Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Stupify

Mark Hamill wrote: »

By trying to defend a view you don't understand, hold or agree with? Would it not be better to simply ask someone who has that mindset to explain it?

Do you just not understand?

I had enough discussion, I was trying to engage with those of that mindset.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yes, if you want to argue that something we have evolved to do is something we must do. As a species, we evolved to get pregnant via sex, but that doesn't mean that, as individuals, we must aim to get pregnant each time we have sex.

i believe people have an instinct for survival, I don't believe in god.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

But you are saying the primary function must be adhered to each time the activity is enjoyed.

No but technology hasn't advanced far enough to remove the consequences of the primary function.

Bannasidhe

Stupify wrote: »

Do you just not understand?

I had enough discussion, I was trying to engage with those of that mindset.

ohhhh - I wouldn't do that if I were you.

No but technology hasn't advanced far enough to remove the consequences of the primary function.

Um...yes it has.

Stupify

I think I'am going to finish up on this thread. If ye wish to question the views that I don't hold but was merely trying to get an insight into than by all means don't ask me.

Stupify

Bannasidhe wrote: »

ohhhh - I wouldn't do that if I were you.





Um...yes it has.

contraception isn't 100% effective, thats what I was saying.

I just sought to learn but instead was attacked (slight streach) on this thread.

Bannasidhe

Stupify wrote: »

I think I'am going to finish up on this thread. If ye wish to question the views that I don't hold but was merely trying to get an insight into than by all means don't ask me.

Stupify wrote: »

contraception isn't 100% effective, thats what I was saying.

I just sought to learn but instead was attacked (slight streach) on this thread.

You may have expressed view you don't hold with what seemed like a tad too much conviction.
Victim of your own success there.

No - contraception is not 100% effective but those who use it have clearly signaled their intention that they are not having sex for the purposed of procreating - that they are, in fact, making whoopie and do not want a baby.

Should they then have to have that baby because the technology let them down? The problem that I have with that 'made your bed' argument is that it is part of the same sex is for procreating only tactic also used against gay marriage/adoption and smacks of the ol' 'wages of sin' mentality.

Stupify

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You may have expressed view you don't hold with what seemed like a tad too much conviction.
Victim of your own success there.

No - contraception is not 100% effective but those who use it have clearly signaled their intention that they are not having sex for the purposed of procreating - that they are, in fact, making whoopie and do not want a baby.

Should they then have to have that baby because the technology let them down? The problem that I have with that 'made your bed' argument is that it is part of the same sex is for procreating only tactic also used against gay marriage/adoption and smacks of the ol' 'wages of sin' mentality.

I agree with almost absolutely everything being said when it comes to the right that a woman has to abort.

Got a right ould bollocking for seeking to merely engage with the enemy though.

Mark Hamill

Stupify wrote: »

If you go back and read through those posts you will see that in the case of rape I was still giving the foetus rights. I was trying to argue that the woman did not owe a duty of care as she did not consent to sex.

No, she doesn't owe a duty of care because she did not consent to being pregnant. And not consenting to pregnancy is present in both the rape and non rape hypothetical.

Is the whole consent to sex issue a view you actually hold, or is it another mindset you are trying on?

Stupify wrote: »

having read over that again I appears I did answer it to my satisfaction.

You responded to one sentence, at the end of the paragraph. You ignored the rest:
"Except its not in the original point you made. The issue is purely about the responsibility of the people undertaking the act while knowing of a possible danger. They "must accept the risks associated with pregnancy. They accepted by consenting."

If that satisfied you then you are easily satisfied.

Stupify wrote: »

I understand both views fine.

Where am I lacking in understanding?

People who believe the foetus has rights don't want abortions, fairly simple.

People who see the foetus as a clump of cells don't see a problem with it.

It isn't hard to understand. My defending of someone with the view that a foetus has rights was adequate, nothing you said would have changed their mind.

Then why do you run away from most points with "I don't actually hold this view" or "if you see the foetus as alive, then it muddies things"? These are not defences of the mindset you say you are trying to get into, one is a retreat from the debate, while the other is just a rehash of what the mindset is.

Stupify wrote: »

I think it fairly obvious you meant it in a negative way.

Insecure much?

Stupify

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, she doesn't owe a duty of care because she did not consent to being pregnant. And not consenting to pregnancy is present in both the rape and non rape hypothetical.

