Abortion Discussion

recedite

3 days old is also an arbitrary point.

robindch

recedite wrote: »

3 days old is also an arbitrary point.

Any point chosen during pregnancy is arbitrary, whether it's a date of three days after conception or three days before birth.

obplayer

recedite wrote: »

3 days old is also an arbitrary point.

So are you saying that a blob of 150 cells should be given the same rights as a new born baby?

ILikeBananas

Is it telling that all of the posters who posted in the beginning of this thread have subsequently been banned?

Shrap

ILikeBananas wrote: »

Is it telling that all of the posters who posted in the beginning of this thread have subsequently been banned?

Nope. And this wasn't the first thread on the topic by any means. The first ban on this thread was a long time coming for that particular poster. The rest are mostly closed accounts as people drop off by the wayside. I myself don't get involved here much any more and before this account, I had a different name and used to talk on this subject every day. So no, sorry. It's just Boards for ya.

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

Bodily autonomy of the mother is an important right, which may conflict with the right to bodily autonomy of the unborn.

What "right to bodily autonomy of the unborn"? I'm not aware of any finding there's any such in Irish law. Or are you speaking here merely figuratively and aspirationally about "rights", as pro-choice posters are regularly scolded for doing?

But you have given no reason why the right to bodily autonomy of a human only starts at the magical moment it is removed from the womb.
Its an arbitrary choice then, except that it does suit a particular agenda.
It gives the illusion of removing the conflict between the two sets of competing rights, and thereby makes everything seem simple.

Given that you're back to taking as axiomatic foetal personhood, something there's absolutely no legal basis for anywhere, I think the "agenda-suiting illusions" lie elsewhere.

Of the various possible points at which to assign personhood, "not nested inside another person and automatically imposing a uniquely strong and particular duty of care on that other" seems both the least arbitrary, and the least inherently problematic.

Rights are decided by politics and the law. You can assign what are in effect quasi-rights to quasi-persons, which inherently conflict with established rights of those with definitive full personhood... The phrase "rod for own back" springs to mind, however.

Absolam

obplayer wrote: »

A 3 day old foetus has 150 cells (a fly's brain contains 100,000). Is a 3 day old foetus deserving of the same rights as a new born baby? Is a foetus which has not yet developed a nervous system? These are not arbitrary points, they are determined by biology and science.

I don't think anyone is putting forward the notion that a 3 day old foetus should have the same rights as a new born baby though? No more than anyone is suggesting that a new born baby should have the same rights as an adult.
As it stands we confer various rights on people at various points in their life; the first one being the right to life, conferred (for now) at the point of implantation. Which is, per my point below, as arbitrary as any other point from a certain point of view, particularly from a point of view that finds it inconveniently early.
The other points which you've set out are certainly not arbitrary points in and of themselves, but they are as arbitrary as any other points for one to decide at these points human life has it's beginning; if they were any of them absolutely the point at which human life begins, as determined by biology and science, then there would be no debate.

obplayer wrote: »

In theory any human cell can, with modern technology, be turned into a new born baby so every time you scratch your ar*e you are committing genocide.

Do you think anyone actually holds that position though? I doubt it, personally.

Absolam

alaimacerc wrote: »

Given that you're back to taking as axiomatic foetal personhood, something there's absolutely no legal basis for anywhere, I think the "agenda-suiting illusions" lie elsewhere.

There is a Constitutional basis for it though; the right to life of the unborn is clearly enumerated as a personal right. And since all law derives authority from the Constitution, I think it's fair to say there is a perfectly legal basis for foetal personhood.

alaimacerc wrote: »

Of the various possible points at which to assign personhood, "not nested inside another person and automatically imposing a uniquely strong and particular duty of care on that other" seems both the least arbitrary, and the least inherently problematic.

Seems no less arbitrary than the point we currently observe though, which has the additional advantage of avoiding the problem of killing people by aborting them

Brian Shanahan

recedite wrote: »

Just pointing out that one arbitrary point in time is as good (or as bad) as another.

My question is still unanswered, probably because there is no reasonably moral or rational answer.

obplayer

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

My question is still unanswered, probably because there is no reasonably moral or rational answer.

As is my question.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96394698&postcount=9184

recedite

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

My question is still unanswered, probably because there is no reasonably moral or rational answer.

What was the question again?

obplayer wrote: »

As is my question.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=96394698&postcount=9184

The answer to that is no, of course not.

obplayer

recedite wrote: »

What was the question again?


The answer to that is no, of course not.

Ok, should that 150 cells be given the same rights as the woman who is hosting them? As per the eighth amendment?

Two Sheds

obplayer wrote: »

So are you saying that a blob of 150 cells should be given the same rights as a new born baby?

