Abortion Discussion

silverharp

@p , if you take the example of rape , its an acceptance that the rights of the mother are the deciding factor not any perception of what a foetus is. I would actually think that someone hasnt a well thought out view if they think abortion is correct for rape but not for other reasons.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

OK. So religiously-motivated pro-life activism has the same status as non-religiously-motivated pro-life activism, and as religiously-motivate pro-choice activism, and as non-religiously motivated pro-choice activism. The motivation behind the activism is entirely irrelevant. We completely ignore it.

Agreed - but then why does Pope Francis say it's ok to punch someone in the face for insulting your religion? I'm not saying religious motivations are in themselves worse than any others, but one is entitled to point out that this is all they are, when someone is trying to claim special status for them.

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, this doesn’t make sense. Granted that the pro-life amendment campaign was largely religiously motivated, it didn’t get a free pass. It had to surmount the same hurdles as any other campaign - persuade the pollies to hold a referendum, then persuade the people to pass it.

If the pro-life campaign got a free pass in 1983, then the pro-divorce campaign got a free pass in 1996, and the pro-marriage equality campaign will, I devoutly hope, get a free pass later this month. But I don’t think that’s a particularly useful use of the term “free pass”.

Why is there a conscience clause or certain legal exemptions which accept religious belief as being a valid excuse? That's what I mean by a free pass - not winning a debate because you've convinced people with the strength of your arguments but "winning" by refusing to take part in the debate at all, and claiming instead that you're entitled to an "out" because of religion.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And my point is that there is as much evidence that the fetus has rights as there is evidence that the mother has rights - i.e., no evidence at all, in either case. And you cannot, with consistency, demand that your unevidenced claims about the rights of mothers should be reflected in law and policy and simultaneously insist that claims about the rights of the fetus should be excluded because they are unevidenced.

Seriously? You think there is no reason women should have any human rights at all? I think you need to take philosophy 101 and then get back to us, because I'm really not willing to go that far down to first principles on here.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

Seriously? You think there is no reason women should have any human rights at all? I think you need to take philosophy 101 and then get back to us, because I'm really not willing to go that far down to first principles on here.

Your definition of who should receive rights appears to depend on whether the entity is capable of surviving independently, which I don't agree is any basis for attribution. Otherwise anybody receiving welfare or urgent medical attention should have their human rights revoked.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

Agreed - but then why does Pope Francis say it's ok to punch someone in the face for insulting your religion?

But (yet) again, who is saying we should pay any attention to what the Pope says when discussing a moral standpoint? It's more strawmanning and the exact equivalent of saying some particular atheist did something once so it's atheism's fault.

silverharp

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Your definition of who should receive rights appears to depend on whether the entity is capable of surviving independently, which I don't agree is any basis for attribution. Otherwise anybody receiving welfare or urgent medical attention should have their human rights revoked.

You are probably veering too much into positive rights whereas the right to discontinue a pregnancy is the defense and practice of a negative right.
If for instance a family had to pay half a million for medical treatment. The humanity of the individual is not the issue, the family can't be forced to pay or borrow the money . if nobody steps in on the other side then the treatment doesnt happen and the patient dies. The patient was always human.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

But (yet) again, who is saying we should pay any attention to what the Pope says when discussing a moral standpoint? It's more strawmanning and the exact equivalent of saying some particular atheist did something once so it's atheism's fault.

The pope has been demoted to the status of a random individual, has he?

In the context of whether or not religion plays a role in determining people's beliefs, it's hardly a straw man to mention a declaration made by the head of the Catholic church.

The fact that I think the Pope's opinion should be irrelevant is not really the point, when exemptions to various laws on the grounds of religious belief are considered normal, in a country where the majority of people claim to belong to the religion of which he is the supreme authority.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

The pope has been demoted to the status of a random individual, has he?

In the context of whether or not religion plays a role in determining people's beliefs, it's hardly a straw man to mention a declaration made by the head of the Catholic church.

