To what extent does Religion influence the decision making of women on abortion?

Festus

marienbad wrote: »

You believe that life begins at point A, that fact that there is no concensus on that , scientific, medical,moral , dos'nt seem to trouble you.

The fact is there is consensus in the scientific community including the medical community on when the life of a new human being begins.

If you have evidence to the contrary please present it otherwise your assertion that there is no concensus is without foundation.

Zombrex

marienbad wrote: »

your are conflating all morality, some issues are individual choice with no implications for society, some are societal choices, the issues are which is which . Bank robbers etc have nothing to do with it.

The bank robber analogy highlights how we don't just let individuals decide morality as they go.

You seem to be saying that abortion is different because it doesn't effect others in society.

But that is the whole issue, if the fetus another human being with rights that it is another member of society, and it becomes exactly like a bank robber deciding that robbing a bank is moral.

If the fetus is a human being with rights then the actions of the mother do effect another individual in society, and as you seem to realize the idea that we would leave it as a choice for the mother doesn't hold.

We have never allowed people to individually choose whether or not it is or isn't moral to harm another person in society.

You seem to have already decided that the fetus is not a human being with rights but haven't really realized you have done this as an initial assumption of your argument that we should leave it up to the mother to choose. The mother only has a choice if we have already decided that the fetus is not an individual with rights.

This is why others have trouble with your argument. You seem to be subconsciously assuming something they aren't.

marienbad

Festus wrote: »

The fact is there is consensus in the scientific community including the medical community on when the life of a new human being begins.

If you have evidence to the contrary please present it otherwise your assertion that there is no concensus is without foundation.

Ok, enlighten me, when does the life ''of a new human being begin''

Morbert

This thread is still open so I am going to assume it's ok to weigh in.

I am against the right to late term abortions. I am tentatively against the right to mid-term abortions (though less sure about this, as I have not read up on it in a while). I am for the right to early-term abortions.

The early developmental process of the embryo and foetus is well documented. There shouldn't be any debate about the scientific facts. Instead, the debate is on moral principles, and what we consider a human being to be. Genetics has given us a clear picture of what physically defines us as a species, but I don't see this as in any-way related to what defines us as human beings.

Festus

marienbad wrote: »

Ok, enlighten me, when does the life ''of a new human being begin''

It should be readily apparent when this question is answered...

Festus wrote: »

Is there any scientific argument that life does not begin at conception?

For enlightenment you can also find the answer in any high school biology text book.

or here

or here, don't worry about the video, you probably wouldn't appreciate it but scroll down to see references to various texts

and there are more references to medical and scientific texts here but youhave to scroll past the pro-choice and pro-abortion stuff to get to them

marienbad

Festus wrote: »

It should be readily apparent when this question is answered...




For enlightenment you can also find the answer in any high school biology text book.

brings us full back full circle to the issue of concensus or lack of . You provide no evidence of such concensus but are very are quick to demand evidence to the contrary.

Festus

marienbad wrote: »

brings us full back full circle to the issue of concensus or lack of . You provide no evidence of such concensus but are very are quick to demand evidence to the contrary.

There is consensus in all books on biology that deal with sexual reproduction and in this case in reference to human reproduction.

You have the evidence from your own secondary education and there is a wealth of support in every library with a biology section.

If you want to up a gear go to any medical university and peruse their libraries.

I have demanded scientific evidence to the contrary and no scientific evidence has been presented.

marienbad

Festus wrote: »

There is consensus in all books on biology that deal with sexual reproduction and in this case in reference to human reproduction.

You have the evidence from your own secondary education and there is a wealth of support in every library with a biology section.

If you want to up a gear go to any medical university and peruse their libraries.

I have demanded scientific evidence to the contrary and no scientific evidence has been presented.

Your links are all to pro life sites or advocates of pro-life views , surely you are not saying that these are the only views on the subject ?

What is the point of linking to competing sites ?

Festus

marienbad wrote: »

Your links are all to pro life sites or advocates of pro-life views , surely you are not saying that these are the only views on the subject ?

What is the point of linking to competing sites ?

The sites may be pro-life but the books, papers, journals etc. they reference are independant.
I have yet to see you present any support for your arguments.

marienbad

Festus wrote: »

The sites may be but the books, papers, journals etc. they reference are independant.

You do accept that there is just as many sites of the opposite persuasion with books papers journals etc , also independant ?

