Abortion/ *Note* Thread Closing Shortly! ! !

Sin City

fatmammycat wrote: »

I'm sorry, what does that mean exactly?

sorry.I have mentioned this a few.pages back . when does life begin ? what constitutes rights , at what stage.are we eligible for these rights ?

Improbable

Sin City wrote: »

probably so itll be judged on the seriousness of the risk posed. remember the incident recently where the doctors got the diagnosis wrong and it took a second opinion from a diff hospital to ascertain that faulty equipment lead to wrongful reasons for terminination

a numberof babies were terminated.needlessly


obviously suicidal cases should also be.judged case by case to find genuine cases

Actually, what I meant was, why do you think abortion is acceptable when the mothers life is at risk and not in any other circumstances?

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

And, in the case of fully consensual, unprotected sex that results in a pregnancy, what about the rights of the father? Are there any? Or does he have none?

The rights of the father are not relevant in the context of abortion as an act of bodily privacy. Or to put it another way, the father has no more right to control what the woman does to her body than the foetus does.

The rights of the father in the different context of parental responsibility is an interesting issue but perhaps better to deal with that in a different post so as to not cloud up the issue of bodily privacy. I'll get to that in a sec.

Sin City

Daftendirekt wrote: »

The situation a single (the quantifier, not the relationship status!) person finds themselves in.

At present the law would have a woman carry her child to term, regardless of the danger to her own health or to her child's health. If we want to deal with abortion on a case-by-case basis, we need to legislate to allow for that.

I have already stated.that those reasons would be the only reason to consider abortion but still fetal rights have to be considered,.if the woman dies is there a chance of fetal survival? if no then abortion could be.considered , but.only as a last resort

Sin City

Improbable wrote: »

Actually, what I meant was, why do you think abortion is acceptable when the mothers life is at risk and not in any other circumstances?

I think abortion is acceptable only in extreme cases

Daftendirekt

Incidentally, I just had a look at the abortion page on Citizens' Info and in the first paragraph it says:

Abortion is illegal in Ireland except where there is a real and substantial risk to the life, (as distinct from the health) of the mother. This includes a risk arising from a threat of suicide. The Irish Medical Council ethical guidelines to doctors state that 'it is not unethical if a child in utero should suffer or lost its life as a side effect of standard medical treatment of the mother'.

So what gives? While I'm aware that the above technically is Ireland's position on abortion, does the fact that it's never been legislated for not make it illegal?

Or is the situation that while it is legal in certain circumstances, it's just not provided for by our healthcare system?

Zombrex

Sin City wrote: »

hi zombrex

you make it sound like its a growth that should be taken out rather than a life

It is a collection of cells. Until it produces a brain it is hard to argue it is a person. You kill living cells in your body all the time, the simple act of eating destroys millions of bacteria cells. Masturbation destroys millions of sperm cells, each on with the potential to be a 50 year old man.

Neither merely being alive nor having the potential to eventually be a person are thinks humans particularly value.

Sin City

Zombrex wrote: »

It is a collection of cells. Until it produces a brain it is hard to argue it is a person. You kill living cells in your body all the time, the simple act of eating destroys millions of bacteria cells. Masturbation destroys millions of sperm cells, each on with the potential to be a 50 year old man.

Neither merely being alive nor having the potential to eventually be a person are thinks humans particularly value.

those cells don't usually.become.potential people and masturbation removes any chance.of.fusion with the egg.so again won't become a pp

so a brain is.your criteria for personhood ?

Sin City

Daftendirekt wrote: »

Incidentally, I just had a look at the abortion page on Citizens' Info and in the first paragraph it says:



So what gives? While I'm aware that the above technically is Ireland's position on abortion, does the fact that it's never been legislated for not make it illegal?

Or is the situation that while it is legal in certain circumstances, it's just not provided for by our healthcare system?

it also states

The Irish Medical Council stated: "The deliberate and intentional destruction of the unborn child is professional misconduct.

Zombrex

Sin City wrote: »

those cells don't usually.become.potential people and masturbation removes any chance.of.fusion with the egg.so again won't become a pp

Abortion removes any chance of it becoming a person. Again humans have never put any significant value in a potential person. The child I didn't have last night when I didn't have sex is not given any particular rights or value.

Sin City wrote: »

so a brain is.your criteria for personhood ?

A brain capable of higher functions that we associate with personhood.

I can see no other aspect that humans value. If my brain was transfered to a new non-human body (even say a computer) "I" would exist in this new body, my rights would go with me. They wouldn't stay in the husk of my original body even though it was the remaining human aspect of me.

People get too fixated on the biologically human bit of human rights. The reality is that human rights are not really about being biologically human. They are about a specific property of human existence, high brain functions.

If we met aliens with the same properties, or heck if we discover which we seem to be, other Earthly species with these properties, they become as valuable as us. It doesn't matter if they are not human or not.

Being biologically human has never been the important bit. It is what that produces, a brain capable of forming a being, a person.

