Abortion Unfiltered

tallaght01

I accept that there are 2 sides to this argument.

But what I find difficult to accept is:

A) People arguing about who knows most aboout biology, as if this is the sentinel point

People saying things like "I don't know how the anti-abortion side can exist" and "If you don't like it, don't avail of it" etc.

The biology is a moot point. You could get the 100 top embryologists in the world and put them in a room. They still wouldn't reach a consensus about abortion. "Science" doesn't "tell" us anything about abortion, or about when life begins. That's a personal opinion.

For those of us who are against abortion, life begins in the womb. We can argue all day about when exactly it starts, and whether or not the morning after pill technically counts as abortion.

The point is that most of us regard there to be "life" by the time most abortions happen. Some say condoms kill a potential life, some don't. Who cares. I think it's reasonable to value life more as development progresses. This is why most people will grieve for longer, and with more severity, if their 6 week old baby dies, comapared to if they have a 10 week miscarriage.

I think that's where I would stand on the issue. I think life begins roundabout fertilisation/impantation. But having said that, I'm not against the morning after pill. I can't really feign overt outrage at the death of a couple of cells.

How far can you extend that logic? Who knows. People don't get abortions at a week of gestation.

But that all takes away from the not unreasonable standpoint that abortion is wrong, and it does involve killing a child. I'm not sure how people don't see where the anti-abortion side are coming from.

You take a forming baby, and you basically kill it. I'm not asking anyone to agree with me in thinking that's wrong. But surely people can see how that view will be taken by a section of the population?

That shouldn't be a difficult concept to grasp.

People have talked about parasites and using ovaries as incubators etc. That's all very well. But there are lots of other "parasites" in society who we don't kill. There's a lot of kids out there, for example, with severe cerebral palsy who are completely dependent on their parents. I wouldn't kill them. I also don't accept their parents' right to kill them because they don't want the child in their home anymore.

I just don't see why the parasitic nature of the developing child is of great importance to this debate. Neither do I see how the "place of residence" is the central issue.

Other have mentioned the fact that the fetus isn't fully developed. Babies aren't fully developed. Their brains are crap when they're born. People have dwelled on the brain a lot. It's development begins at about 5 weeks, and isn't complete until childhood.

Should we be allowed kill babies who are born very prematurely, because they're "not developed"?

I don't begrudge anyone their views. But some people seem to believe that being anti-abortion is some kind of looney fringe opinion. I think it's a perfectly reasonable opinion.

It's also an opinion that makes abortion hard to ignore. There were posts above saying we should mind our own business. But that's asking alot, when we believe that babies are being killed. I don't picket abortion offices or anything, and I never express my views professionally. But you can't realistically just ask us to mind our own business, when the issue of defenceless babies is at hand.

The other thing is to try and keep it civil. It's very easy to just close threads like this, withouth any proactive moderating. It's very tempting with a topic like this. Don't give people the opportunity to do that.

Keep the love levels up

Zulu

Virgil° wrote: »

Well not even a 78% biology student can prove such a thing. But it does have at the very least a partially developed brain. Which means there's a good chance it has a consciousness. Unlike Mr fetus at 8-10 weeks where there's no chance of it having consciousness due to the lack of a brain.

But are we sure that no foetus' haven't developed this at 8 week?
Is we can provide proof to this fact, I might find myself able to reconcile abortion up to a cut off point at 7 weeks. But I stress might here.

1.You don't like killing humans but don't mind the killing of animals.

Well, I'd like to think there is a point to killing the animal - like a food source for example. I wouldn't hunt, for example. However, it's correct enough for the purpose of this debate.

2.You don't mind the killing of animals and do mind the killing of a person because you see a human person as being more important.

Kinda, I just don't see a reason good enough to allow killing another person. I'm against the death penalty for example. I dunno if "important" is that accurate. Again though, accurate enough.

3.As you've stated before maybe not in this thread but one of the others that got locked you see us as more important because of our vastly superior intelligence.

Nah, that wasn't me. Perhaps that might be a cause of confusion. Intelligence isn't a measuring point for me, christ I know an amount or morons! :pac:

4.Humans are not capable of such intelligence without that one special organ(Granted we don't know EXACTLY what the brain does in all cases but we do know what the other organs do and by process of elimination that leaves the brain as the one and only candidate for this consciousness and intelligence).

I taught it was a combination of the brain, brain stem, and spinal cord? I remember seeing an interesting documentary on people without brains (they had a brain stem and spinal cord). Granted it didn't focus on their membership rates at Mensa, but...

5. Ergo you don't like killing human people because they have brains and consciousness?

Ok, the last two point are causing the brake down so. Brains and consciousness aren't something I was debating. However you are probably right on the consciousness level. Perhaps.

6. So if they don't have this consciousness say in the case of a brain dead person or in the case of a fetus that hasn't a developed brain wheres the problem in them dying?

No problem with them dieing really - we all do after all, just get uncomfortable with the killing. Particularly when we can adopt. Seems like someone dies because someone else isn't taking responsibility for their actions, or it isn't convenient.

PLease do try to reply to that as a whole....I know its lenghty but we seem to lose track of things as they get separated in different posts.

No worries buddy. Hope that sums it up. It's kinda rushed though as it's drinking time on a Friday!!! :pac:

Ultravid

Please can we all have manners? It is very unfair for those who wish to have a civil discussion and a few ruin it.

If you are annoyed, go for a walk, then come back and post.

Zulu

tallaght01 wrote: »

I accept that there are 2 sides to this argument...
Keep the love levels up

Great post Tallaght01 - thank you very much, I'm glad I read it before leaving.

+1

Great post.

Zulu

Ultravid wrote: »

Please can we all have manners? It is very unfair for those who wish to have a civil discussion and a few ruin it.

If you are annoyed, go for a walk, then come back and post.

I've apologised Ultravid; I think it's been resolved.

Ultravid

Anyway for me personally doesn't really matter for the people on the pro abortion side. I notice trends as societies become more civilized and advanced we tend to do things like legalize gay marriage, allow stem cell research, assisted euthanasia and allow abortion. All made with good consequentialist reasoning....

Yes isn't it great. We are going right back to how society was just before the establishment of the Christian religion. You had all the abortions, the sexual depravity... and all manner of perversions. I guess you think it is great that we are going back to the old times? Interestingly, all those 'positives' you've just listed, ultimately lead to the destruction and demise of the human race, but I do not want to open another can of worms, since each of those topics is a thread in itself and this one is complicated enough as it is, I just wanted to make that one point.

More civilised? I don't think so. More depraved? Yes.

stakey wrote: »

Don't be rediculous, we're discussing aborting at the earliest stages when the 'child' has no cognitive faculties or anything else that defines it as human (which you argue against).

No, but according to you the woman must bare the child of her rapist. How do you think this fits in with a womans mental health? How do you think the bonding between a mother and her rapists child is going to be?

But despite this you obviously have no issue forcing a 12 year old CHILD to give birth to another child.

