Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

old hippy

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

No; one isn't.

Positively Godwin-esque.

aloyisious

@antiskeptic: I think your reference to Amon Goeth in reply to lazygal was a bit unchristian, given that the "I pardon you" notion was put into Goeth's head by a christian recovering his conscience. Amon Goeth was a member of the Schutzstaffel Totenkopfverbande, a dyed-in-the-wool Nazi totally committed to the mass extermination of fellow humans, not (as you have pointed out) a generally forgiving example of the human race.

(((Quote:
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 )))

In the light of that reference, I'd have to ask how you view any doctor who would carry out an abortion? Do you view him/her as a murderer on the lines of Goeth?

Re your other reference of fallibility in regard to humans, would you not say that that also applies to you and I, alongside those who would post differing opinions to you and I?

antiskeptic

MrPudding wrote: »

Just because you decide that two particular points of view are both “worldviews” does not automatically mean both are of equal credence.

In absolute terms no, but when what constitutes credence itself is product of a worldview..

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.

Which does nothing at all to establish 'science & observation' more credible in every case. Not religious belief irrational.

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.

If defining a person as "that which is thinking, sentient etc" then of course the cell isn't a person. But that definition is a worldview product. And so you reason in a circle: the worldview determines the definition of person, finds the cell not a person and so supports a worldview that permits abortion.

All you have to do is define personhood in another way and your reasoning collapses.

There is no reason, I believe, other than a religiously held belief to hold that a single cell is a person.

Ando no other reason that your naturalistically based worldview to hold the single cell nothing else but.

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.

You're worldview holds that all you can detect is all there is. Which supposes your detection mechanism a god of sorts.

There is the age old problem of deciding whether your inability to detect the spiritual is the product of the spiritual not existing or you being blind to it. It's not resolvable that I can see - but until you do resolve it, you can see why some will have problems with your declaring to know it all.

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?

Again, there is no particular reason why I with what I can detect of reality should be confined to what you can detect of reality. And so our definitions of personhood differ.

Without a trace of irrationality.

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.

There needn't be anything irrational about religious belief. You're again assming what you can detect is all there is to detect. A leap that.

What if you're blind?

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.

I view you're naturalistic worldview as a religious one. It's one that is based on faith (faith that all you can see is all you need consider there to be)

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.

I think I'm made enough of the point about your own worldview being based ultimately on belief not to have to repeat it onwards to the end of your post.

Suffice to say that a section of society could point to blindness on your part and find it perfectly reasonable to hold the view they do (whilst accepting the reasonableness of your view considering the information you have at your disposal). If there are enough of them then a demoncratic society (as opposed to one that must conform to your worldview) will have that view hold sway.

Democracy doesn't always mean things happen the way you want them to.

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.

Same for yourself - where you insert naturalism, empiricism, rationalism and whatever philosophies undergird your worldview.

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?

I think artificially holding the breath of life in a body that would otherwise die isn't comparable to killing that which would naturally tend towards living. God made it that we are to live. And made it that we are to die. Both are natural

Sarky

Both are alive. "Braindead" doesn't mean their brain cells have actually died. Every single cell in a braindead person's body is still busy living away. Every bit as alive as an embryo without a brain.

Why are you arbitrarily deciding that it's ok to kill one of them? After all, there's a chance that a braindead person might recover, isn't there?

Ash.J.Williams

i'd say this thread is going to go around and around and never get anywhere

antiskeptic

aloyisious wrote: »

@antiskeptic: I think your reference to Amon Goeth in reply to lazygal was a bit unchristian, given that the "I pardon you" notion was put into Goeth's head by a christian recovering his conscience. Amon Goeth was a member of the Schutzstaffel Totenkopfverbande, a dyed-in-the-wool Nazi totally committed to the mass extermination of fellow humans, not (as you have pointed out) a generally forgiving example of the human race.

It was lazygal's arbitrary finger-of-god I was drawing a comparison with. It had that same morality-less detachment ("20 weeks minus 1 day? Death. 20 weeks? Life") that Amon displayed.

In the light of that reference, I'd have to ask how you view any doctor who would carry out an abortion? Do you view him/her as a murderer on the lines of Goeth?

We all sear out consciences in order to sin. It's merely a question of degree. Goeth was further down the line that others.

Re your other reference of fallibility in regard to humans, would you not say that that also applies to you and I, alongside those who would post differing opinions to you and I?

Of course. Either (or both of us) could be wrong. It's just that my worldview is the safer option in the face of lack of certainty.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's just that my worldview is the safer option in the face of lack of certainty.

No, you are declaring certainty where none exists.

Flier

Sarky wrote: »

Both are alive. "Braindead" doesn't mean their brain cells have actually died. Every single cell in a braindead person's body is still busy living away. Every bit as alive as an embryo without a brain.