Before that is produced the foetus is no more a person than the sperm is. A person does not exist yet, having an abortion is no different to using a condom or simply choosing not to have sex. All these acts simply prevent a being that does not exist yet from coming into existence. And we have never put value on beings that do not exist yet.

doctoremma

Zombrex wrote: »

A brain capable of higher functions that we associate with personhood.

I can see no other aspect that humans value. If my brain was transfered to a new non-human body (even say a computer) "I" would exist in this new body, my rights would go with me. They wouldn't stay in the husk of my original body even though it was the remaining human aspect of me.

People get too fixated on the biologically human bit of human rights. The reality is that human rights are not really about being biologically human. They are about a specific property of human existence, high brain functions.

So Sin City, that's two definitions of 'personhood' now, both with identical criteria for such a definition. Although you replied to me earlier, I don't recall you offering an alternative definition for what/when YOU consider 'personhood' to be acquired or conferred. Is your concept of 'personhood' inextricably linked with 'life'? Do you think a fertilised egg has the quality of 'personhood'? What are your thoughts?

Zombrex

doctoremma wrote: »

So Sin City, that's two definitions of 'personhood' now, both with identical criteria for such a definition. Although you replied to me earlier, I don't recall you offering an alternative definition for what/when YOU consider 'personhood' to be acquired or conferred. Is your concept of 'personhood' inextricably linked with 'life'? Do you think a fertilised egg has the quality of 'personhood'? What are your thoughts?

Another interesting question is whether personhood is inextricably linked with being biologically human.

That raises some very interesting questions if we ever encounter intelligent life

doctoremma

Zombrex wrote: »

Another interesting question is whether personhood is inextricably linked with being biologically human.

That raises some very interesting questions if we ever encounter intelligent life

We have already encountered such intelligent life! I think the great apes should be conferred with the status of 'personhood'.

Bannasidhe

doctoremma wrote: »

We have already encountered such intelligent life! I think the great apes should be conferred with the status of 'personhood'.

The thread on that is going to be.... interesting...ummm...robust...fraught....I know. The thread on that is going to be :eek:

doctoremma

Bannasidhe wrote: »

The thread on that is going to be.... interesting...ummm...robust...fraught....I know. The thread on that is going to be :eek:

Is it wrong that I don't view it as particularly controversial?

Bannasidhe

doctoremma wrote: »

Is it wrong that I don't view it as particularly controversial?

Oh you are being bold now.

I'll just get some popcorn. Don't start without me.

Sin City

Zombrex wrote: »

It is a collection of cells. Until it produces a brain it is hard to argue it is a person. You kill living cells in your body all the time, the simple act of eating destroys millions of bacteria cells. Masturbation destroys millions of sperm cells, each on with the potential to be a 50 year old man.

Neither merely being alive nor having the potential to eventually be a person are thinks humans particularly value.

Masturbation does not lead to the fusion of the sperm and the egg so no embryo will form, basicaly no impregnation,so its not really an abortion of any kind (my bed isnt the site of mass genocide )

Correct me if Im wrong but brain development does start early

Brain development begins with the formation and closure of the neural tube, the earliest nervous tissue that looks like a fat earthworm stretched out along the entire back of the embryo. The neural tube forms from the neural plate, which begins forming just sixteen days after conception. This plate lengthens and starts folding up, forming a groove at around eighteen days, which then begins fusing shut into a tube around twenty-two days post-conception. By 27 days, the tube is fully closed and has already begun its transformation into the brain and spinal cord of the embryo

doctoremma

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Oh you are being bold now.

I'll just get some popcorn. Don't start without me.

Ah, I may have inadvertently baited some people? Is there a previous thread on this topic? I dread to think...

Before anyone bites, I'm not going to discuss it. It was a somewhat flippant remark to poster who I felt would 'get it'.

doctoremma

Sin City wrote: »

Brain development begins with the formation and closure of the neural tube, the earliest nervous tissue that looks like a fat earthworm stretched out along the entire back of the embryo. The neural tube forms from the neural plate, which begins forming just sixteen days after conception. This plate lengthens and starts folding up, forming a groove at around eighteen days, which then begins fusing shut into a tube around twenty-two days post-conception. By 27 days, the tube is fully closed and has already begun its transformation into the brain and spinal cord of the embryo

At this stage of neural tube closure, the 'brain' is no more than a vesicle, a region of the neural tube marked out for future development of the brain. At neurulation, the 'brain' does not support any cognitive processes.

Sin City

doctoremma wrote: »

So Sin City, that's two definitions of 'personhood' now, both with identical criteria for such a definition. Although you replied to me earlier, I don't recall you offering an alternative definition for what/when YOU consider 'personhood' to be acquired or conferred. Is your concept of 'personhood' inextricably linked with 'life'? Do you think a fertilised egg has the quality of 'personhood'? What are your thoughts?

