Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
To what extent does Religion influence the decision making of women on abortion?
Comments
-
You know the difference between the particular and the general?
Yes, life began roughly 2 billion years ago on a general scale.
Each individual life also has a beginning. There is a point where something is a living entity rather than not.
It seems awfully disingenuous to ignore the particular beginning of individual lives.
What? When is that? When they get Élan vital bestowed upon the by Yahweh?0 -
It's bioethics, so it has very much to do with biology and what we know about the embryo and when a new life begins.
Science will tell you the facts of what is happening and the process of what happens.
Whether you classify this in certain terms such as that is "new" life depend on your philosophical notions of what that means in the first place.
For example, would you consider the splitting of an embryo to form twins the creation of "new" life.We know that there is a distinction between the particular and the universal
We know this because we define it as such.
For example, where does the Atlantic Ocean stop and the Mediterran Sea start? Science ain't going to tell you that answer.0 -
Actually Wicknight, biology puts definitions on biological materials. We know that an organ is an organ because biologically we've distinguished organs as being different to other biological materials in the body. To claim that science doesn't make definitions is false. We know that a heart is different than a lung because we have distinguished between them.0
-
Actually Wicknight, biology puts definitions on biological materials. We know that an organ is an organ because biologically we've distinguished organs as being different to other biological materials in the body. To claim that science doesn't make definitions is false. We know that a heart is different than a lung because we have distinguished between them.
I didn't claim biologists don't make definitions. I'm saying these are not going to tell you what point life begins because they are as you say human definitions in the first place.
Saying science says life begins at conception as if that some how has revealed some truth about the real point life begins is some what illogical, since by science says we just mean a bunch of biologists sat around and decided that was what they were going to define it as.
This is different to say something like the acceleration of gravity being 9.8m/s/s, something science can actually tell us.
Or to put it another way, nature doesn't care about our need to define things as individuals. It just does its thing.0 -
Nature doesn't care, but biologically there is a point where a child lives in the womb. It seems like mere sophistry to deny this.0
-
-
I am quite sure that most women who have had abortions, whilst they undoubtedly did not enjoy them, would not consider them to be rape.I'm sure those who have had abortions will find your words comforting.
I read a little more about your source, very interesting man, David Reardon, Phd. He actually went to a proper uni and studied electrical engineering. His Phd come from one of those amazing correspondence facilities this type of person seems keen on. It was unaccredited and required no attendance. Nice.
It would also appear that his unqualified views are at odds with professionals working in the field, for example The American Psychological Association.
I haven't checked out the all the references in the footnote to the article, but his own paper, which he references has been severely criticised.
http://www.bmj.com/content/324/7330/151/reply
So you will forgive me if I take your source with a pinch of salt.
MrP0 -
Let's reel it back in a minute Wicknight.
1) You say earlier in the thread that there is human life in the womb from conception, pretty much, but that this life isn't significant.
2) Then you go on an say that "life" began 2 billion years ago, totally ignoring the actual topic of when individual human lives begin.
This is royally confusing. It seems like you're muddying the waters and clarification is definitely needed on your part to order what you're actually saying.0 -
I am quite sure that most women who have had abortions, whilst they undoubtedly did not enjoy them, would not consider them to be rape.
I read a little more about your source, very interesting man, David Reardon, Phd. He actually went to a proper uni and studied electrical engineering. His Phd come from one of those amazing correspondence facilities this type of person seems keen on. It is unaccredited and requires no attendance. Nice.
It would also appear that his unqualified views are at odds with professionals working in the field, for example The American Psychological Association.
I haven't checked out the all the references in the footnote to the article, but his own paper, which he references has been severely criticised.
http://www.bmj.com/content/324/7330/151/reply
So you will forgive me if I take your source with a pinch of salt.
MrP
Shocking :pac:0 -
Let's reel it back in a minute Wicknight.
1) You say earlier in the thread that there is human life in the womb from conception, pretty much, but that this life isn't significant.
2) Then you go on an say that "life" began 2 billion years ago, totally ignoring the actual topic of when individual human lives begin.
I'm not ignoring anything. People are saying this life "began" at the moment of conception and that science tells us this.
In reality it didn't, the cells were alive when they were sperm and egg cells, the child's parents were alive.
Any distinction we make that ok now it is a new life has begun is largely arbitrary based on the criteria we find mentally comforting to decide individual life forms on.
You can see this with the sperm and the egg. These are not, according to most people, a new life form, they are cells from the old life form. When they join that is a new life form.
But with asexual reproduction there would just be one of these cells, and at that point people are happy to consider the new cell a new life form.