Festus

marienbad wrote: »

You do accept that there is just as many sites of the opposite persuasion with books papers journals etc , also independant ?

Which is why I asked the question

Festus wrote: »

Is there any scientific argument that life does not begin at conception?

and so far there has been no support so the conclusion is that the answer is No.
Science tells us that life begins at conception, fertilization, the union of male gamete and female gamete, sperm and egg. There is no other point in the development of a human being where life starts. All that can happen after that is the human lives and does what all other living humans do or the human dies.

The only opposing view is unscientific and semantic.

marienbad

Festus wrote: »

Which is why I asked the question




and so far there has been no support so the conclusion is that the answer is No.
Science tells us that life begins at conception, fertilization, the union of male gamete and female gamete, sperm and egg. There is no other point in the development of a human being where life starts. All that can happen after that is the human lives and does what all other living humans do or the human dies.

The only opposing view is unscientific and semantic.

that would be the same science that denies evolution and the validity of contraceptives in the fight against aids, would it ?
I actually thought you were making a serious point there for a while.

Festus

marienbad wrote: »

You do accept that there is just as many sites of the opposite persuasion with books papers journals etc , also independant ?

Do any one of them present a scientific argument for when life begins?

If it does not begin at fertilization it must begin at some other point.
If it begins at some other point there must be supporting scientifiic and medical evidence.

You are probably more familiar with these sites so if you can find support for life begining at some distant point after conception please present it.

I have presented my evidence. The only reason it is presented on prolife sites is because the prodeath and promurder advocate sites will not.

Festus

marienbad wrote: »

that would be the same science that denies evolution and the validity of contraceptives in the fight against aids, would it ?
I actually thought you were making a serious point there for a while.

No. it would be real science. Medical science. Embryology. Obstetrics. Gynacology. Biology.

I had no illusions about any of your points. Are you planning on presenting a serious one?

marienbad

Festus wrote: »

No. it would be real science. Medical science. Embryology. Obstetrics. Gynacology. Biology.

I had no illusions about any of your points. Are you planning on presenting a serious one?

Festus, I presented lots, I just dont see what you are getting at, you show your sites and I show mine ( like the proverbial dick measuring competition), where does that advance anything ?

You do accept that the opposite point of view to yours is validly held I presume ?

Festus

marienbad wrote: »

Festus, I presented lots, I just dont see what you are getting at,

you presented your opinions but nothing of any consequence.

marienbad wrote: »

you show your sites and I show mine ( like the proverbial dick measuring competition), where does that advance anything ?

In any scientific discussion it helps to present supporting evidence. You have none therefore none of your points have any validity outside your own imagination.

marienbad wrote: »

You do accept that the opposite point of view to yours is validly held I presume ?

The opposite point of view in this case has no basis in science and hence has no validity.

marienbad

Festus wrote: »

you presented your opinions but nothing of any consequence.



In any scientific discussion it helps to present supporting evidence. You have none therefore none of your points have any validity outside your own imagination.



The opposite point of view in this case has no basis in science and hence has no validity.

Gee, and there was me thinking only the pope was infallible

Festus

marienbad wrote: »

Gee, and there was me thinking only the pope was infallible

The Pope is infallible only on matters of faith and morals.

That we all die is an infallible statement. The Pope would agree but he didn't originate this belief.

That the world is round is an infallible statement. The Pope would agree but he didn't originate this belief.


If you have a counter argument that says life does not begin at conception present it.

There are times when there is truth and certainty in science or would you care to argue that scientific laws are fallible?
All the scientific evidence says that life begins at conception. I have asked for a scientific counter argument. No counter argument has been presented.

Either accept that life begins at conception or present evidence to the contrary.

marienbad

Festus wrote: »

The Pope is infallible only on matters of faith and morals.

That we all die is an infallible statement. The Pope would agree but he didn't originate this belief.

That the world is round is an infallible statement. The Pope would agree but he didn't originate this belief.


If you have a counter argument that says life does not begin at conception present it.

There are times when there is truth and certainty in science or would you care to argue that scientific laws are fallible?
All the scientific evidence says that life begins at conception. I have asked for a scientific counter argument. No counter argument has been presented.

Either accept that life begins at conception or present evidence to the contrary.

your view or no view, ? No thanks, there is no eveidence on earth that would change your opinion one iota.

And what is amusing is you dont even know my view .