You're not pro-choice, you're anti-choice. The 'child' is incapable of deciding it's own faith due to it not having any awareness of its own existance or any cognitive faculties what so ever.

You would prefer to give YOUR choice for an unborn 'child' with no cognitive faculties over the mother which you seem to prefer to use as an incubator for any form of life.

What defines the human life as human is the fact that it is a human life.

The child has no choice because it's just been aborted. Where is the choice in that?

Pro-abortion people make a lot of assumptions about rape victims, without studying the issue, and without talking to women who have been raped, had abortions, kept the child, or the kids conceived in rape and living today. Their testimonies are very interesting: one example:

Consider the following email, received by Abort73 on January 19, 2007:

I just wanted to say that I am so pleased to read your stance on abortion in the case of rape. My mother was a 14-year-old girl who was raped, and she tried to have an abortion. The only reason I am alive today is because the doctor miscalculated her due date and thought she was too far in the pregnancy to have the abortion, when in reality he was a month off (this actually happened twice). It pains me every time I hear even die hard pro-lifers say "except in the case of rape". I know it is traumatizing for a girl or woman that is raped to have to carry a child, but it is no more traumatizing than someone who gets shot during a violent attack and has to deal with those wounds. Counseling and therapy can help heal the trauma, but the trauma will be there whether she has the abortion or not, and the abortion could even make it worse. It has caused me so much anxiety over the years to think that many pro-lifers would have approved of my mother's abortion. By the way, she gave me up for adoption, and my adoptive parents were never able to have children. Thank you so much for this wonderful view against abortion even in the case of rape.



http://www.abort73.com/HTML/I-D-5-rape.html

Again we seem to forget responsibility: have sexual intercourse, expect to become pregnant = new human life. Unless this is really about selfishness. I WANT MY SEX AND I WANT IT NOW AND I DON'T CARE ABOUT ANYONE ELSE AND I'LL KILL AN INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE IF IT DARES TO COME IN WHERE IT'S NOT WELCOME! At the heart of this desire for abortion is supreme selfishness, and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong on that point.

(I used large, bold print as this point is perhaps my most important yet. Don't be offended by the large type, it's just this thread is getting so big, points get lost.)

stakey wrote: »

You're not defending any choice. You're deciding the child has a right to exist based on its possibly growing to full term whilst ignoring the well being or choice of the host/mother. You're also then deciding that her mental health will be fine if she carries an unwanted child to term.

If you have an issue with abortion, then fine, don't ever do it. Stick to your guns, if you believe it's killing a child then fine, don't avail of it.

...but the choice should be there and it's not an easy decision for anyone.

Try your logic re: abortion with rape:

If you don't like rape, don't rape anyone!

The mother decided to engage in reproductive activity! (Please don't mention rape, we have been over that a few pages back.) The fact that she is now pregnant is a natural outcome of that activity.

If it's just a bunch of cells, a parasite, pondscum, or cancer, why is the decision not easy?

stakey wrote: »

If they really are that concerned about children, ...perhaps they should look at helping children who are dying from lack of water, food, basic healthcare and wars all around the world.

How do you know I, or any other pro-lifer, doesn't give money to charities feeding hungry children?

Virgil° wrote: »

3.As you've stated before maybe not in this thread but one of the others that got locked you see us as more important because of our vastly superior intelligence.

4.Humans are not capable of such intelligence without that one special organ(Granted we don't know EXACTLY what the brain does in all cases but we do know what the other organs do and by process of elimination that leaves the brain as the one and only candidate for this consciousness and intelligence).

5. Ergo you don't like killing human people because they have brains and consciousness?

I am against abortion, not because we humans are more intelligent, nor because we are conscious nor because we have a brain. I am against abortion because it is the killing of an innocent, defenceless, human life.

Consciousness is not why I'm against abortion. I hold human life as inherently valuable, something which the pro-abortion folks (sorry I know you don't like that term but I can't use the term pro-choice) seem to lack. I guess the difference is whether or not we value human life.

bluewolf wrote: »

Must love argument from potential.
Well, since we want to give a fetus full human rights because it "may turn into a human some time", I guess I should get full rights of president of ireland since I have the potential to become it. Nevermind that I am not now, I have the potential to be.
And if potential is the same as what is... then... :rolleyes:

The fetus is a human life. Not a potential human life.

Zulu wrote: »

I've apologised Ultravid; I think it's been resolved.

Yes I see that now!

Virgil°

Ultravid wrote: »

I am against abortion, not because we humans are more intelligent, nor because we are conscious nor because we have a brain. I am against abortion because it is the killing of an innocent, defenceless, human life.

Consciousness is not why I'm against abortion. I hold human life as inherently valuable, something which the pro-abortion folks (sorry I know you don't like that term but I can't use the term pro-choice) seem to lack. I guess the difference is whether or not we value human life.

The fetus is a human life. Not a potential human life.

Yes it is human life, i've not said otherwise, and please stop using emotive words like innocent.It does nothing to strengthen your cause.
Consciousness is why i am in favour of abortion to a certain stage, but its hard to determine when it forms in the fetus so a safe measurement is required.

You say you hold human life inherently valuable, but not what about human life that is valuable. Otherwise what you're saying is " human life is valuable because it is and thats that" which doesn't bode strongly for any good argument.
The fact that they're innocent and defenceless hasn't stopped you from killing animals to eat them has it? So thats not a reason either.

I know you're probably not there Zulu but ill reply to you anyway for when you're not drunk :P.

zulu wrote:

Well, I'd like to think there is a point to killing the animal - like a food source for example.

Thats fair enough, but i dare say you wouldn't be nearly as bothered about 100 animals dying for no reason as you would for 1 fetus being aborted for a reason. However ill rationalised you think that reason for aborting is.

zulu wrote:

Nah, that wasn't me. Perhaps that might be a cause of confusion. Intelligence isn't a measuring point for me, christ I know an amount or morons!

I know now it was Jakkass. Curses anyway >.<.
But still the amount of intelligence they have isn't very important, merely that they are human people with intelligence(whatever amount) granted to them by their consciousness and brains.That is what makes people important to me. Or unkillable, or whatever word you think best fits why i'm not allowed kill them.

zulu wrote:

I taught it was a combination of the brain, brain stem, and spinal cord?

Either way they develop at the same time, or later i think in the case of spinal cords.

zulu wrote:

No problem with them dieing really - we all do after all, just get uncomfortable with the killing. Particularly when we can adopt. Seems like someone dies because someone else isn't taking responsibility for their actions, or it isn't convenient.

Well i don't deny that there would be people aborting because of inconvenience and abusing this potential system. But that shouldn't mean we deny it to others who genuinely aren't capable of financially or emotionally supporting this child and are within lets say your guidelined time period of 7 weeks.

zulu wrote:

No worries buddy. Hope that sums it up. It's kinda rushed though as it's drinking time on a Friday!!!

Cheers for taking the time, enjoy yourself.

