at the moment.

    You appeared to be suggesting that the State should be involved in the individual "choice" of the woman as to whether she has an abortion in a pro-choice world

    I'm not following what you mean by that. Are you suggesting that in a pro-choice State the State should actively engage in each and every choice a woman makes, in the same way that the father or her parents would? Why?

    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    It comes down to consequentialism.
    What is the consequence of making something illegal or legal.
    Some issues such as speeding at 150 mpH and killing people it makes sense to make illegal. Other issues, Prostitution, Abortion you can make arguments for making the legal.
    You can make a case for anything to be legal or illegal. But the case rests on the thing itself. The argument that if we make something illegal people will just do it illegal is missing the point.

    If you can make something legal to stop the consequences of people doing it illegally you really have to ask why was it illegal in the first place.
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Rape is the exceptional case.
    Not to the child. The child doesn't have less rights because he/she was conceived as part of a rape, and logically neither does the fetus.
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    If you have to consider all factors. The intent. the consequence. The potentiality. The state. The mother. The father. The level of sentinence. The potentiality.
    Then make you're decision.

    The weather, the Red Soxs ...

    Most of the "factors" you have listed are irrelevant.

    Again you can see this as soon as you try and apply this to children rather than fetuses. Do you consider the wishes of the mother when deciding if a mother can or cannot kill her 4 year old? I imagine not, because the wishes of the mother are irrelevant to the rights to life of the 4 year old.

    So why would the wishes of the mother have any bearing on the question of if the fetus has the right to life? It either does or it doesn't. It isn't a case of it does except if the woman is going to be upset by having the baby, in which case it doesn't, any more than this applies to a baby


  • Options
    #174
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,000 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Undecided
    OK-Cancel-Apply wrote: »
    Tim you answered Wicknight when he used a similar analogy to me, but you keep dismissing what I said.

    Problem with browser here - can't quote messages. It should be noted that evolution gave us many things, including tailbones, tribal instincts...cancer... Just because evolution gave us a certain instinct, it doesn't mean we should be slaves to it.
    Of course.
    One question I meant to ask you before though: If you say life is 'sacred', why did you vote for abortion in the case of incest?

    1. The poll (abortion polls never are) was very well worded so I picked the one that closest represented my views.
    2. I said in another post. I would consider many factors. Some factors, that many "pro - choicers" such as location I would not consider.


  • Options
    #175
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,000 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Undecided
    Malari wrote: »
    What should I call it? I specified I was talking about abortion in Europe, which I know is different in every country, but I believe the max is 24 weeks.

    Are you just picking 24 weeks as that is what you think is the norm? What if 39 weeks was the norm?


  • Options
    #176
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    It's axiomatic and I gave evolutionary reason for why that may be.
    Evolution creates emotional responses, not logical ethical decisions. Evolutionary emotion can influence our ethical decisions, but they don't create them.

    If you don't have a logical reason why human life is sacred, if it is just an emotional feeling, that is fine. But that isn't the same as saying it is an axiom. It is hard to apply emotional feelings to ethical debates.
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Delineate as you obviously think killing a fetus one hour before birth is a no - no.
    You want me to use a specific name for the stages of the human development that I think killing would be ok?

    How about "non-higher brain fetus". Would that be clearer?


  • Options
    #177
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,000 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Undecided
    Wicknight wrote: »
    That is the same as saying they have potential, since fertilisation is a natural biological consequence of sex. The zygote has "no potential unless" it embeds in the womb wall, or a thousand other things don't happen.

    That is what "potential" means, it has the ability to become something if the right conditions are met. Its why there are programs to put poor children with "potential" (academic, artistic, sporting etc) into special schools, because left where they are they probably won't reach this.