Rev Hellfire

marienbad wrote: »

And what is amusing is you dont even know my view .

Perhaps you'd care to present your view for those of us new to the thread.

Festus

marienbad wrote: »

your view or no view, ? No thanks, there is no eveidence on earth that would change your opinion one iota.

Scientific evidence might.

marienbad wrote: »

And what is amusing is you dont even know my view .

Is this not your view?

marienbad wrote: »

Yes I am completely in favour of the individuals right to choose

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

Scientific evidence might.

There is no scientific evidence that an embryo is a human being. It's not even a scientific question.

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

There is no scientific evidence that an embryo is a human being. It's not even a scientific question.

Well, that depends on what you decided a human being is. On the reductionist materialist side of things I would have thought that a human embryo is a human being if only because it's DNA determines it.

Besides all this, given that we can always agree about when death occurs (is it at clinical death, brain death, stomach death etc.), I really don't think that science is able to answer the question. In short, I agree with you.

marienbad

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Perhaps you'd care to present your view for those of us new to the thread.

I believe in a womans right to choose, and whatever else I believe is no ones business but my own .That is unless I choose to disclose it and that is part and parcel of having the right to choose.

By the way I have no problem disclosing whatever else I believe on this issue, but it is not really germane to ''the substantive issue'' as every one was so fond of saying all those years ago

philologos

marienbad -

I believe in a womans right to choose, and whatever else I believe is no ones business but my own .That is unless I choose to disclose it and that is part and parcel of having the right to choose.

Where does the right to choose end?

PDN asked you why isn't this the case for a 4 year old child. You said that this is out of the question, but you did not say why. For us the only difference is we don't believe that the life of any child is open to question.

Your logic is very patchy to say the least. Unless you can give a solid position as to where you draw the line between when it is OK to have the right to choose and it isn't and why this is the case?

Festus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well, that depends on what you decided a human being is. On the reductionist materialist side of things I would have thought that a human embryo is a human being if only because it's DNA determines it.

Science provides one answer.
From fertilization it is a unique human being. One half of the genes come from the father, the other half from the mother. Together they become their child and it can only be human. The combined code is unique. It may spilt and become twins, triplets or higher but they are still human. The genetic make up, the DNA, does not change from that moment on. Even after death the genetic code will still say it is human.
DNA is the determining factor in stating whether something is human, animal, plant or otherwise (RNA if it' sa virus)

If anyone has scientific evidence to dispute that it should be presented.

marienbad

Jakkass wrote: »

marienbad -


Where does the right to choose end?

PDN asked you why isn't this the case for a 4 year old child. You said that this is out of the question, but you did not say why. For us the only difference is we don't believe that the life of any child is open to question.

Your logic is very patchy to say the least. Unless you can give a solid position as to where you draw the line between when it is OK to have the right to choose and it isn't and why this is the case?

My logic is'nt patchy at all, I have given a solid line. It is up to each individual what their choice is. you may choose that life begins at conception , others may not. The 4 year old child analogy simply does not apply as everyone is in agreement that that is a living breathing human being.

Can I ask you a question ? Do you believe that substantial numbers of people do not accept that life begins at conception , however mistaken they may be ?

Rev Hellfire

marienbad wrote: »

Can I ask you a question ? Do you believe that substantial numbers of people do not accept that life begins at conception , however mistaken they may be ?

I think you'll find the majority of people accept that life begins at conception, rather what is typically debated is the value of that life and at what point it develops sufficiently to be consider human.

Fanny Cradock

marienbad wrote: »

My logic is'nt patchy at all, I have given a solid line. It is up to each individual what their choice is.

But it clearly isn't up to each individual. That's why we have laws that are binding above and beyond whatever the individual may think.

marienbad wrote: »

you may choose that life begins at conception , others may not. The 4 year old child analogy simply does not apply as everyone is in agreement that that is a living breathing human being.

Maybe! But again we can look at the words of someone like Peter Singer to see that even that which would normally be considered sacrosanct - life out of the womb - may be negotiable.

Q. You have been quoted as saying: "Killing a defective infant is not morally equivalent to killing a person. Sometimes it is not wrong at all." Is that quote accurate?