Is the whole consent to sex issue a view you actually hold, or is it another mindset you are trying on?


You responded to one sentence, at the end of the paragraph. You ignored the rest:
"Except its not in the original point you made. The issue is purely about the responsibility of the people undertaking the act while knowing of a possible danger. They "must accept the risks associated with pregnancy. They accepted by consenting."

If that satisfied you then you are easily satisfied.


Then why do you run away from most points with "I don't actually hold this view" or "if you see the foetus as alive, then it muddies things"? These are not defences of the mindset you say you are trying to get into, one is a retreat from the debate, while the other is just a rehash of what the mindset is.


Insecure much?

Thanks for the discussion, perhaps take your frustration out on someone else tho.

Merry Christmas

Mark Hamill

Stupify wrote: »

Do you just not understand?

I had enough discussion, I was trying to engage with those of that mindset.

Then why pretend to have that mindset with people who are trying to argue against that? Are you just trolling us?

Stupify wrote: »

i believe people have an instinct for survival, I don't believe in god.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

This is a rehash of the point you made previously, not a response to my post.
You aren't just advocating an instinct for survival, you are advocating individual subservience to the group level instinct. That every time a pair of individuals have sex, they must being doing so for the survival of the species. Try again.

Stupify wrote: »

No but technology hasn't advanced far enough to remove the consequences of the primary function.

Yes it has - abortion.

Stupify

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Then why pretend to have that mindset with people who are trying to argue against that? Are you just trolling us?


This is a rehash of the point you made previously, not a response to my post.
You aren't just advocating an instinct for survival, you are advocating individual subservience to the group level instinct. That every time a pair of individuals have sex, they must being doing so for the survival of the species. Try again.


Yes it has - abortion.

You still going?

Mark Hamill

Stupify wrote: »

I think I'am going to finish up on this thread. If ye wish to question the views that I don't hold but was merely trying to get an insight into than by all means don't ask me.

If you really didn't hold them, then this would have been your first, and only, response to someone questioning you on them.

Stupify

Mark Hamill wrote: »

If you really didn't hold them, then this would have been your first, and only, response to someone questioning you on them.

I think we had this talk and it was an entertaining one at that.

I have already explained why I was making the case, now stop trying to rope me back in you little scallywag.

Mark Hamill

Stupify wrote: »

contraception isn't 100% effective, thats what I was saying.

I just sought to learn but instead was attacked (slight streach) on this thread.

Maybe next time you want to learn something, ask a question instead of making a statement.

Stupify

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Maybe next time you want to learn something, ask a question instead of making a statement.

Seriously?

The questions were asked and answered for me already, as I said I just wanted the experience of arguing from a view opposite to my own.

I don't see anything wrong with that but obviously you do.

And thats fine, now can we just leave it?

Praeglacialis

Is the only ethical dilemma related to abortion the capacity for the foetus to feel pain/fear or is there something else to be regarded. Would there be anything wrong with 'abortion on demand' if this was taken out of the equation?

I'm assuming to engage with a non theological standpoint, seeing as this is posted in Atheism & Agnosticism.

Peregrinus

Praeglacialis wrote: »

Is the only ethical dilemma related to abortion the capacity for the foetus to feel pain/fear or is there something else to be regarded. Would there be anything wrong with 'abortion on demand' if this was taken out of the equation?

I'm assuming to engage with a non theological standpoint, seeing as this is posted in Atheism & Agnosticism.

Well, ask yourself if you are morally queasy about the idea of a woman aborting because she is carrying a girl, and she wants a boy (or her husband wants a boy). Or because she is carrying a blond child, and wants a dark child. Or ask yourself if you are morally queasy about a woman becoming pregant expressly so she can have an abortion.

I'm not asking, note, whether you feel a woman should be prevented by law from making such a decision; merely whether you think that such a decision might be morally wrong.

Right. If you do feel any moral unease at this, is that only for theological reasons? Or, if you don't but you think others do, do you think their unease can only be accounted for by theological reasons?

It seems fairly clear to me that there are moral issues around abortion which are not grounded in purely theoligical concerns, and I see no reason for assuming that those reasons can only be grounded, instead, in the possiblity that a foetus might feel pain or fear. Why should the morality of unbelievers be arbitrarily limited in this way? That assumption seems to me to feed straight into a tired old prejudice that to be an athiest is to have a limited moral capacity, or no morality at all.