The fact that I think the Pope's opinion should be irrelevant is not really the point, when exemptions to various laws on the grounds of religious belief are considered normal, in a country where the majority of people claim to belong to the religion of which he is the supreme authority.

Yes, the Pope is a random individual for the purposes of this discussion.
Saying person X supports/opposes Y still isn't relevant in determining whether the outcome is correct morally or not. You can use it to say how we got here but it has pretty much no connection with what legislation should be. Much as I'd like to I can't oppose Catholic teaching because it is Catholics doing the teaching, there has to be something actually wrong with the teaching.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Yes, the Pope is a random individual for the purposes of this discussion.
Saying person X supports/opposes Y still isn't relevant in determining whether the outcome is correct morally or not. You can use it to say how we got here but it has pretty much no connection with what legislation should be. Much as I'd like to I can't oppose Catholic teaching because it is Catholics doing the teaching, there has to be something actually wrong with the teaching.

This (in bold) is disingenuous. Being charitable.

As for there having to be something wrong with the teaching, are you serious??

Lets just take a couple : no abortion for 10 year old child who has been raped, for example, and excommunication for a nun who authorized a termination for a pregnant woman whose life was in danger for another) but that's all been gone over before here. Unless you personally want to explain your support for those two horrors?

Or what about abortion being allowed for ectopic pregnancy, so long as it is the mutilating surgery of removing the whole tube, when minor surgery, removing only the tubal section containing the embryo is the more usual (non religious) treatment?

And there are plenty more, we can go through them one by one, if you really want to defend them. Otherwise I suggest we both agree that there is plenty wrong with Catholic teaching on abortion and move on from there?

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

This (in bold) is disingenuous. Being charitable.

As for there having to be something wrong with the teaching, are you serious??

Lets just take a couple : no abortion for 10 year old child who has been raped, for example, and excommunication for a nun who authorized a termination for a pregnant woman whose life was in danger for another) but that's all been gone over before here. Unless you personally want to explain your support for those two horrors?

Or what about abortion being allowed for ectopic pregnancy, so long as it is the mutilating surgery of removing the whole tube, when minor surgery, removing only the tubal section containing the embryo is the more usual (non religious) treatment?

And there are plenty more, we can go through them one by one, if you really want to defend them. Otherwise I suggest we both agree that there is plenty wrong with Catholic teaching on abortion and move on from there?

You seem very confused here. Why would I want to explain my support for things I don't support? A bizarre line of questioning.
TBH it's ridiculous that you are repeatedly ramming Catholic teachings that nobody here actually seems to agree with into every last post in the hope of smearing anybody else in the debate. It's just a little transparent too in case you for some reason thinks nobody's noticed it.
Now, once more: if the Catholic church opposes slavery, does that mean you support slavery? That's as illogical as supporting something the Catholic church supports because it's the church saying it in the first place which you are complaining about.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You seem very confused here. Why would I want to explain my support for things I don't support? A bizarre line of questioning.

So you didn't say this then?

Much as I'd like to I can't oppose Catholic teaching because it is Catholics doing the teaching, there has to be something actually wrong with the teaching.

Stop misrepresenting my posts please.
You keep trying to twist my words into something I've never said. It's not because it's Catholics doing the teaching, it's because when the teaching is wrong, and the argument from authority accords respect to any teaching from the catholic church, even when it is clearly wrong, that is where I have a problem.

Whereas you actually said there is nothing wrong with Catholic teaching. That is what I was replying to. I gave a couple of examples where I think there clearly is something wrong with it. Do you agree with that or not?

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

So you didn't say this then?
Stop misrepresenting my posts please.
You keep trying to twist my words into something I've never said. It's not because it's Catholics doing the teaching, it's because when the teaching is wrong, and the argument from authority accords respect to any teaching from the catholic church, even when it is clearly wrong, that is where I have a problem.

Whereas you actually said there is nothing wrong with Catholic teaching. That is what I was replying to. I gave a couple of examples where I think there clearly is something wrong with it. Do you agree with that or not?