Why are you arbitrarily deciding that it's ok to kill one of them? After all, there's a chance that a braindead person might recover, isn't there?

No

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

No, you are declaring certainty where none exists.

I have the same certainty that my view is correct that other on the other side do. In the face of a lack of anyone being able to declare absolute certainty (for that would require being able to demonstrate to the approval of all) mine is the safer view.

It's a bit like the death sentence. You can never be sure you've got the guilty party.

antiskeptic

koth wrote: »

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?

Because overiding all other considerations is the fact that there is a life at stake. Once you've decided that there is a life at stake. And a life doesn't belong to anyone that they can decide to terminate it - even if it's reliant on them

That line of thought is skirting the boundaries of being anti-contraception.

I think that boundary is quite clear. Life on conception not before.

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

Absolutely equal. Which isn't to say you can't be pragmatic in the case of endangerment to the mother (e.g. in Savita's case).

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

Yes

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?

It hasn't to do with the functioning of brains but on the process of life and death. Death is part of God's order of things and if you've a situation where the person is beyond medical help and would, if left to God's order of things, die, then I see no issue turning off the machine.

It has to do with conformance to Gods order in both circumstance. Not the operability of brains.

Sarky

Well that clears everything up.

ffs.

MrPudding

Sarky wrote: »

Well that clears everything up.

ffs.

Fcuking "god did it" again.

MrP

antiskeptic

doctoremma wrote: »

But if you take the tank, you are saving thousands of not just living beings but persons?

Saving thousands of beings never to experience life (where "life" is meant in the context of sentient experience) has no 'additional value'.

They're not going to last forever anyway so there is nothing lost to them from a temporal perspective.

antiskeptic

MrPudding wrote: »

Fcuking "god did it" again.

MrP

Versus Godknowswhatdidit?

Sarky

antiskeptic wrote: »

Saving thousands of beings never to experience life (where "life" is meant in the context of sentient experience) has no 'additional value'.

They're not going to last forever anyway so there is nothing lost to them from a temporal perspective.

Wait, remind me: are you pro-choice or anti-abortion? Because a while ago you were dead set against letting entities just as alive as the thousand embryos die. Or it seemed that way anyway, you could have stealth-devil's-advocating. An aborted embryo will never experience sentient existence. The frozen embryos will last WAY longer. And they'll end up in the womb of someone that WANTS THEM THERE.

antiskeptic

Sarky wrote: »

Wait, remind me: are you pro-choice or anti-abortion? Because a while ago you were dead set against letting entities just as alive as the thousand embryos die. Or it seemed that way anyway, you could have stealth-devil's-advocating. An aborted embryo will never experience sentient existence. The frozen embryos will last WAY longer. And they'll end up in the womb of someone that WANTS THEM THERE.

That wasn't DoctorEmma's set up I'm afraid.

Delirium

antiskeptic wrote: »

Because overiding all other considerations is the fact that there is a life at stake. Once you've decided that there is a life at stake. And a life doesn't belong to anyone that they can decide to terminate it - even if it's reliant on them

But it's an embryo, a person won't exist until later in the pregnancy.

I think that boundary is quite clear. Life on conception not before.

The pill stops implantation occurring, that means you're already against one type of contraception. This would mean that the pill is similar to an abortion based on your belief of where life begins.

Absolutely equal. Which isn't to say you can't be pragmatic in the case of endangerment to the mother (e.g. in Savita's case).

Does that mean you would allow for abortion in extreme cases where the mother's life is in danger?

Yes

It hasn't to do with the functioning of brains but on the process of life and death. Death is part of God's order of things and if you've a situation where the person is beyond medical help and would, if left to God's order of things, die, then I see no issue turning off the machine.

It has to do with conformance to Gods order in both circumstance. Not the operability of brains.

Is that not a bit hypocritical? Why do you get to decide that God wants a life support turned off but not for an abortion to occur? Who is to say that the abortion isn't part of the divine plan?

Stark

koth wrote: »

Is that not a bit hypocritical? Why do you get to decide that God wants a life support turned off but not for an abortion to occur? Who is to say that the abortion isn't part of the divine plan?

Same way as he gets to decide that God doesn't care if being forced to carry a rapist's child drives a woman to suicide. This is a particular God who only exists in "his worldview" but gets to decide the fates of a million women who don't share that particular worldview of course.

aloyisious

Something tell's me that antiskeptic does not oppose modern medical science as used to preserve life in hospitals. is quite accepting of medical science when it comes to deciding whether it is time to "switch off" on human life on life support but might not think humans should further that science to copy those acts and deeds of the entity he/she see's/acknowledges as God in creationist terms and that an IVF egg in a tank does not equate to a foetus in a woman's womb, in his/her worldview life terms.