    A sperm/egg have the potential to become a baby, which is why a person uses a condom to stop this happening. Likewise, a zygote/embryo/fetus has the potential to become a baby, which is why a person has an abortion to stop this happening.
    No. They are not the same. There's a mathematical reason and a logical reason. If you take your argument to it's conclusion, you think using a condom is same as having an abortion, then you are saying, abortion should be an acceptable form of contraception.
    But that is all rather irrelevant.
    No it's not.
    If you have sex you don't have a 1 in a million chance of having a baby. Each sperm has only a 1 in a million chance of "making it", but it only takes one. The sperm that makes it has no less of a potential because it is surrounded by millions that have no potential.
    You are saying potentiality is independent of probability. I am saying it is not.
    I'm not following what you mean by that. Are you suggesting that in a pro-choice State the State should actively engage in each and every choice a woman makes, in the same way that the father or her parents would? Why?
    The state can engage through education and law.
    You can make a case for anything to be legal or illegal. But the case rests on the thing itself. The argument that if we make something illegal people will just do it illegal is missing the point.
    It's not. I went through the consequentialism of it.

    Not to the child. The child doesn't have less rights because he/she was conceived as part of a rape, and logically neither does the fetus.
    Correct, but you omitted other factors.

    Most of the "factors" you have listed are irrelevant.
    Argument by assertion.
    Again you can see this as soon as you try and apply this to children rather than fetuses.
    Why don't you first do that?
    If you say it's ok to kill fetuses, you are saying it is ok to kill children.
    Furthermore, if you wish to continue this debate, it might be more helpful if you stop using the word fetus and delineated appropriately. Otherwise, I asssume you think it's ok to kill a fetus one hour before he / she pops.


  • Options
    #178
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,000 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Undecided
    Wicknight wrote: »
    Evolution creates emotional responses, not logical ethical decisions. Evolutionary emotion can influence our ethical decisions, but they don't create them.
    Oh so God creates logical ethical decisions then :-)
    If you don't have a logical reason why human life is sacred, if it is just an emotional feeling, that is fine. But that isn't the same as saying it is an axiom. It is hard to apply emotional feelings to ethical debates.
    It can be both an axiom and emotional feeling.
    How about "non-higher brain fetus". Would that be clearer?
    Yes. Do that. And can you specify when that time is?


  • Options
    #179
    OK-Cancel-Apply
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,528 ✭✭✭OK-Cancel-Apply


    I am against abortion entirely
    Tim, you said, "The poll (abortion polls never are) was very well worded so I picked the one that closest represented my views."

    "wasn't well worded" right? :pac:

    I know you are talking to more than one person here, but could you tell me exactly what it is about an incestuously conceived child that warrants termination?


  • Options
    #180
    Malari
    Registered Users Posts: 18,150 ✭✭✭✭Malari


    I am against abortion entirely
    Tim Robbins wrote: »
    Are you just picking 24 weeks as that is what you think is the norm? What if 39 weeks was the norm?

    Like Wicknight, higher brain development seems to be reasonable. I can't say for sure what the stage of development would be at 39 weeks, but I know at 24 weeks the nervous system only has partial control over the organs and I'm confident that medical experts didn't pluck 24 weeks out if thin air.

    I still think the sooner the better and that people shouldn't be humming and hawing over a decision until the 24th week.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #181
    Tim Robbins
    Registered Users Posts: 9,000 ✭✭✭Tim Robbins


    Undecided
    Malari wrote: »
    Like Wicknight, higher brain development seems to be reasonable. I can't say for sure what the stage of development would be at 39 weeks, but I know at 24 weeks the nervous system only has partial control over the organs and I'm confident that medical experts didn't pluck 24 weeks out if thin air.

    I still think the sooner the better and that people shouldn't be humming and hawing over a decision until the 24th week.
    The brain is there from week 11. I don't think you've really thought about this. You just pulled 24th week out, then you say the sooner the better, even though you say you trust "medical experts" about the 24th week. Sounds like a contraction and you haven't thought this through.

    As for "higher brain development". What about a severly handicapped person should they face the chopper because they don't have "higher brain development".


Advertisement