Abortion Discussion

Obliq

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Yet, 'we' kill human beings all the time. 'We' kill them in wars and call their 'killers' heroes, often award them medals. Our collective histories extol 'killers' as our 'Great Men'.

'We' kill them through neglect.
'We' kill them with bureaucracy.
'We' kill them in self-defence.
'We' kill them with toxins 'we' let into the environment.
'We' kill them because we just don't like who or what they are...

gaynorvader wrote: »

I would say that all bar self defence are wrong and make the point that just because something is done, doesn't make it right.

And what is an adequate self-defence? Collectively, humans have extolled the decision to kill in "defence" of a country's autonomy and although it isn't considered "right" to murder have considered it "killing in defence of" a principal or need. Morals are funny that way, eh? They may change according to need.

Posted too soon. On a small scale, it is much easier to condemn a woman's choice in taking a life (as it is a life) because her need is not considered great enough. But to her, it is. Where do you draw a line Gaynorvador? Or do you console yourself with the (wrong, IMO) opinion that it is not a life being taken?

Bannasidhe

gaynorvader wrote: »

I would say that all bar self defence are wrong and make the point that just because something is done, doesn't make it right.

But most of these things happen because of decisions made by the State - taxpayers money funds the military. Our 'Founding Fathers' killed people - including their own comrades in the Civil War. How many people die because of cut backs in the health service? How many because State Bureaucracy ties the hands of those who should help them? How many because State regulators are failing in their duties?
How many have died when they could have been saved but the State failed to do so?

It seems to me the collective we do not hold all human life as worth preserving - we parse it and qualify it and justify when we allow it to be ended by outside forces.

We like to think we do. But in reality we allow human beings to be killed every day.

Also, the argument can be made that abortion is self-defence

gaynorvader

Obliq wrote: »

And what is an adequate self-defence? Collectively, humans have extolled the decision to kill in "defence" of a country's autonomy and although it isn't considered "right" to murder have considered it "killing in defence of" a principal or need. Morals are funny that way, eh? They may change according to need.

Posted too soon. On a small scale, it is much easier to condemn a woman's choice in taking a life (as it is a life) because her need is not considered great enough. But to her, it is. Where do you draw a line Gaynorvador? Or do you console yourself with the (wrong, IMO) opinion that it is not a life being taken?

Self defence is on a personal level only, if another person is threatening your life or well being for instance. I'm not advocating warmongering.
I don't believe anything without brain activity can truly be considered "a life". If the child had brain activity, but was threatening the mother's life/well-being, then she would be justified in killing it for self-defence, in my view.

Bannasidhe

gaynorvader wrote: »

Self defence is on a personal level only, if another person is threatening your life or well being for instance. I'm not advocating warmongering.
I don't believe anything without brain activity can truly be considered "a life". If the child had brain activity, but was threatening the mother's life/well-being, then she would be justified in killing it for self-defence, in my view.

Define 'warmongering'?
Was the War of Independence 'warmongering'?
How about the battle against Fascism?

Self-defence can also exist on a other levels - surely killing a member of an invading force to preserve one's 'well-being' on a societal level can also be called self-defence?

My point is statements like 'everyone agrees that killing human beings is wrong' is aspirational and simply does not hold up to even a cursory scrutiny.

We, as taxpayers, directly fund the training, equipping and maintenance of members of our society whose role is to kill people should the need arise. The State will decide what constitutes 'need' - that same State that threatens a woman who 'kills' an embryo to preserve her own life with 14 years in prison because it does not recognise her 'need' as valid.

Obliq

gaynorvader wrote: »

Self defence is on a personal level only, if another person is threatening your life or well being for instance. I'm not advocating warmongering.
I don't believe anything without brain activity can truly be considered "a life". If the child had brain activity, but was threatening the mother's life/well-being, then she would be justified in killing it for self-defence, in my view.

Again, that's highly problematic as one might as well say "newborn" in that instance, as "foetus". I do see what you're saying about brain activity, but as Peregrinus pointed out, sentience isn't really a threshold as it's on a continuum.