We don't classify the sperm and egg as a new life form because we don't like the idea of an individual being made of two parts that are distinct in terms of spacial placement. This has nothing to do with the properties of the sperm and egg themselves, and everything to do with how we like classifying things.
We are much happy to say when an asexual organism reproduces with a single cell that as soon as it detaches it is a new life form because we think of it as an individual. Again this has nothing to do with the innate properties of the asexual organism, and everything to do with how we like to classify things.
There are not lessons we take from nature, they are classifications we give nature based on how we mentally divide up the world.
Which is fine, I'm doing that with the notion of sentience. I'm not saying don't do this.
What I am saying is that appealing to science to give us the answer to these questions is illogical. Saying well science tells us a new life form begins at conception is inaccurate, science doesn't tell us this, we define this as such as part of science. And we do this based on our own cognitive notions of how to classify and divide up "things"
You could just as easily define the sperm and egg as the new life form. We don't do this because it causes our head to hurt, not because they aren't actually the new life form. You could just as easily say all life on Earth are the one continuous chemical reaction. We don't because again we prefer to think of things physically connected as individuals distinct from other things that are separated by physical space (one of the reasons people have a hard time thinking about atoms)
Science is not going to answer these questions for us.
It is supposed to be.This is royally confusing.
These are not easy questions, having an easy answer would be a sign that we just aren't doing it properly.0 -
Advertisement
-
There's really no need to give them rope. They make their own.0
-
I am quite sure that most women who have had abortions, whilst they undoubtedly did not enjoy them, would not consider them to be rape.
I read a little more about your source, very interesting man, David Reardon, Phd. He actually went to a proper uni and studied electrical engineering. His Phd come from one of those amazing correspondence facilities this type of person seems keen on. It was unaccredited and required no attendance. Nice.
It would also appear that his unqualified views are at odds with professionals working in the field, for example The American Psychological Association.
I haven't checked out the all the references in the footnote to the article, but his own paper, which he references has been severely criticised.
http://www.bmj.com/content/324/7330/151/reply
So you will forgive me if I take your source with a pinch of salt.
MrP
Let me get this straight.
It would appear you linked to a peer review of
"Depression and unintended pregnancy in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth: a cohort study
David C Reardon, Jesse R Cougle
BMJ 2002;324:151-152 doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7330.151 (Published 19 January 2002)"
which is unrelated to
"Reardon, Aborted Women - Silent No More (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1987)"
It might be an idea to revisit your post.
0 -
OK, I thought perhaps you could work it out, but let me explain. You have put forward an article from the "after abortion" website as evidence that you are not the only person to consider an abortion as rape.Let me get this straight.
It would appear you linked to a peer review of
"Depression and unintended pregnancy in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth: a cohort study
David C Reardon, Jesse R Cougle
BMJ 2002;324:151-152 doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7330.151 (Published 19 January 2002)"
which is unrelated to
"Reardon, Aborted Women - Silent No More (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1987)"
It might be an idea to revisit your post.
The links I posted related to the author of the article you posted. Firstly, his "medical" qualifications are questionable. Secondly, he references a peer reviewed paper in the article. This paper has been roundly criticised.
The point I was making, which I thought was pretty obvious and can only assume you were intentionally missing, is that the author of the article you linked to is no more an authority on the effects of abortion on the mental state of a woman than you are. It is quite clear that his opinions go against those that are generally accepted. When you take this and look at it in the light of who and what he is, it is clear that his work in this field is at best questionable.
MrP0 -
When you take this and look at it in the light of who and what he is, it is clear that his work in this field is at best questionable.
MrP
He is a high profile and well published anti-abortion activist. The organisations he is published through are not well known for their prolife stance. Making enemies with the pro-choice lobby is easy, and in fact is par for the course, even in this country. Critical peer review is to be expected and in his case moreso as he is saying what they won't or more correctly would prefer he didn't.
The university was unaccredited at the time however it has since been accredited. While I have no information on the course content it would be worth remembering that Trinity College Dublin awarded MA and MSc to its bachelor graduates two years after leaving college for a fee. They don't have to have worked in their field of study, just be a graduate, be still alive and have the money. I don't know if that is still the case but it was in up until the 90's.
That puts a question mark over almost all TCD masters graduates.
With regards to his work you present one paper that was out of context with this discussion. Perhaps you could dig deeper?
Or do you have a preference for Reardon to defend himself here?
Given the content of your posts and the way it is slanted you might just want to check that with the boards.ie admins before giving your consent.0 -
It has nothing to do with anti-prolife establishment and everything to do with pseudo scientists spouting biased material and presenting it as science.He is a high profile and well published anti-abortion activist. The organisations he is published through are not well known for their prolife stance. Making enemies with the pro-choice lobby is easy, and in fact is par for the course, even in this country. Critical peer review is to be expected and in his case moreso as he is saying what they won't or more correctly would prefer he didn't.