Praeglacialis

I'm coming from a non-theological standpoint myself, I must clarify. I merely was indicating that I did not expect, nor would be bothered with an argument relating to souls or what not.

I understand that there is a certain moral grey-area surrounding facets of the abortion debate, or all of it even depending on ones outlook. For me the main argument I have considered as of late has been in relation to pain/fear. I myself am pro-choice, but am still unsure of the exactitudes of its implementation. Essentially I'm trying to gather more arguments to help me make my decision. I've spoken with ultra lifers and ultra choicers, one side saying under no condition, the other opting for abortion under any circumstances, as with the choice argument.

Considering the argument of choosing the sex of the foetus, I would be against this in a society such as ours. In such areas where there is a strong bias towards a particular sex, where in China for instance baby girls may be left to die or killed, I would deem it more of a humanitarian act. I've considered whether the possibility for producing designer babies is a relevant aspect as well. I've brought this up with a feminist friend of mine, and was chastised for the suggestion of it. She would deem it insulting to insinuate that a woman would do such a thing, that an abortion is such a traumatic process that it would not occur in society for such petty reasons. I am not so sure. Surely for a lot of women this would be the case, but not all surely. Preventing doctors from disclosing such information, should it become available, might be a viable solution if it were an issue. Would anyone have an opinion on this particular matter?

Peregrinus

Praeglacialis wrote: »

I understand that there is a certain moral grey-area surrounding facets of the abortion debate, or all of it even depending on ones outlook. For me the main argument I have considered as of late has been in relation to pain/fear. I myself am pro-choice, but am still unsure of the exactitudes of its implementation. Essentially I'm trying to gather more arguments to help me make my decision. I've spoken with ultra lifers and ultra choicers, one side saying under no condition, the other opting for abortion under any circumstances, as with the choice argument.

I think it’s helpful to remember that “the abortion debate” actually wraps up two quite distinct questions. First, is it right for a woman to choose an abortion? Secondly, is it right for the state to prevent a woman from choosing an abortion? Even if I think abortion is always wrong, or mostly wrong, or wrong in particular circumstances, it doesn’t follow that it ought to be illegal. “Pro-choice” usually means that abortion should not be legally restricted; you can be pro-choice and still have grave moral reservations about some or all of the abortions that you think the law should permit.

Praeglacialis wrote: »

Considering the argument of choosing the sex of the foetus, I would be against this in a society such as ours. In such areas where there is a strong bias towards a particular sex, where in China for instance baby girls may be left to die or killed, I would deem it more of a humanitarian act.

Mmm. The logic of that, though, is that if there were a genetic test for homosexuality, then aborting “gay babies” would be the humanitarian choice in a homophobic societies. Aborting Jewish babies would have been the humanitarian choice in Nazi Germany, or Nazi-occupied territories. And so forth. I don’t think you have to be religious to see the problem with this line of thinking. If nothing else, the woman who aborts in order to avoid bearing a child who will face discrimination and oppression is hardly making a free choice, is she?

Praeglacialis wrote: »

I've considered whether the possibility for producing designer babies is a relevant aspect as well. I've brought this up with a feminist friend of mine, and was chastised for the suggestion of it. She would deem it insulting to insinuate that a woman would do such a thing, that an abortion is such a traumatic process that it would not occur in society for such petty reasons. I am not so sure. Surely for a lot of women this would be the case, but not all surely. Preventing doctors from disclosing such information, should it become available, might be a viable solution if it were an issue. Would anyone have an opinion on this particular matter?

It may be the case that not many abortions occur for “petty reasons”, but to put the issue in those terms is to imply that there are weighty (and adequate) reasons for abortion on the one hand, and petty (and inadequate) reasons on the other. The logic of the pro-choice position is that a woman wanting an abortion doesn’t have to justify her reasons - it’s her choice, and not the choice of some priest, doctor or politician, and if the reasons are good enough for her, then they’re good enough. And, no offence to your feminist friend, but she’s essentially saying that no woman would ever choose to have an abortion for reasons which she [your friend] would find inadequate. This is unlikely to be true but, even if it were, why should your friend’s view on what’s a good enough reason carry any greater weight than the views of some priest, doctor or politician?