At the moment I am unclear where the change from human , to person actualy takes place, its like when does one become an adult, there is no universal accepted marker and it can differ from person to person.


I do take all points on board whether its the creation of an embryo
heart beating, brain creation /function its very hard to pin down the exact criteria .

However , I am always going to think as I said of the potenial for personhood, as its only a matter of weeks and months in the difference

Sin City

doctoremma wrote: »

At this stage of neural tube closure, the 'brain' is no more than a vesicle, a region of the neural tube marked out for future development of the brain. At neurulation, the 'brain' does not support any cognitive processes.

I start there as its the opposite to brain death, which usualy ends a human life. The creation and cesation of the brain as milestones


So we are saying from week five when synapses fire or does it have to be at the stage where it has to think? reactions arent cognition neither is body regulatoin

So we are talking 20 plus weeks in

Tipsygypsy

doctoremma wrote: »

At this stage of neural tube closure, the 'brain' is no more than a vesicle, a region of the neural tube marked out for future development of the brain. At neurulation, the 'brain' does not support any cognitive processes.

I just have to say, Doctoremma, I think you might be my favourite ever poster in informed debate. I only wish I was able to put forth argument as clearly and factually as you. You rock.

doctoremma

Sin City wrote: »

At the moment I am unclear where the change from human , to person actualy takes place, its like when does one become an adult, there is no universal accepted marker and it can differ from person to person.

I understand your principle. But might it be fair to say that even if we can't pinpoint the exact point at which someone becomes an adult, we can say with confidence that a 5 year old is not an adult yet a 25 year old is. And we might use differing criteria here - the 5 year old is defined as immature both biologically (e.g. not sexually mature) and intellectually. The biological criteria (age aside) is irrelevant to define the 25 year old as adult.

I wouldn't offer a precise time point at which personhood is achieved. But by my (and, I understand) most accepted definitions, it can't possibly apply to a 6 week old fetus, or even a 16 week old fetus.

Sin City wrote: »

However , I am always going to think as I said of the potenial for personhood, as its only a matter of weeks and months in the difference

And I think this is where our opinions simply cannot reach unity. I cannot find any reason to account for potentiality, I simply don't see your POV here (not being obtuse, just it's completely irrelevant to me in assigning 'meaning' to the life). Any thought exercises to expose flawed thinking here?

doctoremma

Sin City wrote: »

So we are talking 20 plus weeks in

That seems to be the time at which conscious thought processes at least have the tools to work with, even if they don't yet happen in any way that we can measure/recognise, electrical activity aside.

doctoremma

Tipsygypsy wrote: »

I just have to say, Doctoremma, I think you might be my favourite ever poster in informed debate. I only wish I was able to put forth argument as clearly and factually as you. You rock.

That's very sweet but can only assume you haven't come across any of Oldrnwisr's posts

Sin City

Tipsygypsy wrote: »

I just have to say, Doctoremma, I think you might be my favourite ever poster in informed debate. I only wish I was able to put forth argument as clearly and factually as you. You rock.

me too

Sin City

doctoremma wrote: »

I understand your principle. But might it be fair to say that even if we can't pinpoint the exact point at which someone becomes an adult, we can say with confidence that a 5 year old is not an adult yet a 25 year old is. And we might use differing criteria here - the 5 year old is defined as immature both biologically (e.g. not sexually mature) and intellectually. The biological criteria (age aside) is irrelevant to define the 25 year old as adult.

I wouldn't offer a precise time point at which personhood is achieved. But by my (and, I understand) most accepted definitions, it can't possibly apply to a 6 week old fetus, or even a 16 week old fetus.


And I think this is where our opinions simply cannot reach unity. I cannot find any reason to account for potentiality, I simply don't see your POV here (not being obtuse, just it's completely irrelevant to me in assigning 'meaning' to the life). Any thought exercises to expose flawed thinking here?

tell me.is a 25 year old an adult when his brain.is that of a 5 year old ?
I agree we are never going to see eye to eye

doctoremma

Sin City wrote: »

tell me.is a 25 year old an adult when his brain.is that of a 5 year old ?

Yes, because, rightly or wrongly, I revert to the biological criteria if the intellectual criteria is not met. That's my instinctive response and not one thought out extensively. However, given that I don't treat said person as an adult, nor hold them to account as an adult, perhaps I don't view them as an adult and my desire to define them as such is an attempt not to offend anyone's sensibilities?

Music4Life085

When a woman has her period is that not life being killed? That's why I think people can't judge! So shut up saying it's wrong and if your a man didn't you have wet dreams and masturbate? So leave them alone!

Sin City

doctoremma wrote: »

Yes, because, rightly or wrongly, I revert to the biological criteria if the intellectual criteria is not met. That's my instinctive response and not one thought out extensively. However, given that I don't treat said person as an adult, nor hold them to account as an adult, perhaps I don't view them as an adult and my desire to define them as such is an attempt not to offend anyone's sensibilities?

so their.rights are reduced,over one criteria rather thananother