It is now accredited, ut that is after it was sold, moved to a different state, had its name changed, had a notice on its website explaining that the new university has nothing to do with the old one... It is also interesting to note that the subject our friend had his Phd in is not available at this university.The university was unaccredited at the time however it has since been accredited.
And if someone points to one of them as an authority in a particular subject about which they have no knowledge then I would probably have a problem with them also.While I have no information on the course content it would be worth remembering that Trinity College Dublin awarded MA and MSc to its bachelor graduates two years after leaving college for a fee. They don't have to have worked in their field of study, just be a graduate, be still alive and have the money. I don't know if that is still the case but it was in up until the 90's.
That puts a question mark over almost all TCD masters graduates.
I might when I have time. There is quite a bit about him on the internet, not much of it positive. Leaving that aside, the paper mentioned is one of the sources referred to in the article you sent me to. I fail to see how you could possible think that is out of context with the discussion. You sent me to the article, I read the article and also researched some of the material it referenced.With regards to his work you present one paper that was out of context with this discussion. Perhaps you could dig deeper?
What rubbish is this you are spouting now...?Or do you have a preference for Reardon to defend himself here?
Given the content of your posts and the way it is slanted you might just want to check that with the boards.ie admins before giving your consent.
MrP0 -
I might when I have time. There is quite a bit about him on the internet, not much of it positive. Leaving that aside, the paper mentioned is one of the sources referred to in the article you sent me to. I fail to see how you could possible think that is out of context with the discussion. You sent me to the article, I read the article and also researched some of the material it referenced.
The references are:
1. Mahkorn, "Pregnancy and Sexual Assault," The Psychological Aspects of Abortion, eds. Mall & Watts, (Washington, D.C., University Publications of America, 1979) 55-69.
2. Francke, The Ambivalence of Abortion (New York: Random House, 1978) 84-95, 167.; Reardon, Aborted Women - Silent No More (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1987), 51, 126.
3. Zakus, "Adolescent Abortion Option," Social Work in Health Care, 12(4):87 (1987).
4. Maloof, "The Consequences of Incest: Giving and Taking Life" The Psychological Aspects of Abortion (eds. Mall & Watts, Washington, D.C., University Publications of America, 1979) 84-85.
what you linked to:
Depression and unintended pregnancy in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth: a cohort study- David C Reardon,
- Jesse R Cougle
So now he is a time traveller given the article I linked to was
Originally published in The Post-Abortion Review 2(1) Winter 1994. Copyright 1994 Elliot InstituteWhat rubbish is this you are spouting now...?
Watch this space0 -
antiskeptic wrote: »Hi Immaculata..
How does that work, precisely? If the reason you wouldn't have an abortion stems from the view that the taking of anothers life constitutes murder, then how would you support another person doing the same?
Hi antiskeptic...
It works like this: I am pro-choice because I think every woman has the right to choose whether to continue with a pregnancy or have an abortion, because I believe that each human being has the absolute right to decide what happens in and to their own body. (That's also why, for example, I'm against capital punishment.)
The reason I wouldn't have an abortion if I was pregnant and didn't want to be is simply me exercising my reproductive choice. I'd prefer to raise the child or give it up for adoption, depending on the circumstances. Pro-choice is not solely about the provision of abortion if required; it's also about a woman continuing with a pregnancy if she wishes, or avoiding a pregnancy if she wishes; all without any interference from the law or society. The Magdelene homes and the lack of access to contraception were and are of concern to me as a person who is pro-choice too, just to give two examples.
I do think that taking another's life (even the life of a foetus) constitutes murder. Despite this, I am pro-choice because, although having an abortion involves the death of the foetus, the fact is that the right of the woman to determine what happens in and to her body includes the right to have a foetus removed from it if that is her wish, even though the inevitable death of the foetus results from that decision. A similar situation would arise if I were the only possible donor of an organ or bone marrow to someone whose life depended on receiving the donation. If I refused, I would be murdering that person, but I would be within my rights to refuse, because I have the right to decide what happens in and to my body.0 -
So how would you define a pre-mid term human being?
I do not define a zygote or embryo as a human being at all, but instead a collection of cells that has the potential to develop into a human being. I take 'being' in other words, as the existence of a mind.Once upon a time you did not possess what you call a mind. You had the potential to develope one. Should you have been aborted?