Yes, I said exactly what you have quoted. Your reinterpretation of that is nonsense though.
I can't oppose Catholic teaching just because it's Catholic. It's what the teaching is I can oppose, not the fact that it is derived from Catholic dogma.
I'm really not seeing what has you so confused here.

volchitsa wrote: »

Whereas you actually said there is nothing wrong with Catholic teaching.

This is fantasy.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Yes, I said exactly what you have quoted. Your reinterpretation of that is nonsense though.
I can't oppose Catholic teaching just because it's Catholic. It's what the teaching is I can oppose, not the fact that it is derived from Catholic dogma.
I'm really not seeing what has you so confused here.
This is fantasy.

It's literally what you said. If you meant something else, you really should have said that instead.

But let's assume you really meant something like "I can't oppose Catholic teaching just because it's catholic, I can only oppose it when there's actually something wrong with it."

If that's what you meant, then I don't know what you're arguing about. I've never said anything different. Which is why I assumed you meant what you had actually said, not something you didn't say, and also something that I've never disagreed with.

So just to be clear : what exactly do you think of the three examples I gave upthread? Do you agree that they are indefensible or not?

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

It's literally what you said. If you meant something else, you really should have said that instead.

Much as I'd like to I can't oppose Catholic teaching because it is Catholics doing the teaching, there has to be something actually wrong with the teaching.

There is no ambiguity there beyond what you are inventing.
There is absolutely nothing there that says I support all Catholic teaching or the cases now you claim that I do.
Besides, you still haven't answered MY question: do you support slavery because current standard Catholic teaching opposes it?

Dan_Solo

You interpret this:

Much as I'd like to I can't oppose Catholic teaching because it is Catholics doing the teaching, there has to be something actually wrong with the teaching.

as

volchitsa wrote: »

Whereas you actually said there is nothing wrong with Catholic teaching.

That's so surreal I can only assume you are doing so deliberately.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

There is no ambiguity there beyond what you are inventing.
There is absolutely nothing there that says I support all Catholic teaching or the cases now you claim that I do.
Besides, you still haven't answered MY question: do you support slavery because current standard Catholic teaching opposes it?

The problem is that you keep saying this as though it is in opposition to my comments, while i have been at pains to point out that I have nothing against a teaching just because its source is religious, I just don't think it should get any special treatment just because it's religious.

So to that extent we are in agreement (though I notice you were unable to reply with a simple yes or no to my question about the examples of catholic teaching I mentioned - is there a reason for that?)

But anyway. I'd say that just like any other opinion, a religious-based opinion can't be imposed against the general philosophy of our society, which is, as I said, one based on the individual's rights. And we're back to what I said pages back, which is that the default value in western society is that the individual's rights take precedence unless there is actual evidence that significant harm is caused to others (and in many cases, not even then, or alcohol would be banned, for one thing.)

I'm repeating myself here, and you didn't really reply to it first time around, only went off on a tangent about something I never disagreed with. And let's not go off on your other tangent about the existence of individual rights needing to be proved either - that's not the case in our society, we've been there, had that conversation and it's over. Individual rights are the ground stone of western society.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

You interpret this:
as
That's so surreal I can only assume you are doing so deliberately.

Look it happens in posts - there are two different meanings possible : I read your post that way because it's a possible reading of what you wrote, and more importantly because the other possible meaning doesn't disagree with anything I said - And since you seemed to think you were disagreeing with me, the first meaning seemed more likely.

If you meant what you now say, then fine. I accept that. But in that case, what do you think you're disagreeing with me about?

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

If you meant what you now say

There's no "now" about it. It's EXACTLY what I said from the start that you got in a big huff about and weren't able to read for some unknown reason.
Why do you keep ramming the Pope and Catholicism into this debate then if you are now insisting their position isn't relevant to the discussion? It might be relevant to why people did X, Y and Z in the past or even what they may do now, but as to the rights and wrongs of it they are entirely inconsequential.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm repeating myself here, and you didn't really reply to it first time around, only went off on a tangent about something I never disagreed with. And let's not go off on your other tangent about the existence of individual rights needing to be proved either - that's not the case in our society, we've been there, had that conversation and it's over. Individual rights are the ground stone of western society.