You show a marked ignorance of the concept of fundamental human rights.

Fundamental human rights are not given or received; they are possessed by virtue of being human.

It is for you to recognise them, if only for your own sake - that you might understand what it means to be human.

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

You show a marked ignorance of the concept of fundamental human rights.

Fundamental human rights are not given or received; they are possessed by virtue of being human.

It is for you to recognise them, if only for your own sake - that you might understand what it means to be human.

By "given" it is meant when that blob of cells can be identified as a separate entity from the mother, at a minimum. This point is debated often but no clear time has been agreed.

Two Sheds

robdonn wrote: »

By "given" it is meant when that blob of cells can be identified as a separate entity from the mother, at a minimum. This point is debated often but no clear time has been agreed.

You mean human being?

Two Sheds

Just so we all know what we're talking about -

obplayer

Two Sheds wrote: »

You show a marked ignorance of the concept of fundamental human rights.

Fundamental human rights are not given or received; they are possessed by virtue of being human.

It is for you to recognise them, if only for your own sake - that you might understand what it means to be human.

So, and I find it amazing that I have to ask this, you class 150 cells as equal or equivalent to a fully developed human being?
What do you do when you scratch your nose? Cry for weeks at the genocide you have just perpetrated?

Two Sheds

obplayer wrote: »

So, and I find it amazing that I have to ask this, you class 150 cells as equal or equivalent to a fully developed human being?
What do you do when you scratch your nose? Cry for weeks at the genocide you have just perpetrated?

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

You mean human being?

No, I mean what I said.

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

Just so we all know what we're talking about -

The very first technique that she shows, which is the most graphic and put there to shock viewers, is even admitted by her that it is not used! It's banned in the US and is never used in the U.K. unless in an emergency situation where the mother's life is at risk.

Absolam

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

My question is still unanswered, probably because there is no reasonably moral or rational answer.

obplayer wrote: »

As is my question.

Ohh.. mine too! Mine too!

Though... I answered obplayers question

Two Sheds

robdonn wrote: »

The very first technique that she shows, which is the most graphic and put there to shock viewers, is even admitted by her that it is not used! It's banned in the US and is never used in the U.K. unless in an emergency situation where the mother's life is at risk.

Have you been paying attention?

Part of the controversy over Planned Parenthood is that one of its top doctors has strongly alluded to the procedure being used in order to harvest intact organs.

Look it up.

In any case, when it was legal in the US, it attracted support from the same people who still support abortion.
As the video points out, it's only a matter of location.

robdonn

Two Sheds wrote: »

Have you been paying attention?

Part of the controversy over Planned Parenthood is that one of its top doctors has strongly alluded to the procedure being used in order to harvest intact organs.

Look it up.

No, you look it up and link it. I am not in the position of making your arguments for you, so either provide evidence to support your claim or it will be dismissed as simply assertion, rumour or lies.

Evidence

The available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid:

Two Sheds wrote: »

In any case, when it was legal in the US, it attracted support from the same people who still support abortion.
As the video points out, it's only a matter of location.

And the fact is that whether you are in the UK or US, it is not used.

robindch

Mod: ^^^ Folks, dial all that upthread aggro right back please.

Thanking you

antiskeptic

robdonn wrote: »

By "given" it is meant when that blob of cells can be identified as a separate entity from the mother,

What is the mother but a blob of cells? The difference in how the two blobs are viewed. What is it, in your opinion that levels (or should level) value onto one blob of human cells and not another blob of human cells?


William Reville, in response to a utilitarian argument posed in an opinion piece in the IT a few days ago pointed to the continuum of life which starts at conception and will of it's own internal accord (failing accident, disease, abortion, etc) progress to a natural end in old age. If deciding to artificially interrupt that natural continuum then you have to decide on what basis you are going to do that.

So, I'm looking for the specific value assigned to one blob and not the other such as to permit artificial interruption in the one case and not in the other. What it is about human life that should disallow us to terminate it, for utility reasons, whenever we decide?

To my mind the reason is potential for human expression - value assigned by us to it because it is something common to us all (you can hardly deny another expression of their potential without pulling the rug out under the right for you to express your own potential). And expression of human potential is something that is future based. If you decide that future potential can be wiped out in one case then why not all cases?

volchitsa

antiskeptic wrote: »

What is the mother but a blob of cells? The difference in how the two blobs are viewed. What is it, in your opinion that levels (or should level) value onto one blob of human cells and not another blob of human cells?

That's easy actually. A functioning brain leading to consciousness, awareness, the capacity to have wishes and make choices.