I am certainly glad the pregnancy was not aborted. I am also certainly glad contraception was not used.The relatives of a person who has suffered brain death would disagree. They may no longer be a person but the body is still a member of the species homo sapiens and hence a human being albeit a brain dead one
If the relatives want to keep the body alive then that is their prerogative. If they don't then that is also their prerogative. But their loved one is gone, even if it is medically possible to keep the body alive. Hence, there is no legal protection granted to brain-dead bodies in Ireland or elsewhere.It does. As you said yourself they disagree on what is and what is not a human being.
We are having the same disagreement. From my perspective and the perspective of scientific evidence it is always a human being.
Everyone agrees on what science says about the embryo. But science does not say it is a "being" because a "being" is not a scientific term.Don't you mean How this development is "parsed" for the purpose of ethics doesn't concern morality?
Ethics has to have a starting point. The starting point for ethics that allows for abortion or the destruction of human beings in embryonic form is to deny them their humanity and deny they are human beings by using arbitrary terms and definitions.
Not in a sense. It is totally arbitrary.
That is not arbitrary. That is science.
I am using ethics to denote the study and exploration of morality. I.e. Whether it would be moral/immoral to allow abortions.
Both positions are ultimately arbitrary. You are saying, because it has unique human DNA, it deserves the right to life. We are saying, because it does not have a human mind, it does not deserve the right to life. Both groups agree on the definition of the word "human", as it has a scientific definition. But both groups are using different definitions of the word "being", as that is a philosophical matter.So when does the human mind appear and why is the only event that stops it appearing death?
There is not specific point when the mind emerges. This is why I am against mid-term abortions, as we do not know enough to say when it appears (Though I am open to correction on this point). But we do know enough to know it is not in the early stages of pregnancy.If they were wholly synthesised I would have to consider then something other than human. The phenotype is dependant on the genome (DNA) and the environment so a synthetic phenotype that did not develop from DNA would require something other than DNA as the basis.
You removed DNA from the experiment above therefore the entity would not be human or possess a human mind.
And this is where the two groups differ. We do not define our humanity by biological mechanisms. It is similar to the difference between gender and sex. The sex of a person is defined scientifically, but gender is defined culturally.You picked a particularilry bad example and clearly do not understand the relationship between the genotype, the environment and the resulting phenotype.
This is a baseless accusation and a stupid thing to say. Why do I 'clearly not understand the relationship between the genotype, the environment, and the resulting phenotype.'? Given your track record when it comes to science on these boards, I am quite interested.However taking your example in the spirit I think you meant it in, would I consider other sentient life forms to be such that their right to life should be protected. Yes.
Would I consider extending that right to life to their conceptus within their own species. Yes.
Anyway as to defining personhood or what is a person or what is a human being, as far as I am concerned my answer comes from science. A human being is a human being from conception until death and at all points is deserving of the same right to life you and I enjoy.
This is not something you can present any credible argument on that will sway me in any way towards the twisted thinking of the pro-abortion or pro-human experimentation brigade who will arbitrarily use anything they think they can get away with to make the unethical seem ethical.
Why should their right to life be protected? What is the correlation between the properties of something and whether or not it deserves the right to life? Is it the possession of a mind?You claim to be an atheist with reason, logic and science as your gods. Why on this issue do you see fit to dispense with all three?
More rhetoric. This, like your "clearly do not understand" comment, does nothing but stall the conversation. If you like, I can resort to these tactics and see how you like it.0 -
To add: I think the biologist PZ Myers said it best:
"We aren't defined by our complement of genes or a single instant of genetic combination, but are the result of many genetic and epigenetic processes working progressively through embryogenesis to assemble a functioning human being. When moral absolutists try to apply simple-minded, black-and-white reasoning to a complex situation (and defining a human being is certainly a complex problem), you get criminal travesties."0 -
Advertisement
-
Don't bother. Your reliance on ethics to move you towards those who are willing to declare certain human beings to be less than human is enough. You don't meet my definition of a human being and are an irrelevant inconsequence.
Festus, it's illogical to decry someone else for treating certain categories of human beings as lesser by describing him or her as lesser ("You don't meet my definition of a human being" to quote you directly).
In other words, you yourself are doing exactly what you say it is wrong to do!0 -
Don't bother. Your reliance on ethics to move you towards those who are willing to declare certain human beings to be less than human is enough. You don't meet my definition of a human being and are an irrelevant inconsequence.
More vapid rhetoric. I have made it clear where the difference lies (what is and isn't a "being") and I have laid it out simply. I have even provided a pithy summary in the form of a quote from a biologist.