Ultravid

Virgil° wrote: »

Well i don't deny that there would be people aborting because of inconvenience and abusing this potential system. But that shouldn't mean we deny it to others who genuinely aren't capable of financially or emotionally supporting this child and are within lets say your guidelined time period of 7 weeks.

Look at the USA as an example:

On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 3/4 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner (AGI/Planned Parenthood).

These are pretty weak reasons to attempt to use to justify killing your child.

If a woman is emotionally or financially incapable of supporting a child, why is she engaging in sexual intercourse?

If you don't want to get wet, don't go out in the rain!

And because of the irresponsibility and wreaklessness of this woman, the unborn child must be killed? I think not. If she can't or won't support the kid, then there will be people and agencies who will.

eveie

ultravid i agree 100% with everything you have said about abortion, i have started threads on this dicussion before, but they were all locked.
i have also used the same sources as you in many of my threads.
i dont have time to read every post, but i see the rape argument being brought up time and time again.
rape accounts for less then one precent....infact .2% of all abortions, thats not to say that it is not an important argument, but you need to ask yourself............are justify abortion on the basis that only .2% of all abortions are due to rape
many women who have become pregnant through rape have kept thier child and through keeping their child found that they in someway bet the rapist. abortion weather it be through rape or just lack of contraception(common sense) IS the killing of an INNOCENT HUMAN life.
financial problems is a pathetic excuse for abortion, since when was a childs worth based on the financial security of a family. should all children in 3rd world countries be aborted??? just becuase of the circumstances thte child is born into does not mean its life is in any way less worthy then a child born into great wealth. every human has the right to experience life, if that means they experience poverty so be it, just because a child is born into wealth or seurity does not garentee it a smooth life without injustice.
we are so materlistic today, we want everything our own way but do not want the responsibility that comes hand in hand with it, if you engage in sex you may become pregnant.....be responsible
also women are their own worse enimies, we judge young girls who become pregnant, call them tramps and so on yet the majority of us are engaging in sex,i believe that tihis has some part to play in women choosing abortions ads they feel they will be judged.
abortion is NOT A RIGHT AND THERFORE SHOULD NEVER BE A CHOICE, your choice was when you had sex, after that you must take responsibility for your actions

Virgil°

eveie wrote: »

.......

"Oh no innocent human life!!!" You eat innocent life every day. What makes human innocent life so special?
God...it would be soooo much easier to debate this had you not come in here blasting away full force with points that have been covered and replied to 5 times over in this thread alone.
You do the rational side of pro-life no favours. Please read the thread before posting.

ultravid wrote:

These are pretty weak reasons to attempt to use to justify killing your child.

If a woman is emotionally or financially incapable of supporting a child, why is she engaging in sexual intercourse?

If you don't want to get wet, don't go out in the rain!

And because of the irresponsibility and wreaklessness of this woman, the unborn child must be killed? I think not. If she can't or won't support the kid, then there will be people and agencies who will.

I don't really agree with a woman aborting her "fetus" if shes fully capable of raising it by the way. But as long as it doesn't have a brain/consciousness i don't see the harm to be truthful.

Would you endorse the raising of a child by a mother and father of 17 who aren't emotionally mature enough or financially stable enough to give it any sort of a decent chance at a happy life?
Just because they didn't abstain?

Ultravid

Virgil° wrote: »

"Oh no innocent human life!!!" You eat innocent life every day. What makes human innocent life so special?
God...it would be soooo much easier to debate this had you not come in here blasting away full force with points that have been covered and replied to 5 times over in this thread alone.
You do the rational side of pro-life no favours. Please read the thread before posting.

I don't really agree with a woman aborting her "fetus" if shes fully capable of raising it by the way. But as long as it doesn't have a brain/consciousness i don't see the harm to be truthful.

Would you endorse the raising of a child by a mother and father of 17 who aren't emotionally mature enough or financially stable enough to give it any sort of a decent chance at a happy life?
Just because they didn't abstain?

The life has been created, regardless of the circumstances or who his/her parents are, what age they are, their maturity etc... The child should not be killed. The child could be adopted or fostered. As an aside, were they emotionally mature enough to be engaging in sexual intercourse?


This is a general point for anyone to address:


If human life is equal to animal life, why are you not appalled at the slaughter of unborn babies when you are disgusted by the slaughter of animals, all things being equal?

I'm still waiting for my challenge point (post #272) to be picked up, but since it's Friday night, I'll understand that it will be left 'til Saturday lunchtime at the earliest.;)

Ultravid

bluewolf wrote: »

Could you please quote where anyone said human life was equal to animal life
thanks

I'm sorry I can't do that, that is why I said it was a general point I left for anyone to pick up on. But I did get the impression that some on this thread felt that human life was nothing special, so I therefore assumed that it must at least be on a par with the life of animals.

Virgil°

Ultravid wrote: »

This is a general point for anyone to address:


If human life is equal to animal life, why are you not appalled at the slaughter of unborn babies when you are disgusted by the slaughter of animals, all things being equal?

I'm still waiting for my challenge point (post #272) to be picked up, but since it's Friday night, I'll understand that it will be left 'til Saturday lunchtime at the earliest.;)

Ill answer that 272 for you quite easily. I haven't impregnated anyone and im pro choice. So my reasoning for pro choice isn't because i want an effective contraception method.So not everyone who is prochoice falls into your bracket of responsibility.

ultravid wrote:

The life has been created, regardless of the circumstances or who his/her parents are, what age they are, their maturity etc... The child should not be killed. The child could be adopted or fostered. As an aside, were they emotionally mature enough to be engaging in sexual intercourse?

Who knows if they were or not, they were in the eyes of the law anyway. Yet you still think its a good idea for them to raise a child somehow. Besides its not like having sex takes a great deal of maturity. But raising a child does. So your point of "if you're responsible enough to have sex then you're responsible enough to raise a child" doesn't make sense.

ultravid wrote:

B]If human life is equal to animal life, why are you not appalled at the slaughter of unborn babies when you are disgusted by the slaughter of animals, all things being equal?[/B]

Human life isn't equal to animal life, that was NEVER my point.But you'd know that had you read ANY of my ****ing previous posts. Ive been through this so many goddamn times.But ill do it again cos im just that nice
.Animals and humans arent equal for one reason only. Were smarter than them because of our consciousness and intelligence. Qualities granted to us by our brains. Which a fetus at conception doesn't have. And wont do until 8-10 weeks.Ergo i don't care about it until such stage.

Ultravid

Virgil° wrote: »

Human life isn't equal to animal life, that was NEVER my point.But you'd know that had you read ANY of my ...posts. Animals and humans arent equal for one reason only. Were smarter than them because of our consciousness and intelligence. Qualities granted to us by our brains. Which a fetus at conception doesn't have. And wont do until 8-10 weeks.Ergo i don't care about it until such stage.

You don't, but I do. Additionally, a severely mentally handicapped person may not actually be as smart as a monkey, does that lessen their right to life in your opinion?

Anyway, I've been saving these points 'til now:

Do you value the dignity of life when it does, in your view, become human?