A. It is accurate, but can be misleading if read without an understanding of what I mean by the term “person” (which is discussed in Practical Ethics, from which that quotation is taken). I use the term "person" to refer to a being who is capable of anticipating the future, of having wants and desires for the future. As I have said in answer to the previous question, I think that it is generally a greater wrong to kill such a being than it is to kill a being that has no sense of existing over time. Newborn human babies have no sense of their own existence over time. So killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living. That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do. It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents.
Sometimes, perhaps because the baby has a serious disability, parents think it better that their newborn infant should die. Many doctors will accept their wishes, to the extent of not giving the baby life-supporting medical treatment. That will often ensure that the baby dies. My view is different from this, only to the extent that if a decision is taken, by the parents and doctors, that it is better that a baby should die, I believe it should be possible to carry out that decision, not only by withholding or withdrawing life-support – which can lead to the baby dying slowly from dehydration or from an infection - but also by taking active steps to end the baby’s life swiftly and humanely.

Q. What about a normal baby? Doesn’t your theory of personhood imply that parents can kill a healthy, normal baby that they do not want, because it has no sense of the future?

A. Most parents, fortunately, love their children and would be horrified by the idea of killing it. And that’s a good thing, of course. We want to encourage parents to care for their children, and help them to do so. Moreover, although a normal newborn baby has no sense of the future, and therefore is not a person, that does not mean that it is all right to kill such a baby. It only means that the wrong done to the infant is not as great as the wrong that would be done to a person who was killed. But in our society there are many couples who would be very happy to love and care for that child. Hence even if the parents do not want their own child, it would be wrong to kill it.

Festus

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I think you'll find the majority of people accept that life begins at conception, rather what is typically debated is the value of that life and at what point it develops sufficiently to be consider human.

Do you not accept that science says it is human from the begining or are you with all the unscientific others who think that it starts as one species and through compressed quantum evolution magically becomes human some indeterminate time later?

marienbad

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I think you'll find the majority of people accept that life begins at conception, rather what is typically debated is the value of that life and at what point it develops sufficiently to be consider human.

That is not what I asked,
I asked, do a substantial number of people ( no matter how mistaken we may think they are) disagree that life begins at conception.

answer please

Festus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Maybe! But again we can look at the words of someone like Peter Singer to see that even that which would normally be considered sacrosanct - life out of the womb - may be negotiable.

There is an implication in what he says

" That doesn’t mean that it is not almost always a terrible thing to do. It is, but that is because most infants are loved and cherished by their parents, and to kill an infant is usually to do a great wrong to its parents."

What if the case is the child is not loved and cherished by their parents and it is the parents choice to kill their child as is the case in abortion?

Rev Hellfire

marienbad wrote: »

That is not what I asked,
I asked, do a substantial number of people ( no matter how mistaken we may think they are) disagree that life begins at conception.

answer please

If by life you mean simple cells than pretty much everyone who has read anything maintains that a living organism is present once the zygote is formed.

The question is at what point do you place value on this developing organism.

Or do you disagree ?

Rev Hellfire

Festus wrote: »

Do you not accept that science says it is human from the begining or are you with all the unscientific others who think that it starts as one species and through compressed quantum evolution magically becomes human some indeterminate time later?

I'm happy to say it could be considered a developing human organism, not sure that makes it precious though.

Festus

marienbad wrote: »

That is not what I asked,
I asked, do a substantial number of people ( no matter how mistaken we may think they are) disagree that life begins at conception.

answer please

A substantial number, if not all, of scientists whose specialiization is human life, medicine and embryology, obstetrics, gynacology and all biologists agree that life begins at conception.

Even Peter Singer agrees:

Peter Singer, contemporary philosopher and public abortion advocate, Practical Ethics.

It is possible to give ‘human being’ a precise meaning. We can use it as equivalent to ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’. Whether a being is a member of a given species is something that can be determined scientifically, by an examination of the nature of the chromosomes in the cells of living organisms. In this sense there is no doubt that from the first moments of its existence an embryo conceived from human sperm and eggs is a human being.4

"Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."
"A zygote is the beginning of a new human being (i.e., an embryo)."
Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

"Development begins with fertilization, the process by which the male gamete, the sperm, and the femal gamete, the oocyte, unite to give rise to a zygote."
T.W. Sadler, Langman's Medical Embryology, 10th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2006. p. 11.

"[The zygote], formed by the union of an oocyte and a sperm, is the beginning of a new human being."
Keith L. Moore, Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2008. p. 2.

"Although life is a continuous process, fertilization (which, incidentally, is not a 'moment') is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new genetically distinct human organism is formed when the chromosomes of the male and female pronuclei blend in the oocyte."
Ronan O'Rahilly and Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology and Teratology, 3rd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 2001. p. 8.