In any case, I'm dropping out of debating the abortion issue with antiskeptic.

antiskeptic

koth wrote: »

But it's an embryo, a person won't exist until later in the pregnancy.

There's not much point in asking me to operate according to your worldview. It's my worldview I'm operating by and personhood commences at conception by that worldview.

The pill stops implantation occurring, that means you're already against one type of contraception. This would mean that the pill is similar to an abortion based on your belief of where life begins.

I was under the impression that the pill prevented ovulation. But if you're talking of pills such as the morning after etc. then yes, abortion by another name.

Does that mean you would allow for abortion in extreme cases where the mother's life is in danger?

Yes, but not in cases where the mother has end control - such as in the case of threat of suicide.

Is that not a bit hypocritical? Why do you get to decide that God wants a life support turned off but not for an abortion to occur? Who is to say that the abortion isn't part of the divine plan?

Thou shalt not kill is not the save as thou shalt not prevent death under every circumstance.

doctoremma

antiskeptic wrote: »

There's not much point in asking me to operate according to your worldview. It's my worldview I'm operating by and personhood commences at conception by that worldview.

So, if you'd save the adult over the IVF embryo, despite maintaining that both have an equivalent right to life and both qualify for your definition of 'personhood', then you are saving the adult why? Because his or her personhood is more valuable (in some way)?

Praeglacialis

Peregrinus wrote: »

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?

Things we regard as unethical in other countries in relation to abortion etcetera cannot be our concern. We can only legislate for ourselves. Those other countries will face the same problems no doubt, and will have to determine how best to best face those problems. At best we could strive to limit the effect of parents trying to create designer babies within our own jurisdiction. If it became the case that parents were opting to choose for the sex of their baby, and this caused problems with population balance, or was severely opposed to by a general consensus, then I can't see it being too much of a problem to ban revealing the sex of the baby. It's not particularly important, more of a luxury.

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.

Again this would go down to a general consensus on the matter. If our society determined that given the possibility of producing designer babies in this manner was morally suspect then it would be opposed. There is no objective way of determining how ethical this matter would be otherwise. It will either be implemented democratically, with an informed public weighing the pros and cons, or pseudo-democratically with our government limiting the information available and pushing us one way or the other, or making the decision for us. Either way a decision on how ethical it is will be made in this manner.

Peregrinus wrote: »

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.

The problem is, like I mentioned before, would something such as down syndrome count as a trait that should be eliminated. I'd be inclined to agree with this case as it would be a heavy burden on the mother, like some other disorders, but this is directly influencing the population of a sub group of society. This would have to be put up to a general consensus as well. What is ethical tends to be a facet of the majority opinion. This might not be the best way of determining what should be ethical, as history has proven, but I would deem it an inevitable element of how right and wrong is determined.

Praeglacialis

AntiSkpetic, I'm curious as to why you would deem the embryo/foetus in equal regard to the life of the mother. Shouldn't the investment in the world by the mother, over a number of years, with connections in the world, friends and family, history and experience not count for something to raise her status in comparison? Assuming the aspect of pain is taken out of the equation with an earlier abortion, would her life not count for more on these grounds over a clump of cells?

I assume that the main argument for you is the existence of the soul. Do you know what your faith indicates to happen to the souls of the aborted? Do they get into heaven? Surely god would not send them to hell. I myself came from a fundamentalist christian background, and was lead to believe that most people were going to hell. If the ultimate goal for each individual is to go to heaven, then mightn't one consider a soul avoiding a life of sin a sort of 'get out of hell free card?' In that sense, the only victim would be the parents or doctors committing the sin of 'murder', because they would suffer any afterlife consequences for those sins, were there any.

Sarky

Because by hiding behind his shoddy application of the idea "nothing is objectively true" he thinks that whatever the hell he believes is equally as valid as anything else, no matter how little sense it makes. It's a pretty cynical use of the concept when one doesn't apply it to one's own worldview, but well that's religious folks and cognitive dissonance for you.

antiskeptic wrote: »

That wasn't DoctorEmma's set up I'm afraid.

Perhaps not that last line explicitly (Perhaps you think the tank of frozen IVF embryos has some other destination besides implantation for the purposes of giving a child to someone who wants it), but every other line was. Perhaps you could respond to those instead of nit-picking?

Zombrex

Stupify wrote: »

Yes but the two aren't the same. If you view the foetus as having rights then it complicates things.

STD's don't have rights.

Well yes, but the rights of the foetus have nothing to do with forcing pregnant women to face consequences just for the sake of it.

swampgas

antiskeptic wrote: »

Because overiding all other considerations is the fact that there is a life at stake. Once you've decided that there is a life at stake. And a life doesn't belong to anyone that they can decide to terminate it - even if it's reliant on them.

and

I think that boundary is quite clear. Life on conception not before.

and

It hasn't to do with the functioning of brains but on the process of life and death.

but

antiskeptic wrote: »

Saving thousands of beings never to experience life (where "life" is meant in the context of sentient experience) has no 'additional value'.