If the embryo is life but not human, at what point does it become human?

If we don't know exactly when human life actually begins, shouldn't we err on the side of caution at least until science can refute the assertion that life does, in fact, begin at conception?

If we keep aborting, we are destroying the very resource that could solve those problems in the world which one might mention, global warming, food and fuel supplies etc… How much human ingenuity has been aborted? If we treated the environment that way, you would be outraged, and rightly so!

I say use the "don't know, don't shoot" argument.
Peter Kreeft's Quadrilemma(sp):

1) Abortion is murder and you know it is murder and do it
2) Abortion is murder and you don't know and you do it
3) Abortion is not murder and you know and you do it
4) Abortion is not murder and you don't know and you do it

The only one justifiable is the third, because the first would be murder, the second would be manslaughter, and the fourth would be criminal negligence. Like a rustling in the bushes. It could be a deer or it could be your fellow hunter.

Can you provide irrefutable proof that abortion is not murder? The key here is knowledge, not belief...

tallaght01

Well, the fetal brain usually starts to develop at 5 weeks.

I also think this talk of animals is (no pun intended) a red herring. We are more attached to humans because we ARE human, not because of the exclusivity of consciousness.

I don't know to what degree, say, a penguin has a consciousness. But they are not unconscious. I can be pretty certain of that :P Simliarly penguins are probably not aware of our consciousness levels, as we can't communicate. So, I think these comparisons become meaningless.

I know of many many children who, to be honest, are not much more developed mentally than some animals. I mean, severely severely disabled kids. But we don't go around terminating them. If we were basing these decisions on higher consciousness, these kids wouldn't have a hope.

Virgil°

Ultravid wrote: »

You don't, but I do. Additionally, a severely mentally handicapped person may not actually be as smart as a monkey, does that lessen their right to life in your opinion?

I dont but you do. The difference is that i've actually EXPLAINED why i don't.
Your logic doesn't seem to extend past "Human life is special because it is".
Unless you're able to elaborate you don't have a leg to stand on.

And you cant quantify intelligence like that but no it doesn't lessen their right. Because they are a Human consciousness,memories, feeling etc.Theyve got what it takes to make them important in my eyes. And Huzzah for monkeys by the way, more rights to them IMO.

ultravid wrote:

Do you value the dignity of life when it does, in your view, become human?

If the embryo is life but not human, at what point does it become human?

If we don't know exactly when human life actually begins, shouldn't we err on the side of caution at least until science can refute the assertion that life does, in fact, begin at conception?

O FOR **** SAKE. I'm just not going to continue conversing with you if you cant keep track of what i've said.
Quote me where i said an embryo isn't human. I dare you!

ultravid wrote:

If we keep aborting, we are destroying the very resource that could solve those problems in the world which one might mention, global warming, food and fuel supplies etc… How much human ingenuity has been aborted? If we treated the environment that way, you would be outraged, and rightly so!

Equally by forcing unready couples to constantly give birth we could end up creating another Hitler.Or someone who could create a bomb that would destroy the planet.At the very least we are creating another mouth for the world to feed and clean up the environment after.
You cant use such WILD speculation for your points. Theres no shortage of people on the planet and no shortage of babies being given birth to by ready parents either.

ultravid wrote:

1) Abortion is murder and you know it is murder and do it
2) Abortion is murder and you don't know and you do it
3) Abortion is not murder and you know and you do it
4) Abortion is not murder and you don't know and you do it

Good for you. How about.....ummm abortion isnt murder at all because i don't acknowledge i've murdered anyone?

Virgil°

tallaght01 wrote: »

I don't know to what degree, say, a penguin has a consciousness. But they are not unconscious. I can be pretty certain of that :P Simliarly penguins are probably not aware of our consciousness levels, as we can't communicate. So, I think these comparisons become meaningless.

I know of many many children who, to be honest, are not much more developed mentally than some animals. I mean, severely severely disabled kids. But we don't go around terminating them. If we were basing these decisions on higher consciousness, these kids wouldn't have a hope.

Yes but its human consciousness that i choose to value because its far superior to that of any other animal on the planet,and by that similar to mine. And i wouldn't terminate a severly mentally handicapped person......because they have connections, memories, human feelings etc.....
All things that only the human brain can grant and why we're superior to other animals.I suppose it is a good point though if their consciousness is comparable to a penguin though. I dunno how id stand in that case.

Ultravid

Virgil° wrote: »

I dont but you do. The difference is that i've actually EXPLAINED why i don't.
Your logic doesn't seem to extend past "Human life is special because it is".
Unless you're able to elaborate you don't have a leg to stand on.

And you cant quantify intelligence like that but no it doesn't lessen their right. Because they are a Human consciousness,memories, feeling etc.Theyve got what it takes to make them important in my eyes. And Huzzah for monkeys by the way, more rights to them IMO.


O FOR **** SAKE. I'm just not going to continue conversing with you if you cant keep track of what i've said.
Quote me where i said an embryo isn't human. I dare you!


Equally by forcing unready couples to constantly give birth we could end up creating another Hitler.Or someone who could create a bomb that would destroy the planet.At the very least we are creating another mouth for the world to feed and clean up the environment after.
You cant use such WILD speculation for your points. Theres no shortage of people on the planet and no shortage of babies being given birth to by ready parents either.


Good for you. How about.....ummm abortion isnt murder at all because i don't acknowledge i've murdered anyone?

The points made in my last post weren't personal to you. I was just presenting them for consideration by the others.

I may not have explained myself as you suggested just now, but nor have you addressed Kreeft's arguments as above.

tallaght01

I take your point.

I don't agree with it. I don't think our valuation of other humans comes from their conscious levels. I don't love my family for that reason. I would still love any of them of they were severely brain damaged tot he extent that they had no memories, orhadn't the pathways to develop feelings other than those basic emotions that animals can show.
I'm pretty sure, deep down, we value human life because we ARE humans. I can see no evidence that we love those humans who are more highly developed than those who are less so.

I'd still like to know, out of curiousity, how you measure consciousness....both in terms of us and animals. How do we know that they just don't value things differently?

I just think it's fair that the pro-abortion side lay out the tiny details of their theories, if they're going to ask the anti-abortion side to argue the minutiae of when life starts etc.

Zombrex

Wonderful, another abortion thread :pac:

The central point about abortion, in my mind at least, comes down to why we considered a human existence to be valuable, and the question of whether or not, or when, a foetus has these properties.

As an atheist I have no time what so ever for an religious arguments that human life is valuable because God says so, or that it is valuable from the point of conception because that is when the soul enters the body (which isn't even in the Bible but something Christians largely came up with themselves).

To me the valuable property of human life is the human consciousness contained in the biological brain (at least as far as we understand that is where it is contained).

A foetus that has not reached the stage of developing a brain capable of generating this level of higher sentience, is not valuable in any tangible sense (the idea of the coming child may be emotionally valuable to an expecting parent, but then so too can a womb with no foetus at all). That includes the zygote and embryo. It is just a bunch of cells. Killing it is of little ethical consequence.