"Human embryos begin development following the fusion of definitive male and female gametes during fertilization... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."
William J. Larsen, Essentials of Human Embryology. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1998. pp. 1, 14.

"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."
Clark Edward Corliss, Patten's Human Embryology: Elements of Clinical Development. New York: McGraw Hill, 1976. p. 30.

"The term conception refers to the union of the male and female pronuclear elements of procreation from which a new living being develops."
"The zygote thus formed represents the beginning of a new life."
J.P. Greenhill and E.A. Friedman, Biological Principles and Modern Practice of Obstetrics. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders, 1974. pp. 17, 23.

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."
E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3rd edition. Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975. p. vii.

In 1981, a United States Senate judiciary subcommittee received the following testimony from a collection of medical experts (Subcommittee on Separation of Powers to Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, Report, 97th Congress, 1st Session, 1981):
"It is incorrect to say that biological data cannot be decisive...It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception."
Professor Micheline Matthews-Roth
Harvard University Medical School

"After fertilization has taken place a new human being has come into being. [It] is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception."
Dr. Jerome LeJeune
Professor of Genetics, University of Descartes

"The beginning of a single human life is from a biological point of view a simple and straightforward matter – the beginning is conception."
Dr. Watson A. Bowes
University of Colorado Medical School

The official Senate report reached this conclusion:

Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being - a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings.6

The American Medical Association (AMA) declared as far back as 1857 (referenced in the Roe. vs. Wade opinion) that "the independent and actual existence of the child before birth, as a living being” is a matter of objective science. They deplored the “popular ignorance...that the foetus is not alive till after the period of quickening.”


websource

Fanny Cradock

Festus wrote: »

What if the case is the child is not loved and cherished by their parents and it is the parents choice to kill their child as is the case in abortion?

Indeed. I can't help but think that there is something very rotten at the heart of Singer's views - at least as I understand them. To be fair I don't know a great deal about his views, so I may be wrong.

marienbad wrote: »

That is not what I asked,
I asked, do a substantial number of people ( no matter how mistaken we may think they are) disagree that life begins at conception.

answer please

I would have thought that most people think that like begins at conception. Where the argument lies is at what point that life becomes valuable enough for it to be considered sacrosanct.

philologos

marienbad wrote: »

My logic is'nt patchy at all, I have given a solid line. It is up to each individual what their choice is. you may choose that life begins at conception , others may not. The 4 year old child analogy simply does not apply as everyone is in agreement that that is a living breathing human being.

Can I ask you a question ? Do you believe that substantial numbers of people do not accept that life begins at conception , however mistaken they may be ?

What if I choose that life begins when one is sufficiently able to play the viola while cycling on a unicycle and juggling 55 balls in the air simultaneously?

Indeed, what if I believe that someone isn't truly alive until they reach the ripe age of 22?

We need an objective standard to base law upon, it can't fluctuate between people.

You haven't answered PDN's objection adequately.

You claim that everyone is in agreement, but what if some people aren't?

Laws don't fall based on agreement or disagreement. If I disagree with the laws on stealing, I will be done for theft before the court.

Edit: As for your Q. I will agree that not everyone is in agreement, but this is no reason why our laws shouldn't be clear about it being unacceptable to take another persons life.

Festus

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm happy to say it could be considered a developing human organism, not sure that makes it precious though.

That is part of the discussion.
A, is it human. Answer. Yes.
B. does it have a value?

In the present world all human life is given arbitrary values. If you're too old or too handicaped to be of value to society why should we not just kill you off? If you are unskilled for the present economic climate why don;t we just send you to a labour camp like they do in America to build cars.
Too female? We'll send you to a brothel where you can service real humans with a value.

There are those of us on the other hand who condsider all human life to be of indeterminate value. Precious, if you will.

My premature daughter died in my arms. She was precious and her memory still is precious to us both.
She died at an age when many abortions are carried out.

Pro-choice? There is no such thing. There is pro-murder and pro-death.

Anyone who claims to be pro-choice and who supports any legal move to declare certain humans to be valueless has given up their right to call themselves human IMO.

Festus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Indeed. I can't help but think that there is something very rotten at the heart of Singer's views - at least as I understand them. To be fair I don't know a great deal about his views, so I may be wrong.

there is something rotten at the heart of every pro-abortion advocate.