So it should be simple to say when and where these individual rights are bestowed.
You think it should depend on how good your doctor is. I think it should depend on when the foetus has the hallmarks of humanity.

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

So it should be simple to say when and where these individual rights are bestowed.
You think it should depend on how good your doctor is. I think it should depend on when the foetus has the hallmarks of humanity.

I don't think I said that. I said something entirely different.

But never mind, how about you tell us exactly what these hallmarks of humanity are that you have in mind?

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't think I said that. I said something entirely different.

Since you're making the case that you have to be an independently sustaining entity in order to be considered human, then you most certainly are.

volchitsa wrote: »

But never mind, how about you tell us exactly what these hallmarks of humanity are that you have in mind?

I've already given this. Higher cortical function.
Now, apart from pregnant women, do you think anybody else deserves human rights and when do they get them?

volchitsa

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Since you're making the case that you have to be an independently sustaining entity in order to be considered human, then you most certainly are.I've already given this. Higher cortical function.
Now, apart from pregnant women, do you think anybody else deserves human rights and when do they get them?

I don't understand what point you're making - you say higher cortical function is what makes us human? So a person with no cortex isn't human then? A baby born with anencephaly will certainly die - but it's still human, surely?

And no, I didn't say that being independently sustainable makes us human, I said that gives us moral value, the capacity to have an interest in one's fate.

silverharp

I've already given this. Higher cortical function.

out of curiosity where on the list below would you pick? I must say wk 25 has a certain symmetry to it. But to me "higher cortical function" actually seems more like a post birth attribute based on a list of 6 higher cortical functions, memory, orientation, concentration, language, recognition of stimuli, and performance of learned skilled movements


http://brainblogger.com/2009/05/10/medical-controversy-when-does-life-begin/

Quickening

Those same groups which argue against the week 8 model suggest that life begins with the “quickening,” which is when the fetus begins to exhibit voluntary movement inside the womb, usually around 14-16 weeks. At this point the fetus is able to react to external stimuli, which is held as the standard for life.

Week 20

Although the fetus can move at week 14, the movements are little more than jerky reflexes. They are not driven by higher cortical functioning. Therefore, another school of thought is that life begins at week 20, when the thalamus is completely formed. The thalamus is the relay center of the brain, and helps to connect the cerebral cortex to the spinal cord and peripheral nerves.

Week 25

A sizable contingent would assert that life begins at 25 weeks. The rationale for this starting point is based on our definition of death. The definition of death is not disputed, and is considered the time when electroencephalography (EEG) activity ceases. EEG measures brain activity and must demonstrate regular wave patterns to be considered valid. Therefore, by this rule the onset of life would be the time when fetal brain activity begins to exhibit regular wave patterns, which occurs fairly consistently around week 25. Previous to that time, the EEG only shows small bursts of activity without sustained firing of neurons.
Birth
Perhaps the second-most frequently held conviction is that life begins at the time of child birth. In Jewish Talmudic Law, for example, the writing states that once the head of the child is delivered it cannot be touched and is granted equal rights to life as the mother. Other religious groups maintain that the soul is delivered to the newborn with their first breath of air.

Self-consciousness

A minor group of philosophers maintain that the criterion for human life is self-consciousness, or self-awareness, which does not occur until well into childhood. This group believes that abortion is morally equivalent to infanticide, and that both are condonable under certain circumstances. Their viewpoint is extreme, and has generally been rejected by mainstream ethicists and theologians.
While this accounting is by no means comprehensive, and perhaps oversimplifies some concepts for the purpose of clarity, let it serve as a starting point for obtaining more information. With debate on this topic wide open, and no clear answers in sight, the best hope is to understand all viewpoints and draw an informed conclusion as to when life begins.

Dan_Solo

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't understand what point you're making - you say higher cortical function is what makes us human? So a person with no cortex isn't human then? A baby born with anencephaly will certainly die - but it's still human, surely?