When a foetus has developed a brain that has started to show the functioning of the higher brain functions, things become trickier and I would take the position that it is better to air on the side of caution and restrict abortions to before this point.

Zombrex

Ultravid wrote: »

Consciousness is not why I'm against abortion. I hold human life as inherently valuable, something which the pro-abortion folks (sorry I know you don't like that term but I can't use the term pro-choice) seem to lack. I guess the difference is whether or not we value human life.

Well no, the difference is whether one values human life for a reason or not. Based on this reason one can then look at the issue of whether or not a sperm/egg pair, or a zygote, or an embryo, or a foetus or a new born or a 51 year old, or a brain dead person, matches that reason.

You, based on this statement (I haven't read all 11 pages of this thread), apparently don't have a reason, you just hold human life value just because? You don't appear to have a reason behind that. You just do.

Which is a bit of a conversation ender to be honest, and not something that one can really enter a debate with

You are ever going to convince someone of your position by saying that you believe it just because you believe it. Nor does there seem to be any way for someone to agree with your reasons (you don't have any) or disagree and say they are wrong.

Virgil°

Ultravid wrote: »

The points made in my last post weren't personal to you. I was just presenting them for consideration by the others.

If theyve been made, explained and discussed in length before in this thread what the hell is the point in making them again?

Ultravid wrote: »

I may not have explained myself as you suggested just now, but nor have you addressed Kreeft's arguments as above.

And which one of our sides should hold more weight given the above to be true do you think?

talaght wrote:

I take your point.

I don't agree with it. I don't think our valuation of other humans comes from their conscious levels. I don't love my family for that reason. I would still love any of them of they were severely brain damaged tot he extent that they had no memories, orhadn't the pathways to develop feelings other than those basic emotions that animals can show.
.

Well i can understand why you would still love them, but that doesn't really prove your point. All it says is that its quite hard for someone so close to said brain dead or brain damaged person to remain objective.

tallaght wrote:

I'm pretty sure, deep down, we value human life because we ARE humans. I can see no evidence that we love those humans who are more highly developed than those who are less so.

It might be a cruel fact to face, im not denying that. But lets say you have two siblings, one is severly brain damaged(for all intents and purposes a vegetable) and one is normal(both are Human). You were given a choice....you must kill one and save the other. Which do you choose and why?

tallaght wrote:

I'd still like to know, out of curiousity, how you measure consciousness....both in terms of us and animals. How do we know that they just don't value things differently?

Well they do of course value things differently. But it makes sense to value the beings with consciousnesses(ARG spelling) similar to our own. Hence why we might relate more to a monkey than we would to a rhino for example.

tallaght wrote:

I just think it's fair that the pro-abortion side lay out the tiny details of their theories, if they're going to ask the anti-abortion side to argue the minutiae of when life starts

So do i think its fair. but ive never argued at the point of when life start, just when i think we should value it.

Virgil°

Thank christ you're here Wicknight. Can you take over and i go to bed please?

Zombrex

Virgil° wrote: »

Thank christ you're here Wicknight

As an atheist I find that deeply offensive :pac:

tallaght01

Wicknight, it's very difficult to explain why humans as a race value other humans above their dog. People will have different reasons, but most just do.

Talking about consciousness is an easy way out. But we are not attached to all humans equally. There's so much more to it.

The world hardly bats and eyelied when 250,000 people die in Dharfur and a million are driven from their homes. They have the same consciousness as we do. There's so much more to the issue than you or I could explain.

But it doesn't take a genius to work out the following:

1) we DO value human life above other animals

2) We often value human life, even when the person is so damaged as to have no more brain activity than an animal.

Virgil°

Wicknight wrote: »

As an atheist I find that deeply offensive :pac:

Thank science you're here Wicknight can you take over and i got to bed please?

tallaght01

Virgil° wrote: »

Well i can understand why you would still love them, but that doesn't really prove your point. All it says is that its quite hard for someone so close to said brain dead or brain damaged person to remain objective.


It might be a cruel fact to face, im not denying that. But lets say you have two siblings, one is severly brain damaged(for all intents and purposes a vegetable) and one is normal(both are Human). You were given a choice....you must kill one and save the other. Which do you choose and why?


Well they do of course value things differently. But it makes sense to value the beings with consciousnesses(ARG spelling) similar to our own. Hence why we might relate more to a monkey than we would to a rhino for example.


So do i think its fair. but ive never argued at the point of when life start, just when i think we should value it.

That's not true. We, as a society wouldn't tolerate the culling of the sevrrely mentally handicapped. It's not just the families im talking about.

Your point about kiling one of the 2 siblings doesn't stand....for a very good reason....

It's simply not reasonable to compare the brain dead sibling to a fetus, The brain dead child will stay brain deads forever.

The fetus will develop significantly.

This is the same reason why abortion arguments that start taling about brain dead adults on life support machines are not comparing apples with apples.

Virgil°

tallaght01 wrote: »

Your point about kiling one of the 2 siblings doesn't stand....for a very good reason....

It's simply not reasonable to compare the brain dead sibling to a fetus, The brain dead child will stay brain deads forever.

What about a brain damaged child in that scenario? like i said before actually.Which do you choose?.
Also what difference does it make brain dead...brain damaged, you're the one saying we dont place value on humans because of the consciousness.

tallaght wrote:

The fetus will develop significantly.

Goodie, i was actually hoping you'd make that point.
As this is where i can simply agree to disagree. I cant convince you that a potential consciousness isn't valueable, and you cant convince me the opposite. Such is the proper stalemate between pro life and choice i feel.

Zombrex

tallaght01 wrote: »

Wicknight, it's very difficult to explain why humans as a race value other humans above their dog. People will have different reasons, but most just do.

It certainly seems to be. But as I said to Ultravid without any sort of reason or logical foundation for why human life is valuable the conversation/debt just stalls. Someone says they value human life just because. Someone else say they don't, just because. There is no debt there because there is nothing to debt.

tallaght01 wrote: »

Talking about consciousness is an easy way out.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by this.

It is certainly a way out of the rather pointless stale mate I describe above, though I'm not sure I would call it "easy". It took me a long time to really think through my position and the fundamentals of why I view both myself and others as valuable, and what properties of my body hold value.

tallaght01 wrote: »

But we are not attached to all humans equally. There's so much more to it.

Well yes but that to me would be a very good reason to search for rational arguments behind our instinctive emotions, rather than simply relying on how we feel about different people as deciding factors in whether or not we value their lives.

Otherwise we get into a situation where we assert that someone has no value, and therefore no civil rights, simply because we don't give a hoot about them, and vice versa

There are plenty of people I don't give a hoot about, but I still consider them to have equal human rights to me because of the principles of my ethical system, not because I am emotional attached to them in some way.

tallaght01 wrote: »

1) we DO value human life above other animals

See that is the thing. Often we don't. Hitler viewed his dog as more valuable than all the Jews in the world.