I'm just trying to point out that this is more a case of one person's needs being greater than the life of a foetus, rather than trying to claim it's not a life being taken. We have some moral problems to hash out here that IMO aren't helped by attempting to call a foetus anything other than a human life (clump of cells for example - a daft expression).

gaynorvader

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Define 'warmongering'?

a policy of advocating war

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Was the War of Independence 'warmongering'?

Which War of Independence?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

How about the battle against Fascism?

What battle?

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Self-defence can also exist on a other levels - surely killing a member of an invading force to preserve one's 'well-being' on a societal level can also be called self-defence?

If the invading force is attempting to enslave or harm you or your way of life, then yes that could be called self-defence.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My point is statements like 'everyone agrees that killing human beings is wrong' is aspirational and simply does not hold up to even a cursory scrutiny.

Yes, ok, it was a bit of hyperbole on my part. My point was that people on both sides of the debate believe killing human beings is wrong. Though, to be pedantic you could say that everyone does believe that killing human beings is wrong, just not in all circumstances.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

We, as taxpayers, directly fund the training, equipping and maintenance of members of our society whose role is to kill people should the need arise. The State will decide what constitutes 'need' - that same State that threatens a woman who 'kills' an embryo to preserve her own life with 14 years in prison because it does not recognise her 'need' as valid.

True.

gaynorvader

Obliq wrote: »

Again, that's highly problematic as one might as well say "newborn" in that instance, as "foetus". I do see what you're saying about brain activity, but as Peregrinus pointed out, sentience isn't really a threshold as it's on a continuum.

I'm just trying to point out that this is more a case of one person's needs being greater than the life of a foetus, rather than trying to claim it's not a life being taken. We have some moral problems to hash out here that IMO aren't helped by attempting to call a foetus anything other than a human life (clump of cells for example - a daft expression).

Sentience is not the same as brain activity though.

Obliq

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My point is statements like 'everyone agrees that killing human beings is wrong' is aspirational and simply does not hold up to even a cursory scrutiny.

We, as taxpayers, directly fund the training, equipping and maintenance of members of our society whose role is to kill people should the need arise. The State will decide what constitutes 'need' - that same State that threatens a woman who 'kills' an embryo to preserve her own life with 14 years in prison because it does not recognise her 'need' as valid.

Totally that. It is so much easier to condemn an individuals personal choice than to recognise we are all in some ways complicit in contributing to human death somewhere, whether by supporting the state we live in or even just by living beyond our means (your throw away knickers is another person's poverty stricken lifestyle for eg).

Obliq

gaynorvader wrote: »

Though, to be pedantic you could say that everyone does believe that killing human beings is wrong, just not in all circumstances.
.

That's the kind of pedantry thats needed here. Under which circumstances is it allowable????

Obliq

gaynorvader wrote: »

Sentience is not the same as brain activity though.

It's a sliding scale. Too problematic to decide, especially when the more pressing issue is can we say that killing a human (life, at whatever stage) is ever ok? When realistically we do it all the time, but mostly have our collective heads in the sand or choose to be hypocritical about it.

Edit: keep forgetting this guys name and have to look him up all over again. Worth reposting this clip though, as he nails it.

Jaysus, clip messing up on me now! This: https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CC8QtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DtAwZL3n9kGE&ei=4h0XU6uSI4mBhAebooGADQ&usg=AFQjCNFFSSDvWFkIdpoeua2fD0YOeFr_qg&sig2=pxVteNF6KjUXaSecxATxwQ&bvm=bv.62286460,d.ZG4

Bannasidhe

gaynorvader wrote: »

a policy of advocating war

Again there are degrees within that.

Which War of Independence?

Any of them

What battle?

All of them.

If the invading force is attempting to enslave or harm you or your way of life, then yes that could be called self-defence.

An invading force does not necessarily mean enslavement. What if the 'way of life' one seeks to preserve enslaves others?

Yes, ok, it was a bit of hyperbole on my part. My point was that people on both sides of the debate believe killing human beings is wrong. Though, to be pedantic you could say that everyone does believe that killing human beings is wrong, just not in all circumstances.

My point is that although we say killing human being is wrong in reality our view is much more nuanced and if pressed most will say that in certain circumstances killing another human being is 'right'.
This is one of my issues with the pro-birthers who are the ones most likely to trot out the 'all human life is sacred and must be preserved' line but - if they are honest - will admit that in certain situations (saving their own life for example) they would kill another human being and consider that justified.