They're not going to last forever anyway so there is nothing lost to them from a temporal perspective.

So, on the one hand a woman has no right to choose a termination because of the inviolable right to life of the embryo/fetus simply because a conception has occurred.

However when it come to saving thousands of such post-conception entities - fully equivalent to adults in their right to life, according to yourself - you can't really be bothered, falling back on "ah well, they would have died afterwards anyway". So you have no problem letting them die, even though you cannot know for sure whether they would have had a chance to become babies or not. And part of your justification for letting them die is that they will never be sentient! Have you started to switch sides?


It's almost as if you only insist on an embryo's right to life when there's a woman being made to suffer as a result.

antiskeptic

doctoremma wrote: »

So, if you'd save the adult over the IVF embryo, despite maintaining that both have an equivalent right to life and both qualify for your definition of 'personhood', then you are saving the adult why? Because his or her personhood is more valuable (in some way)?

A life to hand is worth two in the bush?

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

I think that boundary is quite clear. Life on conception not before.

Why not?

antiskeptic wrote: »

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

Yes

What is your definition of person and personhood?

antiskeptic wrote: »

It hasn't to do with the functioning of brains but on the process of life and death. Death is part of God's order of things and if you've a situation where the person is beyond medical help and would, if left to God's order of things, die, then I see no issue turning off the machine.

It has to do with conformance to Gods order in both circumstance. Not the operability of brains.

So a raped women who becomes pregnant is that way because god wanted it to be so? God wanted her raped and wanted her pregnant?

Mark Hamill

Seeing as you are back, can you respond to this post please.

Peregrinus

Praeglacialis wrote: »

Things we regard as unethical in other countries in relation to abortion etcetera cannot be our concern. We can only legislate for ourselves. Those other countries will face the same problems no doubt, and will have to determine how best to best face those problems. At best we could strive to limit the effect of parents trying to create designer babies within our own jurisdiction . . .

If I understand you correctly, we should have an abortion law which affirms a woman’s right to choose, but we should restrict her access to information that we fear might lead her to make a choice of which we would disapprove.

I don’t think this is a defensible position. First, if our present abortion law is criticized for being hypocritical, isn’t this law much more hypocritical? We would be claiming to give women a free choice, while doing our damnedest to impede the practical exercise of that choice. Secondly, if we are morally entitled to prevent a woman from choosing to abort for reasons of which we disapprove, isn’t the direct and most effective way to achieve this to prohibit the abortion? It seems to me that trying to do this by limiting her access to information (a) is less effective, because we can’t prevent her getting the information outside the country, and (b) imposes an unreasonable and unnecessary burden on people who would like access to the information for reasons other than to inform a choice about abortion.

In fact, I can’t think of any reason why it would be a good idea to do things this way. If you think we’re entitled to impede “designer baby” abortions, then ban them. Why not?

Praeglacialis wrote: »

If it became the case that parents were opting to choose for the sex of their baby, and this caused problems with population balance, or was severely opposed to by a general consensus, then I can't see it being too much of a problem to ban revealing the sex of the baby. It's not particularly important, more of a luxury.

So aborting a baby because it’s a girl doesn’t come within the class of “designer babies”, and you’re fine with it? Even if so, you can see that others might not be fine with it, and that their not-being-fine need not be theologically grounded, can’t you?

Praeglacialis wrote: »

The problem is, like I mentioned before, would something such as down syndrome count as a trait that should be eliminated. I'd be inclined to agree with this case as it would be a heavy burden on the mother, like some other disorders, but this is directly influencing the population of a sub group of society. This would have to be put up to a general consensus as well. What is ethical tends to be a facet of the majority opinion. This might not be the best way of determining what should be ethical, as history has proven, but I would deem it an inevitable element of how right and wrong is determined.

Nitpick: Down Syndrome isn’t inherited, so aborting where Down is detected does not result in Down being “eliminated”. Whether or not you abort this case of Down has no implications for the number of future cases that will arise. Whereas if you systematically abort cases of inheritable diseases like Huntingdon’s, say, over time you will significantly reduce the incidence - indeed, all but eliminate - the incidence of Huntingdon’s in the population. (In the 1970s Germany was remarkably free of certain inherited diseases, and we know why that was, don’t we?)

But this doesn’t necessarily amount to a moral justification for the abortion. You can easily imagine advocates for people with Down, or for people with Huntingdon’s, or for the disabled generally, opposing the suggestion that such a diagnosis ought to be grounds for an abortion. And you don’t have to agree with their stance to see that it need not be theologically-based (which, of course, is the question you first raised).