We have a basic instinctive/evolutionary emotional system to assign value to other humans, but this system is far from perfect and some what biased towards humans that are close to us, either in a family sense or a tribal sense.

In my view we, as a species, really need to try and put some form of rational framework over this rather imperfect instinctive emotional system. Not just in terms of abortion, but in all ethical issues.

tallaght01

Virgil° wrote: »

What about a brain damaged child in that scenario? like i said before actually.Which do you choose?.
Also what difference does it make brain dead...brain damaged, you're the one saying we dont place value on humans because of the consciousness.


Goodie, i was actually hoping you'd make that point.
As this is where i can simply agree to disagree. I cant convince you that a potential consciousness isn't valueable, and you cant convince me the opposite. Such is the proper stalemate between pro life and choice i feel.

I knew you were fishing for that response, as I'd read the earlier part of the thread.

I don't think the "potentialness" is the issue. I think the "actualness" of the fetus is the issue.

I was making the point that you're not comparing like with like. Let me explain....

You think consciousness is the important thing.

To back up that point you, or others, were talking about how we let adults on life support machnes die.

Or we'd be more likely to let a brain damaged sibling die than his/her normal sibling.

I made the point that the 2 groups are not comparable, if consciousness is what defines your right to life.

That's because the fetus will become conscious. The brain dead people won't.

Therefore, I was saying your argument doesn't hold water. I have never argued that consciousness is the issue.

To me, consciousness isn't the issue.

Zombrex

tallaght01 wrote: »

It's simply not reasonable to compare the brain dead sibling to a fetus, The brain dead child will stay brain deads forever.

The fetus will develop significantly.

This is the same reason why abortion arguments that start taling about brain dead adults on life support machines are not comparing apples with apples.

It is comparing apples with apples at that moment in time. You have a living human life but it is not a person, it does not yet contain the properties that we consider to be a person.

One can say that it soon will be a human person, but not at that moment. The consciousness does not exist. It doesn't exist now, it didn't exist 10 minutes ago, it didn't exist when it was just a sperm and egg about to get together, it didn't exist 2 million years ago. It has not come into existence yet. It has not been created. It may well be created if you don't do anything, but then isn't that the point? Its the reason we use condoms.

So if you don't want a human person abort now before it comes into existence. Kill the human life form before it has the properties that we consider to be valuable. You are not destroying the thing of value because the thing of value has not yet come into existence.

Virgil°

tallaght01 wrote: »

To back up that point you, or others, were talking about how we let adults on life support machnes die.

Or we'd be more likely to let a brain damaged sibling die than his/her normal sibling.

I made the point that the 2 groups are not comparable, if consciousness is what defines your right to life.

That's because the fetus will become conscious. The brain dead people won't.

I know that you value a fetus with the potential to have a consciousness, But is that BECAUSE it has the potential for consciousness? If it is then you're contradicting yourself by saying it isn't an issue to you.And im not going to try and convince you that the potential isnt important, because i know i couldn't. Just the same as you couldn't do the opposite to me.

The only point i was making in the life or death scenario between a fully grown healthy sibling and a fully grown brain damaged sibling, is that we DO in fact place an enormous amount of value on the level of consciousness.That was the only point.

I wasn't comparing either of the siblings to a fetus.

Virgil°

EEEEEEKKK don't start using the word "person" Wicknight.......use something else lest you invoke the wrath of zulu. Stick to consciousness or intelligent person or something.Ive worked so hard:(

tallaght01

Wicknight. Consciousness IS an easy way out.

It's not based on any evidence. It's not even a defined entity. And we can't communicate with other species to determine their consciousness.

I just find it easier to say I don't know why humans value ourselves above other species. Rather than relying on an esoteric concept.

Bringing hitler into this debate is to use the exception to argue the rule. It'd like bringing Jeffrey Dahmer into the vegetarianism debate.

As a society, we value humans above animals. I think it's because we ARE humans. You think it's to do with consciousnes. I don't know who's right. Neither of us can prove anything. The onus certainly shouldn't be on me to prove it!

It's very easy to say we should apply a rational framework to our arguments on value systems. But i'd like to see you try, with any degree of evidence to back up what you say

Your argument trying to justify the comparisns between brain dead people and fetuses has me confused. Why should we only lok at an issue at only one point in time. And more importantly, why only look at one side of the argument at one point in time. let me elaborate...

Your're comparing the brain dead adult with the fetus.

You say you can turn off the adult's life support machine because he will stay brain dead.

But you will terminate the fetus because he has no consciousness now, but will in the future.

If we applied that logic, I'd be flicking a lot of switches in intensive care. Mostly of people who will get better.

You were comapring apples with oranges int he first place. But, with all respect, you're now camparing apples with seagulls.

tallaght01

Virgil° wrote: »

I know that you value a fetus with the potential to have a consciousness, But is that BECAUSE it has the potential for consciousness? If it is then you're contradicting yourself by saying it isn't an issue to you.And im not going to try and convince you that the potential isnt important, because i know i couldn't. Just the same as you couldn't do the opposite to me.

The only point i was making in the life or death scenario between a fully grown healthy sibling and a fully grown brain damaged sibling, is that we DO in fact place an enormous amount of value on the level of consciousness.That was the only point.

I wasn't comparing either of the siblings to a fetus.

No, you've misunderstood me.

Consciousness isn't the issue for me. The babies I work with dont have the same devloped higher finctions that I have. But I woldn't kill them.

Similarly, one of our babies born at 23 weeks has a brain that is very primitive, I will still fight to keep him alive.

It's also not about the potential. Like I said before, I value the fetus as a life, not as a potential life.

The only reason we'd pick the brain damaged sibling in your rather bizzarre scenario os a quality of life issue.

In medicine, with limited resources, we try and allocate resources where they will make the biggest difference.

In the case of the 2 siblings....all other things being equal (which is where your argument will fall don straight away), then the normal child will derive greatest benefit fromt he life saving drug or whatever.

It's nothing to do witht he valuation of their "life" status.

Virgil°

tallaght01 wrote: »

Your're comparing the brain dead adult with the fetus.

You say you can turn off the adult's life support machine because he will stay brain dead.

But you will terminate the fetus because he has no consciousness now, but will in the future.

Dude go back and actually READ my post.
Ive said VERY specifically that im not comparing the brain damaged or healthy sibling to the fetus.
Im only trying to emphasize, that, whether we like it or not....when push comes to shove we do value levels of consciousness.

And as ive also said I at least am not going to try and convince you that a fetus with the potential for consciousness isnt important, and you vise versa to me.

tallaght01

Virgil° wrote: »

Dude go back and actually READ my post.
Ive said VERY specifically that im not comparing the brain damaged or healthy sibling to the fetus.
Im only trying to emphasize, that, whether we like it or not....when push comes to shove we do value levels of consciousness.

And as ive also said I at least am not going to try and convince you that a fetus with the potential for consciousness isnt important, and you vise versa to me.

Well of course we value consciousness!!! I've never said we don't. We value hearing, speech, cognitive ability, motor skills and understanding.