The logic of an absolute pro-choice position are that a woman’s reasons for wanting an abortion are completely irrelevant (as far as abortion law is concerned). Most people who describe themselves pro-choice (myself included) don’t hold to such an absolute position; they accept that society can be justified in placing some limitations around what circumstances can justify an abortion choice. But the polarized nature of the discussion about abortion that we have in Ireland makes a discourse about this very difficult.

Praeglacialis

Peregrinus wrote: »

Mmm. The logic of that, though, is that if there were a genetic test for homosexuality, then aborting “gay babies” would be the humanitarian choice in a homophobic societies. Aborting Jewish babies would have been the humanitarian choice in Nazi Germany, or Nazi-occupied territories. And so forth. I don’t think you have to be religious to see the problem with this line of thinking. If nothing else, the woman who aborts in order to avoid bearing a child who will face discrimination and oppression is hardly making a free choice, is she?

Well, I suppose it depends on the circumstances. Sure, it'd be poorly implemented in Nazi Germany, but then so would a lot of things! I can't imagine that being a problem in Ireland, especially if a law to prevent such information being revealed by doctors was implemented. And such a law would have to be implemented.

Peregrinus wrote: »

It may be the case that not many abortions occur for “petty reasons”, but to put the issue in those terms is to imply that there are weighty (and adequate) reasons for abortion on the one hand, and petty (and inadequate) reasons on the other. The logic of the pro-choice position is that a woman wanting an abortion doesn’t have to justify her reasons - it’s her choice, and not the choice of some priest, doctor or politician, and if the reasons are good enough for her, then they’re good enough. And, no offence to your feminist friend, but she’s essentially saying that no woman would ever choose to have an abortion for reasons which she [your friend] would find inadequate. This is unlikely to be true but, even if it were, why should your friend’s view on what’s a good enough reason carry any greater weight than the views of some priest, doctor or politician?

To me it would only seem logical to assign the same legal weight to the avoidance of 'designer babies' in terms of genetic treatment and to the elimination of particular traits through the use of abortion. Again I would say that a law should be put in place to prevent that information being available. (Thus in a sense bypassing the choice argument)
There is another problem concerned with eliminating foetuses with disabilities I would say. For how is a disability defined. I'd imagine the same thing would happen. Imagine the hypothetical scenario of there being a list of 'disabilities' that were legally allowed to be shown to the parents before birth so they could be selected against. Now the choice would not so much lie with the mother as it would with particular sub-cultures vying for survival. This may sound like a bizarre example but I'll illustrate my point.
It seems that it's become possible to select for the hearing trait in embryos, over the 'deaf gene.' The deaf community in the state concerned were quite against this. They argued that if hearing parents could select a 'hearing gene' then deaf parents could select a 'deaf gene.' Now it becomes an ethical conundrum whether to consider deafness a disability, or not. A lot of deaf people wouldn't consider this so. Should that be on the list of factors that doctors are allowed show? It will get a lot more complicated from here I would imagine.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The logic of an absolute pro-choice position are that a woman’s reasons for wanting an abortion are completely irrelevant (as far as abortion law is concerned). Most people who describe themselves pro-choice (myself included) don’t hold to such an absolute position; they accept that society can be justified in placing some limitations around what circumstances can justify an abortion choice. But the polarized nature of the discussion about abortion that we have in Ireland makes a discourse about this very difficult.

Just in passing, this same friend I mentioned disagreed with the points aforementioned being mentioned because they would disincline the potential for abortion being introduced. That such arguments would merely be used as fuel for pro lifers. I'm beginning to see why there is so little noticeable discussion about the fine details, why it is indeed so polarised.

Morbert

I'm having difficulty finding data on pro-choice positions in Ireland. Is there recent data on the opinions held by the Irish population?

Peregrinus

Morbert wrote: »

I'm having difficulty finding data on pro-choice positions in Ireland. Is there recent data on the opinions held by the Irish population?

Loads of it. Which opinion would you like them to hold?

More seriously, there was a Red C poll which included relevant questions earlier this month. Link on this page: http://redcresearch.ie/news/sbp-poll-results-2nd-dec-2012

This page: http://www.ifpa.ie/Hot-Topics/Abortion/Public-Opinion mentions a number of relevant polls from recent years. It doesn't give links, but you might be able to track them down. Note that the page itself is polemical, so (a) there may be other data sources that it doesn't cite because they don't support its argument (or don't support it as effectively) and (b) the summaries they give of the sources they do cite are obviously going to be polemical. But it may still be a useful resource.

old hippy

Morbert wrote: »

I'm having difficulty finding data on pro-choice positions in Ireland. Is there recent data on the opinions held by the Irish population?