True.

gaynorvader

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Again there are degrees within that.

Any of them

All of them.

If all other avenues of change have been exhausted, then perhaps it is justified.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

An invading force does not necessarily mean enslavement. What if the 'way of life' one seeks to preserve enslaves others?

My point is that although we say killing human being is wrong in reality our view is much more nuanced and if pressed most will say that in certain circumstances killing another human being is 'right'.
This is one of my issues with the pro-birthers who are the ones most likely to trot out the 'all human life is sacred and must be preserved' line but - if they are honest - will admit that in certain situations (saving their own life for example) they would kill another human being and consider that justified.

I do agree. I retract any implication that all humans believe that killing other human beings is wrong. It was a throwaway statement I made, was not central to my point and is dragging the discussion off topic.

gaynorvader

Obliq wrote: »

It's a sliding scale. Too problematic to decide, especially when the more pressing issue is can we say that killing a human (life, at whatever stage) is ever ok? When realistically we do it all the time, but mostly have our collective heads in the sand or choose to be hypocritical about it.

Edit: keep forgetting this guys name and have to look him up all over again. Worth reposting this clip though, as he nails it.

How is brain activity a sliding scale?

Bannasidhe

gaynorvader wrote: »

I do agree. I retract any implication that all humans believe that killing other human beings is wrong. It was a throwaway statement I made, was not central to my point and is dragging the discussion off topic.

Although I was responding to you saying it, I was really just using your post to illustrate that we have heard that line from pro-birthers time and time again yet when they are pushed to clarify they run away admit (if they stick around) that it is not as clear cut as they insist so it is very much on topic I think.

I think, if we were all honest, that there are situations where we believe killing another human being is justifiable. Self-defence being the main one. What pro-birthers refuse to accept it that for some women - having an abortion is acting out of self-defence.

Brian Shanahan

Absolam wrote: »

So it's ok to terminate humans, human beings not so much. At what point do we make the transition from human to human being?

Well using your logic, according to the US the person loses the right to be considered human once they leave the womb.

Otherwise how do you explain the legality of capital punishment, when you maintain all abortions are murder?

Piliger

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Otherwise how do you explain the legality of capital punishment, when you maintain all abortions are murder?

It really does beggar belief, doesn't it

Morag

This is a photo of a 16 celled human embryo on the head of a pin, taken with a scanning electron mirco scope. That is the stage at which they get frozen and when they divide to 32 cells they implant in the womb.

So something which is so small it can sit on the head of a pin, is to be given the same right to life as me and curtail all my rights other then the right to travel? No Thanks.

http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/313647/view

gaynorvader

Morag wrote: »

This is a photo of a 16 celled human embryo on the head of a pin, taken with a scanning electron mirco scope. That is the stage at which they get frozen and when they divide to 32 cells they implant in the womb.

So something which is so small it can sit on the head of a pin, is to be given the same right to life as me and curtail all my rights other then the right to travel? No Thanks.

http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/313647/view

Not the head, the tip, so even smaller than you made out

Peregrinus

Morag wrote: »

So something which is so small it can sit on the head of a pin, is to be given the same right to life as me and curtail all my rights other then the right to travel? No Thanks.

So human-person-status is a matter of dimensions now? Not viability, or sentience, or any of the other characteristics that people have suggested, but physical dimensions?

Absolam

lazygal wrote: »

It is the pregnancy which is terminated.
Do we have to go through this again?

I wasn't talking about terminating pregnancies, which as has been pointed out, can be done without terminating a life (or ceasing the reproduction of a group of cells, whatever you like..). I was talking about terminating a life without using the word murder or such so as to avoid someone jumping on a bandwagon point, but I guess I lucked out.
The point being, as SmilingLurker pointed out; we have acknowledged that the life conceived is a human one (except for those who haven't). We all acknowledge that it is (generally) wrong to kill a human being, so, at some point the human becomes a human being and less acceptable to 'terminate', except in certain circumstances. I was interested in knowing when people here feel that is, since to my mind that is where the debate between sensible pro and anti abortion falls; leaving aside the extreme fanatics to either side.