I'm not sure where you're going with that point, though. Because we value something, doesn't mean that it defines us.


I had assumes that was why you raised the issue of the brain dead kids. BUt now I'm stumped :P

Virgil°

tallaght01 wrote: »

No, you've misunderstood me.

Consciousness isn't the issue for me. The babies I work with dont have the same devloped higher finctions that I have. But I woldn't kill them.

Similarly, one of our babies born at 23 weeks has a brain that is very primitive, I will still fight to keep him alive.

It's also not about the potential. Like I said before, I value the fetus as a life, not as a potential life.

I never mentioned "life" or potential "life".
The rest of that point is irrelevant. Given that you havent explained why you value human life.Other than" because its human life".

tallaght01 wrote: »

In my scenario quality of life shouldn't come into it. If you are true to your word of valuing all human life.
n the case of the 2 siblings....all other things being equal (which is where your argument will fall don straight away), then the normal child will derive greatest benefit fromt he life saving drug or whatever.

Why would one derive greater benefit?
Surely it couldnt be because ones consciousness is greater than the other?

Virgil°

tallaght01 wrote: »

Well of course we value consciousness!!! I've never said we don't. We value hearing, speech, cognitive ability, motor skills and understanding.

I'm not sure where you're going with that point, though. Because we value something, doesn't mean that it defines us.


I had assumes that was why you raised the issue of the brain dead kids. But now I'm stumped :P

What i'm saying is that we value levels of consciousness more so than just "life" or any other characteristic.
Otherwise we'd be incapable of killing all the animals we do for eating purposes,as in many ways bar our intelligence vast numbers of animals are greatly superior to us,hearing, speech,motor skills etc..... .

tallaght01

Virgil° wrote: »

Why would one derive greater benefit?
Surely it couldnt be because ones consciousness is greater than the other?

Absoloutely. Without "a consciousness" (whatver that is) he will derive less benefit from his brother. Similarly, if u presented the scenario wher the only difference is that one sibling has no limbs, the answer would be the same.

But legs and arms don't make us humans.

The other reason why the brain damaged sibling would derive less benefit are:

He is very likely to die much younger

He will have no physical capabilities.

He will spend a lot of time in hospitals

He will have no capacity for independence

Like I said, the scenario isn't particuarly realistic anyway.

tallaght01

Virgil° wrote: »

What i'm saying is that we value levels of consciousness more so than just "life" or any other characteristic.
Otherwise we'd be incapable of killing all the animals we do for eating purposes,as in many ways bar our intelligence vast numbers of animals are greatly superior to us,hearing, speech,motor skills etc..... .

And I will respectfully diagree with you, on the basis that I couldn't kill and eat a human who had the same develoment levels as an animal.
On top of that, we don't love people more if they are more highly developed.


I think our valuation is about the fat that we are all humans, and not about consciousness.

But, like I said to wicknight, none of us can prove that.

Zombrex

tallaght01 wrote: »

Wicknight. Consciousness IS an easy way out.

Easy in what way?

Is it more or less easy than saying life begins at conception?

tallaght01 wrote: »

It's not based on any evidence. It's not even a defined entity. And we can't communicate with other species to determine their consciousness.

How does that make it easy? I think it is rather challenging and as you suggest it raises issues of the rights of other animals. We can actually communicate with other species to attempt to determine their consciousness, such as the mirror test. But again I'm not following how you think this makes anything "easy"

tallaght01 wrote: »

I just find it easier to say I don't know why humans value ourselves above other species. Rather than relying on an esoteric concept.

Isn't that the true easy way out. Just throwing ones hands up and declaring, universally, that we just do

tallaght01 wrote: »

Bringing hitler into this debate is to use the exception to argue the rule.

It isn't the exception at all. History is littered with countless examples of people who did not or do not view human life, or some human life, as having any particular value.

tallaght01 wrote: »

I think it's because we ARE humans.

Well it is because we as a species have evolved an emotional system for regulating social behaviour that encourages empathy and compassion with other humans close to us, that has provided evolutionary benefit to us.

But that isn't really enough for a full ethical frame work. We have also evolved a natural tendency to kill humans outside of our family or tribal unit, thus leading to the Hitlers and Stalins and their millions of willing supporters.

So we don't really instinctively value human life above animal life. We instinctively value some human life about animal life.

And in fact this instinct has been utilized by other species such as dogs who have evolved physical traits, such as big eyes, that trigger the emotional response in us to protect that is normally reserved for humans such as babies.

The point is that none of this is particular solid enough that one could construct an ethical system on our evolutionary emotional systems alone. Modern society doesn't simply value human life over animals because we just do. These ideas emerged from a long rational philosophical process that goes back to ancient times.

tallaght01 wrote: »

You think it's to do with consciousnes.

No I don't. I'm not saying that is why people value human life. Most people I imagine have no idea why they value human life, and as I said the particulars of how they value change depending on who you are talking about.

I'm saying that is my rational framework, a framework I think a lot of people would agree with if presented it.

tallaght01 wrote: »

I don't know who's right. Neither of us can prove anything. The onus certainly shouldn't be on me to prove it!

I haven't asked you to prove anything.

tallaght01 wrote: »

It's very easy to say we should apply a rational framework to our arguments on value systems. But i'd like to see you try, with any degree of evidence to back up what you say

I thought I had already done that, a few times in fact in previous threads.

tallaght01 wrote: »

Your argument trying to justify the comparisns between brain dead people and fetuses has me confused. Why should we only lok at an issue at only one point in time.

Because the issue relates to what currently exists.

We don't grant rights to human persons that do not exist yet (my future, currently non-existent, son/daughter has no rights) or that once existed but now doesn't. In fact such ideas appear almost nonsensical. Why would something that doesn't exist need rights?

tallaght01 wrote: »

You say you can turn off the adult's life support machine because he will stay brain dead.

But you will terminate the fetus because he has no consciousness now, but will in the future.

You can turn of the machine because the person does not exist. They did exist, but now they don't. They have died

You can destroy the foetus because the person does not exist. They may exist in the future, but now they don't.

As I said future people that have yet to come into existence don't have rights, because they don't exist. Neither do people who have died.

tallaght01 wrote: »

If we applied that logic, I'd be flicking a lot of switches in intensive care. Mostly of people who will get better.

Why? They exist as human persons at that moment. Their brains contain a human person, it's memories it's ability to think etc.

To flick of the care units would be to destroy a human person that currently exists, which is a crime in my view, because a currently existing human person is valuable.

Virgil°

tallaght01 wrote: »

Absoloutely. Without "a consciousness" (whatver that is) he will derive less benefit from his brother. Similarly, if u presented the scenario wher the only difference is that one sibling has no limbs, the answer would be the same.