Because your assertion that any blob of human cells is equal to any other blob, so long as it is human, means we can't ethically excise cancer tumours. Is that really what you're claiming?

antiskeptic wrote: »

William Reville, in response to a utilitarian argument posed in an opinion piece in the IT a few days ago pointed to the continuum of life which starts at conception and will of it's own internal accord (failing accident, disease, abortion, etc) progress to a natural end in old age. If deciding to artificially interrupt that natural continuum then you have to decide on what basis you are going to do that.

Well, the thing is that pregnancy is so unique in that regard that you can't reasonably extrapolate either from it or to it using other common human situations as a guide.

It's closer to having a human being on life support than it is to any other human state, and the idea of forcing one human to serve as life support for another against their will would normally be utterly repugnant to us. It's even controversial to exploit dead humans against the will of their families, never mind live ones.

antiskeptic wrote: »

So, I'm looking for the specific value assigned to one blob and not the other such as to permit artificial interruption in the one case and not in the other. What it is about human life that should disallow us to terminate it, for utility reasons, whenever we decide?

No, not whenever we decide. The only claim being made by pro-choice people is that the degree of dependency of the embryo/fetus on the woman carrying it is so enormous, and so entirely one-directional, with no benefit for her, but potential for major harm, that she - and she alone - should have some degree of choice to end that pregnancy if she decides.

antiskeptic wrote: »

To my mind the reason is potential for human expression - value assigned by us to it because it is something common to us all (you can hardly deny another expression of their potential without pulling the rug out under the right for you to express your own potential). And expression of human potential is something that is future based. If you decide that future potential can be wiped out in one case then why not all cases?

This is nonsense. If by potential you mean potential life, then sperm is also potential life. That argument is still made by the Catholic Church of course, but it has been roundly defeated, even among their own members. No-one believes that any more.

OTOH, if you mean "potential" as in the possibility for an existing person to reach one's fullest potential, then:
- 1) there must first be an existing person, and
- 2) the reality is that that possibility is constantly denied to many, for all sorts of reasons, particularly financial ones. A child born to a poor family will statistically do less well than one born in a wealthy family, yet our "efforts" to ensure the potential of poor children is fully realized are patchy, to say the least. A child with a disability needs help to reach its full potential, yet we are reducing aid to them, for purely financial reasons.
So let's not be hypocritical about it. "Pro-life" activists don't give a damn about the potential of the children they insist must be born no matter what their life chances, all they really want is forced birth, nothing more.

Two Sheds

antiskeptic wrote: »

What is the mother but a blob of cells? The difference in how the two blobs are viewed. What is it, in your opinion that levels (or should level) value onto one blob of human cells and not another blob of human cells?


William Reville, in response to a utilitarian argument posed in an opinion piece in the IT a few days ago pointed to the continuum of life which starts at conception and will of it's own internal accord (failing accident, disease, abortion, etc) progress to a natural end in old age. If deciding to artificially interrupt that natural continuum then you have to decide on what basis you are going to do that.

So, I'm looking for the specific value assigned to one blob and not the other such as to permit artificial interruption in the one case and not in the other. What it is about human life that should disallow us to terminate it, for utility reasons, whenever we decide?

To my mind the reason is potential for human expression - value assigned by us to it because it is something common to us all (you can hardly deny another expression of their potential without pulling the rug out under the right for you to express your own potential). And expression of human potential is something that is future based. If you decide that future potential can be wiped out in one case then why not all cases?

We shouldn't value any human life on the basis of its potential since that gives us an excuse for eliminating any life following a subjective assessment - 'life unworthy of life'.
We must say that human life is valuable, is worth living and is allowed to exist. After all, our potential is an abstract and nobody really knows what the future holds.

That's why a human life at its smallest and most vulnerable stage is no less valuable than at any other.

Two Sheds

Two Sheds wrote: »

We shouldn't value any human life on the basis of its potential since that gives us an excuse for eliminating any life following a subjective assessment - 'life unworthy of life'.
We must say that human life is valuable, is worth living and is allowed to exist. After all, our potential is an abstract and nobody really knows what the future holds.

That's why a human life at its smallest and most vulnerable stage is no less valuable than at any other.

What is the smallest and most vulnerable stage of human life that you value equally to yourself?

Dan_Solo

Deleted User wrote: »

What is the smallest and most vulnerable stage of human life that you value equally to yourself?

In fairness, nobody on the pro-choice side wants to answer this question either. At least the hardline pro-lifers have picked an actual point, not that I agree with them.

Dan_Solo

Dan_Solo wrote: »

In fairness, nobody on the pro-choice side wants to answer this question either. At least the hardline pro-lifers have picked an actual point, not that I agree with them.

I'm happy enough to tell people that I don't value anyone equally to myself actually.

I'm quite the person.