"We aren't defined by our complement of genes or a single instant of genetic combination, but are the result of many genetic and epigenetic processes working progressively through embryogenesis to assemble a functioning human being. When moral absolutists try to apply simple-minded, black-and-white reasoning to a complex situation (and defining a human being is certainly a complex problem), you get criminal travesties."
If all you can do is hurl insults then you have forfeit the discussion.0 -
Wow , I am stunned ! silence and for more than two hours, where has good cop bad cop Jakkass and Festus gone to ?? Hitting the books I suspect.
For my part I thank you all, I was genuinely infuriated ,entertained,enlightened and most definitely educated.0 -
Sorry, you are absolutely correct, the paper I linked to is not directly related to the article you posted, I actually found it while researching the man himself, apologises for that. So, you are quite correct that the link I posted is not connected with the story you posted, but I still maintain that it, along with other material available on the author still bring me to the conclusion that I would not consider him to be a particularly good authority.The references are:
1. Mahkorn, "Pregnancy and Sexual Assault," The Psychological Aspects of Abortion, eds. Mall & Watts, (Washington, D.C., University Publications of America, 1979) 55-69.
2. Francke, The Ambivalence of Abortion (New York: Random House, 1978) 84-95, 167.; Reardon, Aborted Women - Silent No More (Chicago: Loyola University Press, 1987), 51, 126.
3. Zakus, "Adolescent Abortion Option," Social Work in Health Care, 12(4):87 (1987).
4. Maloof, "The Consequences of Incest: Giving and Taking Life" The Psychological Aspects of Abortion (eds. Mall & Watts, Washington, D.C., University Publications of America, 1979) 84-85.
what you linked to:
Depression and unintended pregnancy in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth: a cohort study- David C Reardon,
- Jesse R Cougle
So now he is a time traveller given the article I linked to was
Originally published in The Post-Abortion Review 2(1) Winter 1994. Copyright 1994 Elliot Institute
This whole thing started by you calling an abortion a rape. I am merely pointing out that this is not the case as rape has a very specific meaning. Linking to the work of a man who is clearly biased saying abortion is rape does not actually do anything to change the fact that an abortion is not a rape. I know very well that it is not a pleasant experience, but it is simply not a rape.
Let me guess, you are going to invite him along to boards for a chat?Watch this space
MrP0 -
Wow , I am stunned ! silence and for more than two hours, where has good cop bad cop Jakkass and Festus gone to ?? Hitting the books I suspect.
For my part I thank you all, I was genuinely infuriated ,entertained,enlightened and most definitely educated.
Nah, you've convinced me. There're better off not seeing this world. Why would they want to be born anyway. Look at the state of the place! Why would anyone what them. They're expensive, messy, smelly, some are rude and ignorant, unteachable. It's just not worth the expense. Some of them turn out to be criminals anyway so any potential criminal that gets removed early is a benefit. Others are potential developers and bankers. Still more are potential politicians. We can live without them. Some will be ugly. Half of them will be women. It's all good.0 -
Nah, you've convinced me. There're better off not seeing this world. Why would they want to be born anyway. Look at the state of the place! Why would anyone what them. They're expensive, messy, smelly, some are rude and ignorant, unteachable. It's just not worth the expense. Some of them turn out to be criminals anyway so any potential criminal that gets removed early is a benefit. Others are potential developers and bankers. Still more are potential politicians. We can live without them. Some will be ugly. Half of them will be women. It's all good.
Wow, misogyny!
Why am I not surprised?0 -
Advertisement
-
Immaculata wrote: »Wow, misogyny!
Why am I not surprised?
No moreso than any other pro-choice woman. Are you not misognyistic too?0 -
Nah, you've convinced me. There're better off not seeing this world. Why would they want to be born anyway. Look at the state of the place! Why would anyone what them. They're expensive, messy, smelly, some are rude and ignorant, unteachable. It's just not worth the expense. Some of them turn out to be criminals anyway so any potential criminal that gets removed early is a benefit. Others are potential developers and bankers. Still more are potential politicians. We can live without them. Some will be ugly. Half of them will be boys too. It's all good. More women for us lesbians!0
-
Nah, you've convinced me. There're better off not seeing this world. Why would they want to be born anyway. Look at the state of the place! Why would anyone what them. They're expensive, messy, smelly, some are rude and ignorant, unteachable. It's just not worth the expense. Some of them turn out to be criminals anyway so any potential criminal that gets removed early is a benefit. Others are potential developers and bankers. Still more are potential politicians. We can live without them. Some will be ugly. Half of them will be boys too. It's all good. More women for us lesbians!
Festus , just looking back over the thread you seem to edit a lot of your posts at a later date, could I ask why ?0 -
-
-
Advertisement
Advertisement