Just trawl through boards. We're here to herald change and choice.

Peregrinus

Praeglacialis wrote: »

Well, I suppose it depends on the circumstances. Sure, it'd be poorly implemented in Nazi Germany, but then so would a lot of things! I can't imagine that being a problem in Ireland, especially if a law to prevent such information being revealed by doctors was implemented. And such a law would have to be implemented.

No, that won’t do. In the first place, you don’t always need a doctor to tell you these things. You don’t need a doctor to tell you if your baby’s going to be Jewish, for example. In the second place, even if you outlaw certain medical tests in Ireland, there’s nothing to stop a woman having the test done abroad. In the third place, for some of the relevant issues there is no way in hell that the necessary legislation would be politically or socially acceptable; are you seriously going to ban medical staff from telling women the sex of the baby they are carrying, in order to prevent sex-selective abortion?

And, in the fourth and most important place, that doesn’t avoid the moral question which you yourself raised. If we do ban the provision of certain information to pregnant women in order to prevent elective abortion based on criteria which we consider unacceptable, that presupposes that we consider abortion based on those criteria to be morally unacceptable. We still have to able to say why it is unacceptable. And, obviously, we may hold that view on either religious or non-religious grounds.

Praeglacialis wrote: »

To me it would only seem logical to assign the same legal weight to the avoidance of 'designer babies' in terms of genetic treatment and to the elimination of particular traits through the use of abortion. Again I would say that a law should be put in place to prevent that information being available. (Thus in a sense bypassing the choice argument)

And, again, it doesn’t really bypass the argument.

Praeglacialis wrote: »

There is another problem concerned with eliminating foetuses with disabilities I would say. For how is a disability defined. I'd imagine the same thing would happen. Imagine the hypothetical scenario of there being a list of 'disabilities' that were legally allowed to be shown to the parents before birth so they could be selected against. Now the choice would not so much lie with the mother as it would with particular sub-cultures vying for survival. This may sound like a bizarre example but I'll illustrate my point.
It seems that it's become possible to select for the hearing trait in embryos, over the 'deaf gene.' The deaf community in the state concerned were quite against this. They argued that if hearing parents could select a 'hearing gene' then deaf parents could select a 'deaf gene.' Now it becomes an ethical conundrum whether to consider deafness a disability, or not. A lot of deaf people wouldn't consider this so. Should that be on the list of factors that doctors are allowed show? It will get a lot more complicated from here I would imagine.

You don’t have to look to deafness for an example. It’s already the case that women can be offered a prenatal test for Down Syndrome, and many women would make a decision to abort if the test result were unsatisfactory, and many other people would say that that decision was morally justified and that the law ought to permit it. But substitute a different chromosomal characteristic – sex, say – and those same people would give a different answer.

In other words, they are pro-choice, but only if the woman’s choice is acceptable to them. They are in the position of the “doctor, priest or politician” I mentioned in my earlier post; deciding if a woman’s choice is “good enough” to be accommodated by the law.

I don’t criticise those people – I’m one myself, by instinct – but what is missing here is a coherent basis for distinguishing between the “acceptable” and “unacceptable” reasons for a woman’s choice

Praeglacialis wrote: »

Just in passing, this same friend I mentioned disagreed with the points aforementioned being mentioned because they would disincline the potential for abortion being introduced. That such arguments would merely be used as fuel for pro lifers. I'm beginning to see why there is so little noticeable discussion about the fine details, why it is indeed so polarised.

Well, yes. Your friend is engaged in a (doomed, incidentally) attempt to censor the discourse about abortion in order to secure an outcome that is acceptable to her, without having to face up to the difficulties inherent in her own position. But if a position can only by advanced by censorship and/or evasion, isn’t it a morally suspect position?

aloyisious

If this will be of any use to the debate, this is in today's Irish Independent...

Saving a mum's life isn't same as abortion – bishop

By Louise Hogan
Monday December 10 2012

A CATHOLIC bishop has weighed into the abortion debate arising from the tragic death of Savita Halappanavar (pictured far right) as he pointed out that medical treatments to save a mother's life do not equate to abortion.

Bishop of Cork and Ross, Dr John Buckley (pictured right), explored the issues surrounding the controversial topic in a pastoral letter read out at all weekend Masses in the diocese.