Well, no, they're not. You may as well say a dead person is human. Or an amputated foot. Humanity is a function of the developed human brain.

volchitsa wrote: »

And no, I didn't say that being independently sustainable makes us human, I said that gives us moral value, the capacity to have an interest in one's fate.

So you yet again refuse point blank to say when we become human and therefore in receipt of human rights from society. So, once more: is anybody human and when does this happen? How can even a pregnant woman hold human right if she never became human by your own admission.
Fairly painfully obvious at this stage you're avoiding the question. Guess you've sussed every answer leaves you in trouble, eh?

Dan_Solo

silverharp wrote: »

out of curiosity where on the list below would you pick? I must say wk 25 has a certain symmetry to it. But to me "higher cortical function" actually seems more like a post birth attribute based on a list of 6 higher cortical functions, memory, orientation, concentration, language, recognition of stimuli, and performance of learned skilled movements


http://brainblogger.com/2009/05/10/medical-controversy-when-does-life-begin/

I've already said several times now 22-24 weeks is when the brain becomes human.
Another fudger who thinks humans never actually start receiving human right I suppose.

silverharp

Dan_Solo wrote: »

I've already said several times now 22-24 weeks is when the brain becomes human.
Another fudger who thinks humans never actually start receiving human right I suppose.

can you link to a paper that says the "brain becomes human" at 25 weeks? my list had EEG readings possible at 25 weeks , but I am not sure how that would differ to any animal?

No I believe humans have rights not to be aggressed against after they leave the womb , before that the rights to the unborn could be transferred if possible which brings us back to survivability

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

The right of the mother to dispose of her own body is of course philosophical - a slave-owning society wouldn't accept that at all - but in our society that's the default view.

Absolam wrote: »

But it's not the default view in our society? The default view in our society is quite demonstrably that a woman or man can only dispose of his or her own body within the limits of the law, and the law prohibits someone from ending the life of a foetus unless it threatens the life of the person carrying it.

Peregrinus wrote: »

The notion of a woman's right to choose is an opinion which is not "borne out by some actual evidence"; it's a philosophical opinion just as unsubstantiated and just as unevidenced as the notion of a "right to life". Are pro-choice campaigners looking for a "free pass" from the test which you say should "rightly" be imposed?

volchitsa wrote: »

My point is that calling it a "woman's right to choose" is a bit of a misnomer, because it is the default position for all in our society.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, fine, drop the word “women’s”. It’s plainly not the “default position for all in our society” that there is a “right to choose” which prevails in all circumstances, regardless of the effect it may have on others. Your right to choose what to do with your fist stops in front of my nose. So, if your claim is that the “default position in our society” affirms a right to choose which extends to abortion, what you are really saying is that the default position in our society is that the unborn are not “others” whose rights or interests set the limit to someone else’s right to choose. And that claim is plainly factually untrue; there are many people - I think probably a majority - in our society who believe that the unborn do have rights which can be validly opposed to the right to choose, when the two clash. It is simply not the “default position” in our society that there exists a right to choose which is unlimited or unconstrained by rights ascribed to the unborn.

volchitsa wrote: »

And we're back to what I said pages back, which is that the default value in western society is that the individual's rights take precedence unless there is actual evidence that significant harm is caused to others (and in many cases, not even then, or alcohol would be banned, for one thing.)

You do seem to find yourself coming back to the same point without surmounting the same hurdle; you seem unable to justify why the individual right you want to take precedence, an individuals right to choose, should have any more value than an individuals right to life.
You've understandably tried to wriggle from 'the default view of our society', to 'the default view of societies other than Ireland, Paraguay and quasi theocracies' and finally the 'default value in Western society', but the thing is, pretty much no society (including ours) takes the default view that an individuals right to choose is more significant or justifiable than an individuals right to life; arguably most societies choose to place minimal restrictions on an individuals right to life, to the point of creating obligations on others to preserve an individuals life, whereas the right to choose is subject to myriad restrictions.