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would have thought that most people think that like begins at conception. Where the argument lies is at what point that life becomes valuable enough for it to be considered sacrosanct.

This is part of the rotteness. Some humans have value. Others do not.

marienbad

Jakkass wrote: »

What if I choose that life begins when one is sufficiently able to play the viola while cycling on a unicycle and juggling 55 balls in the air simultaneously?

Indeed, what if I believe that someone isn't truly alive until they reach the ripe age of 22?

We need an objective standard to base law upon, it can't fluctuate between people.

You haven't answered PDN's objection adequately.

You claim that everyone is in agreement, but what if some people aren't?

Laws don't fall based on agreement or disagreement. If I disagree with the laws on stealing, I will be done for theft before the court.

Edit: As for your Q. I will agree that not everyone is in agreement, but this is no reason why our laws shouldn't be clear about it being unacceptable to take another persons life.

Thank you. at last someone answered the question, and I agree our laws must be observed.

Now other jurisdictions take a different view than ours is that not so ?

philologos

marienbad wrote: »

Now other jurisdictions take a different view than ours is that not so ?

This doesn't mean that they have come to the correct conclusion. It would be an ad-populum fallacy to claim such.

Now, since I've answered this question, can you please deal with the rest of my posts.

marienbad

Jakkass wrote: »

This doesn't mean that they have come to the correct conclusion. It would be an ad-populum fallacy to claim such.

Now, since I've answered this question, can you please deal with the rest of my posts.

I agree with you there, it dos'nt mean that they have come to the correct conclusion and the corollary of that is we may not either, correct ?

My point is , it is open to question .

on your other posts.

On your point of an objective standard to base laws on. I fully concur and I hope you will concur that that standard may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

And any and all citizens while conforming to that standard have the right to campaign to change that standard, be it the voting age, death penalty, age of consent, whatever including the laws on abortion. Would you agree ?

If I have left any ? out , its not intentional, please ask me again

philologos

marienbad wrote: »

I agree with you there, it dos'nt mean that they have come to the correct conclusion and the corollary of that is we may not either, correct ?

Not at all. It is only if one accepts that morality is relative. If one believes that there is an objective measure of right and wrong, one can hold that people can get it right if they adhere to this objective measure.

marienbad wrote: »

My point is , it is open to question/

Right, explain how this is any different for the case of the 4 year old. You've ignored this point repeatedly. Why can't I regard life as beginning at 40? Why can't I say that the criterion for life is when you can do a wheelie on a motorbike while playing Mozart's Eine Kleine Nachtmusik on an electric keyboard while juggling 20 raw eggs?

marienbad wrote: »

On your point of an objective standard to base laws on. I fully concur and I hope you will concur that that standard may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

This has no bearing on right and wrong. Eugenics was legal in Germany, does this mean that this was morally right? Indeed, torture was an is widely exercised in the world. Is this morally right?

marienbad wrote: »

And any and all citizens while conforming to that standard have the right to campaign to change that standard, be it the voting age, death penalty, age of consent, whatever including the laws on abortion. Would you agree ?

They have the right to complain just as NAMBLA have the right to campaign to change the age of consent for minors.

marienbad wrote: »

If I have left any ? out , its not intentional, please ask me again

Please deal with PDN's point about the 4 year old, and the examples that I mention in this post.

marienbad

Jakkass wrote: »

Not at all. It is only if one accepts that morality is relative. If one believes that there is an objective measure of right and wrong, one can hold that people can get it right if they adhere to this objective measure.



Right, explain how this is any different for the case of the 4 year old. You've ignored this point repeatedly. Why can't I regard life as beginning at 40? Why can't I say that the criterion for life is when you can do a wheelie on a motorbike while playing Mozart's Eine Kleine Nachtmusik on an electric keyboard while juggling 20 raw eggs?



This has no bearing on right and wrong. Eugenics was legal in Germany, does this mean that this was morally right? Indeed, torture was an is widely exercised in the world. Is this morally right?



They have the right to complain just as NAMBLA have the right to campaign to change the age of consent for minors.



Please deal with PDN's point about the 4 year old, and the examples that I mention in this post.

I have answered the 4 year old , maybe not to your satisfaction or pdns, that is not much I can do about that.

Your other points are just a variation on the same theme, juggling bicycling playing the cello or violin etc.