The bishop said abortion to end the life of an unborn child was "gravely wrong in all circumstances" but differed from medical treatments to "save the mother" which do not intentionally seek to end the life of an unborn baby.

The bishop said the current legislation and medical guidelines allow nurses and doctors in Irish hospital to apply this "vital distinction" in practice.

"Contrary to what has been widely said, the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights does not oblige the Irish Government to legislate for abortion," he said.

Dr Buckley said the Lisbon Treaty was passed on the second attempt following assurances that Ireland had the right to determine its own policies on abortion.

He said three of the four options put forward by the Government-appointed expert group involve abortion and could "never be morally justified".

He said one of the options involved, the drawing up of enhanced medical guidelines to ensure consistency in the delivery of medical treatment, could be a "way forward".

"International statistics confirm that Ireland, without abortion, remains one of the safest countries in the world in which to be pregnant and to give birth," Dr Buckley said.

Innocent

He added that the child in the womb was entitled to the same rights as all others, including the "right of an innocent person to life".

However, in the letter, he also pointed out that society had a responsibility to "defend and promote the equal right to life of a pregnant mother and the innocent and defenceless child in her womb" when either of their lives are at risk.

"They have an equal right to life," he wrote. "The Catholic Church has never taught that the life of a child in the womb should be preferred to that of the mother."

He said medical interventions were "morally permissible" in situations where a seriously ill pregnant woman needs medical treatment which may put the life of her baby at risk, after every effort had been made to save both.

lazygal

Celebate men having opinions on pregnancy. It can only be the Catholic church.


I don't have any moral qualms about why a woman wants an abortion myself. I don't like the idea that there are 'good' and 'bad' abortions. The end result is the same, a termination of pregnancy. All this 'what about gender selection' 'what about down's syndrome' etc is a moot point. If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, for any reason, no matter how 'trivial' it may seem to an outsider, she should be able to avail of medical treatment in her own country to end the pregnancy if that's what the right option for her is. I do think a time limit should be put on this, but I'd extend it to about 20 weeks (the time women have an anomoly scan to look for any issues with baby).

Being pregnant is not a trivial thing, it can have life long impacts on a woman's body. It's not always a harrowing, soul searching decision - and why should it be? There's certain circumstances in which I now think, having been pregnant, i'd find it very easy to choose to have an abortion.

antiskeptic

lazygal wrote: »

Celebate men having opinions on pregnancy. It can only be the Catholic church.

Fallible, limited human beings having opinions on the when's and what of numan life. It can only be those who reckon themselves god.

I don't have any moral qualms about why a woman wants an abortion myself. I don't like the idea that there are 'good' and 'bad' abortions. The end result is the same, a termination of pregnancy. All this 'what about gender selection' 'what about down's syndrome' etc is a moot point. If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant, for any reason, no matter how 'trivial' it may seem to an outsider, she should be able to avail of medical treatment in her own country to end the pregnancy if that's what the right option for her is. I do think a time limit should be put on this, but I'd extend it to about 20 weeks (the time women have an anomoly scan to look for any issues with baby).

On is reminded of the scene in Schindlers List where Amon Goth practices (in the mirror) pronouncing forgiveness on an otherwise doomed victim. "I .. pardon you".

Positively Nero-esque

antiskeptic

koth wrote: »

Of course you wouldn't as your POV is being imposed on all pregnant women

..and their babies

But like all discussion people need to expand their thinking if others are to understand why they are for/against something. I've yet to hear a reasonable explanation as to why an embryo is a person for example.

It stems from a pov that considers people possessing a spiritual dimension that is independent of the number of cells they happen to have. Whilst you can have a reasoned discussion about that you will terminate, as you will when discussing all philosophies, in the area where beliefs are the basis for your position.

Of course, but if there isn't a consensus then it opens things up for change.

Of course.

Not true. An embryo and probably the very early stages of the foetus are not sentient. To use the word child is to evoke the idea it is a self-aware being, i.e. a person, that it can feel pain/process thoughts/remember etc. A child is more than the sum of genetic material of it's parents.

Then let's settle for personhood. It's not that important what name you use since we're really only assigning value according to our own philosophies. I assign equal weight with borne life.

To say that you are killing a child by aborting an embryo would be the equivalent of saying that turning off life support on a brain dead patient is murder.