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

. . . And we're back to what I said pages back, which is that the default value in western society is that the individual's rights take precedence unless there is actual evidence that significant harm is caused to others (and in many cases, not even then, or alcohol would be banned, for one thing.)

There's obviously signficant harm to the foetus - it is destroyed; it is killed. The question is whether the foetus is an "other" whose rights or interests are deserving of respect, protection, whatever. You say no; others say yes. Both positions are philosophical positions which are completely unevidenced. On your own statements, neither has any claim to be reflected in the law. Yet you demand that yours should be. And I'm still waiting for you to explain this apparent contradiction.

You can't justify it with an appeal to the rights of the mother, since that too is a philosiphical claim which is unsupported by evidence. You try to ge4t around this problem by saying that the "right to choose" is the "default position". You don't really explain what you mean by "default position", and as far as I can see it doesn't mean anything beyond "lots of people accept it". But so what? Your own claim is that unevidenced philosophical positions should be dismissed, and popularity is not evidence.

alaimacerc

Absolam wrote: »

You do seem to find yourself coming back to the same point without surmounting the same hurdle; you seem unable to justify why the individual right you want to take precedence, an individuals right to choose, should have any more value than an individuals right to life.
You've understandably tried to wriggle from 'the default view of our society', to 'the default view of societies other than Ireland, Paraguay and quasi theocracies' and finally the 'default value in Western society', but the thing is, pretty much no society (including ours) takes the default view that an individuals right to choose is more significant or justifiable than an individuals right to life; arguably most societies choose to place minimal restrictions on an individuals right to life, to the point of creating obligations on others to preserve an individuals life, whereas the right to choose is subject to myriad restrictions.

Well, on the the subject of unsurrmounted hurdles and long-standing wriggling...

What polity has ever regarded foetuses and "the born" (as we have to call natural persons on this thread, apparently) as equivalent entities, as you imply in your choice of equivalent terminology here?

What theory of biology, come to that, regards as "individuals" zygotes and early embryos, prior to the point where individuation as separate entities in any sense has definitively occurred?

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

Well, on the the subject of unsurrmounted hurdles and long-standing wriggling... What polity has ever regarded foetuses and "the born" (as we have to call natural persons on this thread, apparently) as equivalent entities, as you imply in your choice of equivalent terminology here?

Is that a hurdle that has gone unnsurmounted before? It seems unlikely, nor can I imagine there'd be much in the way of wriggling since a little thought would seem to provide a reasonably straightforward answer. The current Constitution (if you want to call that the expression of a polity) ascribes an equal (which I think qualifies as equivalent) right to life to a foetus and its mother (who I think would qualify as a born person), so insofar as that particular portion of the foundation document for our polity goes, it does a pretty good job of appearing to regard them as equivalent entities.
Which is not to say that I'm claiming that a foetus and a (natural or unnatural) born person must therefore be treated equivalently in all respects; only that rights based arguments put forward on their behalf based on philosophical positions have equivalent foundation in fact.

alaimacerc wrote: »

What theory of biology, come to that, regards as "individuals" zygotes and early embryos, prior to the point where individuation as separate entities in any sense has definitively occurred?

I'm aware that biology might be regarded as natural philosophy, but I didn't actually put forward a biological argument for when a nascent human becomes a biological individual.
Considering that it is an entity with a unique dna sequence, in that sense individuation has definitively occured: there is no other creature we're aware of in the universe that's the same. And for the sake of potential pedantry, even in the case of multiple individuals from a single zygote they can be readily distinguished from one another by the simple fact they occupy different spaces at the same time, so one is manifestly not the other.

volchitsa

I think careful reading of your own posts is required from you. This isn't the first time you've got into an argument stemming from your own inaccuracy with words.

I've already said that sperm and eggs are human. A fingernail is human. So your question about what time the fetus "becomes" human is nonsensical. It was human from before it was formed, because it came from living human components. also alive and human.

So perhaps you need to rephrase your question, if you really have one.