But then we come to the nub of the issue ''It is only if one accepts morality is relative'' versus ''an objective measure of right and wrong''

Can we agree on that ???

philologos

This is why I think your logic is patchy. Unless you can explain why the situation is different one cannot expect for others to be convinced of your position or follow your reasoning.

But yes, it is about objective vs subjective. Irrespective of whether or not you believe stealing is OK, governments have to draw up legislation which is binding on most people in that State. Laws may differ, and it is also possible that laws do not adhere to moral principles.

marienbad

Jakkass wrote: »

This is why I think your logic is patchy. Unless you can explain why the situation is different one cannot expect for others to be convinced of your position or follow your reasoning.

But yes, it is about objective vs subjective. Irrespective of whether or not you believe stealing is OK, governments have to draw up legislation which is binding on most people in that State. Laws may differ, and it is also possible that laws do not adhere to moral principles.

Correctomundo mon ami and that is why my logic is not patchy in the slightest.

laws do differ and generally speaking do not take account of moral principles as opposed to concrete reality. We live in an increasingly secular age and I for one am glad of it.

for instance, 40 years ago in this state the death penalty was ok, 30 years ago contraception and divorce were not and right now abortion is not. And not too long before that I would have been burned at the stake for the views I hold. And I am sure that there are some that still believe by their moral principles the divorce and contraception are still wrong no matter what the law says.

So it is with this issue, that is why some states allow it some don't , it is an issue that is open to individual choice . I fully accept that you dont consider it so and I will never convince you otherwise

Morbert

Festus wrote: »

Science provides one answer.
From fertilization it is a unique human being. One half of the genes come from the father, the other half from the mother. Together they become their child and it can only be human. The combined code is unique. It may spilt and become twins, triplets or higher but they are still human. The genetic make up, the DNA, does not change from that moment on. Even after death the genetic code will still say it is human.
DNA is the determining factor in stating whether something is human, animal, plant or otherwise (RNA if it' sa virus)

If anyone has scientific evidence to dispute that it should be presented.

The embryo is a human embryo, with a unique DNA sequence. Science is sure about that. But science can't tell us how to define what it is to be a human being. Is the embryo a human being because it has human DNA, or is it simply an instruction set that will eventually build proteins into a human being?

Ultimately the issue boils down to two positions.

1) A human being is something with unique human DNA.
2) A human being is something with a unique human mind.

Both of these positions have problems and inconsistencies with them. But neither side can trump the other with science because it simply isn't a scientific issue. It's a philosophical issue, about how we define humanity.

philologos

marienbad wrote: »

Correctomundo mon ami and that is why my logic is not patchy in the slightest.

This is getting a bit ridiculous. Are you just going to ignore what I've said then? You seem to be more interested in monologue and not dialogue.

marienbad wrote: »

laws do differ and generally speaking do not take account of moral principles as opposed to concrete reality. We live in an increasingly secular age and I for one am glad of it.

Laws also exist to protect. Protecting children being one example. Our laws protect the unborn also.

Secular doesn't particularly matter. There are many atheists and agnostics in the pro-life movement.

Do you believe our laws shouldn't aim towards the right and the good where possible?

marienbad wrote: »

for instance, 40 years ago in this state the death penalty was ok, 30 years ago contraception and divorce were not and right now abortion is not. And not too long before that I would have been burned at the stake for the views I hold. And I am sure that there are some that still believe by their moral principles the divorce and contraception are still wrong no matter what the law says.

Divorce and contraceptives have nothing to do with life or death.

Abortion and the death penalty both do. I'm against both for the same reason. It would be inconsistent to be against the death penalty but yet be pro-choice. I don't see how it works honestly. Well, in your case in particular where you can't even tell us where the line begins in saying someone is alive.

marienbad wrote: »

So it is with this issue, that is why some states allow it some don't , it is an issue that is open to individual choice . I fully accept that you dont consider it so and I will never convince you otherwise

Its not open to individual choice in this State. I hope it never is. It is a wholly barbaric situation that one would kill their own child.

Rev Hellfire

Jakkass wrote: »

This is getting a bit ridiculous. Are you just going to ignore what I've said then? You seem to be more interested in monologue and not dialogue.

A monologue implies something is actually being said.

Fanny Cradock

I think this is heading towards soliloquy.

Anyway, I think that your point regarding the consistency of decision where an anti-death penalty stance leads onto a "pro-life" stance is an important one, JA.