It may be a stale debate as Peregrinus says, since at the end of the day the majority rules regardless of 'objective' ethics, if there is such a thing. But the threads still going so we may as well discuss it.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Well using your logic, according to the US the person loses the right to be considered human once they leave the womb. Otherwise how do you explain the legality of capital punishment, when you maintain all abortions are murder?

Hang on a minute, when did I say any of that?
I asked when does a human become a human being, which offered no logic, and you're assuming I'm maintaining all abortions are murder, despite capital punishment being legal in America? What sense does that make?

Piliger wrote: »

It really does beggar belief, doesn't it

It really does......

Morag

Peregrinus wrote: »

So human-person-status is a matter of dimensions now? Not viability, or sentience, or any of the other characteristics that people have suggested, but physical dimensions?

Really you are going to start with that, a person is a person no matter how small crap?

I don't see why the 'life' of something which needs a Scanning Electron Microscope to been seen, gets to be equal to mine.

Absolam

Morag wrote: »

Really you are going to start with that, a person is a person no matter how small crap?

I don't see why the 'life' of something which needs a Scanning Electron Microscope to been seen, gets to be equal to mine.

How big does it need to be to be a person then?
Or, how big does it need to be to be equal to you?

Bannasidhe

Absolam wrote: »

How big does it need to be to be a person then?
Or, how big does it need to be to be equal to you?

Seriously?

Do you believe a clump of cells that would fit on the tip of a pin is exactly the same as you and deserving of equal legal recognition?

Phill Ewinn

Morag wrote: »

This is a photo of a 16 celled human embryo on the head of a pin, taken with a scanning electron mirco scope. That is the stage at which they get frozen and when they divide to 32 cells they implant in the womb.

So something which is so small it can sit on the head of a pin, is to be given the same right to life as me and curtail all my rights other then the right to travel? No Thanks.

http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/313647/view

This is the kind of bullsh1t-ollogy that comes into these discussions. 63 percent of abortions occur at 9 or 10 weeks.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Human_fetus_10_weeks_with_amniotic_sac_-_therapeutic_abortion.jpg

Bannasidhe

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

This is the kind of bullsh1t-ollogy that comes into these discussions. 63 percent of abortions occur at 9 or 10 weeks.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Human_fetus_10_weeks_with_amniotic_sac_-_therapeutic_abortion.jpg

Do you think the contents of that image is equal to you in every particular and should be treated as such by the law even if it means your life is placed at risk to preserve it's?

Delirium

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

This is the kind of bullsh1t-ollogy that comes into these discussions. 63 percent of abortions occur at 9 or 10 weeks.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/13/Human_fetus_10_weeks_with_amniotic_sac_-_therapeutic_abortion.jpg

And how many of them would have been earlier if the women didn't have to travel to another country to get an abortion?

Absolam

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Seriously?

Do you believe a clump of cells that would fit on the tip of a pin is exactly the same as you and deserving of equal legal recognition?

I didn't say that; I asked how big does it need to be to be a person, or how big does it need to be to be equal to you? In your opinion, obviously.

For my part, I'm thinking stage of development should probably be a more important signifier than size.
I don't think a 16 cell embryo is the same as me, nor does it deserve equal legal recognition. But I don't think a juvenile is or does either.

Phill Ewinn

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Do you think the contents of that image is equal to you in every particular and should be treated as such by the law even if it means your life is placed at risk to preserve it's?

This your attempt at dehumanising the unborn? And.we're not talking in trade offs. You knowas well as I do the liberalisation of abortion is what we're talking about.

Phill Ewinn

SW wrote: »

And how many of them would have been earlier if the women didn't have to travel to another country to get an abortion?

None. They're US stats. So, yeah the fetus would be more developed in an Irish situation.

Bannasidhe

Absolam wrote: »

I didn't say that; I asked how big does it need to be to be a person, or how big does it need to be to be equal to you? In your opinion, obviously.

For my part, I'm thinking stage of development should probably be a more important signifier than size.
I don't think a 16 cell embryo is the same as me, nor does it deserve equal legal recognition. But I don't think a juvenile is or does either.

What an odd thing to say....

I believe every individual who has been born is entitled to the same protections under the law - be they 'juvenile' or not. Including the right to act in self-defence to preserve their life if it is threatened.