Thats because the ONLY difference is the limbs. You could reduce that logic to, if one was slightly taller or more beautiful. Your choice would be ultimately immoral either way...but if you had to chose one you would.
But either way my point stands....i asked you to choose a lesser consciousness or a greater one and you chose the higher one. Because you do value these higher levels.
Now if you had to choose between a person with no limbs and a brain dead person? IN all cases you see here that consciousness is the defining characteristic above all our other ones.

tallaght01

Virgil° wrote: »

Thats because the ONLY difference is the limbs. You could reduce that logic to, if one was slightly taller or more beautiful. Your choice would be ultimately immoral either way...but if you had to chose one you would.
But either way my point stands....i asked you to choose a lesser consciousness or a greater one and you chose the higher one. Because you do value these higher levels.
Now if you had to choose between a person with no limbs and a brain dead person? IN all cases you see here that consciousness is the defining characteristic above all our other ones.

No no no. For the reasons I gave above. The brain dead person will have a significantly reduced quality of life, compared to the person with no legs. Is that.

A) Is that really such a difficult concept?
How does that prove that we are valued as humans because of consciousness. I would pick the person with no legs to live over the person with no legs and no arms. Does this mean arms are what makes us valuable.

Consciousness is probably responsible for most of our quality of life. But it doesnt mean that's why we value humans. Like I said before, society still values those who are severely brain damaged.

Wicknight wrote: »

Easy in what way?

Is it more or less easy than saying life begins at conception?


How does that make it easy? I think it is rather challenging and as you suggest it raises issues of the rights of other animals. We can actually communicate with other species to attempt to determine their consciousness, such as the mirror test. But again I'm not following how you think this makes anything "easy"


Isn't that the true easy way out. Just throwing ones hands up and declaring, universally, that we just do


It isn't the exception at all. History is littered with countless examples of people who did not or do not view human life, or some human life, as having any particular value.


Well it is because we as a species have evolved an emotional system for regulating social behaviour that encourages empathy and compassion with other humans close to us, that has provided evolutionary benefit to us.

But that isn't really enough for a full ethical frame work. We have also evolved a natural tendency to kill humans outside of our family or tribal unit, thus leading to the Hitlers and Stalins and their millions of willing supporters.

So we don't really instinctively value human life above animal life. We instinctively value some human life about animal life.

And in fact this instinct has been utilized by other species such as dogs who have evolved physical traits, such as big eyes, that trigger the emotional response in us to protect that is normally reserved for humans such as babies.

The point is that none of this is particular solid enough that one could construct an ethical system on our evolutionary emotional systems alone. Modern society doesn't simply value human life over animals because we just do. These ideas emerged from a long rational philosophical process that goes back to ancient times.


No I don't. I'm not saying that is why people value human life. Most people I imagine have no idea why they value human life, and as I said the particulars of how they value change depending on who you are talking about.

I'm saying that is my rational framework, a framework I think a lot of people would agree with if presented it.


I haven't asked you to prove anything.



I thought I had already done that, a few times in fact in previous threads.



Because the issue relates to what currently exists.

We don't grant rights to human persons that do not exist yet (my future, currently non-existent, son/daughter has no rights) or that once existed but now doesn't. In fact such ideas appear almost nonsensical. Why would something that doesn't exist need rights?



You can turn of the machine because the person does not exist. They did exist, but now they don't. They have died

You can destroy the foetus because the person does not exist. They may exist in the future, but now they don't.

As I said future people that have yet to come into existence don't have rights, because they don't exist. Neither do people who have died.


Why? They exist as human persons at that moment. Their brains contain a human person, it's memories it's ability to think etc.

To flick of the care units would be to destroy a human person that currently exists, which is a crime in my view, because a currently existing human person is valuable.

This is a pretty long and disjointed post, so let me try and summarise, so I can address your point without breaking the post up and confusing the issue further:

1) Saying consciousness is the central issue isn't the easy way out. Saying that I can't prove on boards what people have been trying to prove for donkeys years in universities around the world is the easy way out.


2) You can communicate with animals


3) I can't assign legitimacy to the value of human life unless I can tell you why that's the case.


4) Hitler wasn't an exceptional case


5) We both agree that we value human life life because of the human-ness, not because of consciousness or potential.


6) You're arguing about how evolution encourages us to kill people outside our family in a debate about killing our own fetuses.


7) You have presented your rational framework. Though I still don't understand what that is, with respect. Other than an opinion on evolution.


8) It's OK to terminate an adult if they are brain dead, on the basis of a lack of consciousness.


9) It's not OK to terminate an unconscious adult on the basis of their consciousness, because they will return to consciousness in the future.


10) It's OK to terminate babies who are conscious to a varying degree, as it doesn't matter that they will become conscious in the future.


I just wanted to make sure that I'd actually read your argument correctly!!!! Coz I couldn't quite believe what i was reading.

taibhse

Its all so easy for men to pontificate, for the ones who have the black and white attitude of "she made her bed so she can lie in it".
They are not the ones who will have to carry the baby and I firmly believe that a woman should not be made carry a baby against her will. It is her body and not the property of social commentary.

Sexual abstinence is not a realistic suggestion to millions of women around the world.
Now of course I am not suggesting abortion as a contraceptive method or that they be handed out willy nilly.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

I'm all for abortion, but tbh if the woman has the right to decide herself whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term the man oughta have the right to choose whether he wants to be legal guardian or not.

tallaght01

taibhse wrote: »

Its all so easy for men to pontificate, for the ones who have the black and white attitude of "she made her bed so she can lie in it".
They are not the ones who will have to carry the baby and I firmly believe that a woman should not be made carry a baby against her will. It is her body and not the property of social commentary.

Sexual abstinence is not a realistic suggestion to millions of women around the world.
Now of course I am not suggesting abortion as a contraceptive method or that they be handed out willy nilly.

I my opinion, though...this isn't about you as much as it is the baby.

It was you and the guy's actions that lead to the pregancy in the first case. In most cases, this is consensual.

But the baby pays the price for this.

I think that type of thinking is why ther needs to be people whoa dvocate for the rights of the child.

Yor womb isn't our property. But when the responsible adult abdicates responsibility for a child, then it becomes an issue that affects society.

So, it's not just a case of men pontificating from the sides. To extend that logic, you'd be happy enough if men ignored womens rights altogether because they don't affect us!

taibhse

But your glossing over all pregnancies in the same fashion.

I my opinion, though...this isn't about you as much as it is the baby.

It was you and the guy's actions that lead to the pregancy in the first case. In most cases, this is consensual.

There are accidents that happen. If a woman has sex it doesnt mean she wants to get pregnant. Yes it may have been consentual but I don't believe a woman should be made to carry a baby against her will.
Before a certain point in development yes I do think the woman's rights has precidence over the foetus

Nevyn

MistressMord wrote: »

I'm all for abortion, but tbh if the woman has the right to decide herself whether or not to carry the pregnancy to term the man oughta have the right to choose whether he wants to be legal guardian or not.

If they are not married to the mother of the child they do have the choice about applying for legal guardianship or not.

You can not be legal guardianship and still be named as the father and expected to pay maintenance.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

well then not have to pay child support. If the right of the choice is entirely with the mother, then the right of responsibility is entirely with her.