I'd see aborting an embryo as murder but necessarily turning of the machine of a brain dead patient

Dades

Stupify wrote: »

And thats fine, now can we just leave it?

Do, please. Mark Hamill, too. Leave it be.

MrPudding

Don't have time to find the specific post this is supposed to relate to, but it is for antisceptic.

Just because you decide that two particular points of view are both “worldviews” does not automatically mean both are of equal credence. There is a worldview that holds that the earth is roughly spherical in shape. There is a competing worldview that the earth is flat. Whilst it might be appropriate to consider both to be a worldview that does not mean we need to consider both to be equally valid.

One of these worldviews is backed by science and observation and the other denies the evidence and asserts its worldview to be correct bases on an irrational belief.

Your worldview on abortion is similar, in many ways, to that of the flat-earthers. You hold that at the moment of conception there is a person. We can show that this is not a person. It is a single cell and has no characteristics, aside from having human DNA, which is normally associated with a person. It is a single cell.

There is no reason, I believe, other than a religiously held belief to hold that a single cell is a person. As the embryo develops the argument for personhood does strengthen, but really, whilst it does not even posses the most basic components of the central nervous system the claim of personhood has to come from a personal belief rather than from observable evidence.

This is where the main difference between your worldview and the pro choice worldview lies. You declare a worldview that you hold which is informed by nothing more than your belief that even a single cell is human. You do not have a rational basis for that belief.

The worldview that many of us hold (though mine is slightly different) is that all evidence and observation shows that at the moment of conception we don’t have anything that can reasonably be considered to be a person and that this continues to be the case for a period of time as the embryo develops. This, for us, is not informed by some kind of irrational belief; it is informed by our knowledge and what we can observe. If there is no brain, no thoughts and no central nervous system how can it be a person?

So now we find ourselves in a position where we have two competing worldviews, one informed by a religious belief and one informed by rational observation. Of course someone’s worldview has to be enforced, but if one is being enforced then it should be a reasonable and rational one. A worldview informed by a religious doctrine is not reasonable. It is valid only to those that follow that particular belief. The government should not base laws on religious beliefs as they are likely to be unacceptable to some of the population.

Whilst it is acceptable for the government to be influenced by religious belief before setting laws in force they should be able to formulate them in such a way, and justify them in such a way, that they appeal to all reasonable people. If they are not able to do that then they have no business making those laws.

So if we assume that a woman has certain basic human rights and we want to infringe on those rights then we need to come up with a reasonable and rational reason, not based on a religious doctrine, to justify that interference with the woman’s rights. Your worldview, that a single cell or clump of cells without a central nervous system constitutes a person is simply not good enough. If you take away the part of your worldview that is informed by your religious beliefs then you have nothing.

If you were to step outside your worldview and consider, without religion, what we have when there is a single cell or a clump of cells with no central nervous system, it is clearly not a person for the purposes of giving it rights that supersede the right of a woman, or girl, who has matured to the point where she is capable of getting pregnant.

It has been mentioned in this thread before, but I don’t recall you answer so I will ask again, do you consider the switching off of the ventilator of a brain dead adult to be murder or otherwise immoral? If you do, then why? If you don’t, then why is the termination an embryo that has never even had a brain such a big deal?

MrP

Delirium

antiskeptic wrote: »

..and their babies

of course it relates to the embryo/foetus, we are discussing abortion after all.

It stems from a pov that considers people possessing a spiritual dimension that is independent of the number of cells they happen to have. Whilst you can have a reasoned discussion about that you will terminate, as you will when discussing all philosophies, in the area where beliefs are the basis for your position.

That's fine if the woman shares that belief but why should a woman have to carry the pregnancy to term if she doesn't believe in a spiritual dimension? That line of thought is skirting the boundaries of being anti-contraception.

Then let's settle for personhood. It's not that important what name you use since we're really only assigning value according to our own philosophies. I assign equal weight with borne life.

You mean you assign equal weight between a mother and the embryo, right? Just confused by the highlighted sentence so just looking for clarity.

Assuming I'm understanding you right, you believe the person exists before the body is fully formed. I.e. an embryo is a person.

I'd see aborting an embryo as murder but necessarily turning of the machine of a brain dead patient

But neither of them have functioning brains, the embryo not having a brain at all. Why the difference? Surely the person exists in both situations? Is this not a contradiction based on how you view personhood?