Abortion Discussion

aidan24326

Pherekydes wrote: »

Did you, as you are now, come into being at the moment of conception? What makes you you? Surely you're a collection of memories, experiences, learning and so on, that you collect throughout your life? We are all born as blank slates. We have to learn everything.

At conception, your gender isn't even set. At conception, you are not yet you.

I appreciate all of that and I did say that I know 'I' didn't come into being at the moment of conception. However, if we consider a life to be a continuous process from the point of conception to the moment of death, which I think is reasonable, then any attempt to draw lines in that process is fraught with problems due to the fact that you're trying to impose arbitrary discontinuities on an absolutely continuous process.

Pherekydes wrote: »

My own position is that abortion should be up to the woman. The individual woman.

Agreed. Ultimately it has to be her choice, though the dad's feelings have to come into it too insofar as you'd hope he was included in the decision making process.

Bannasidhe

mbiking123 wrote: »

so therefore with that view an abortion one day before delivery is ok

Oh stop.
Just stop.

Where did I say that?

I didn't. This is just you going to the dramatic emotive place rather than actually respond with a reasoned counter- argument.

Is a normally developed fetus capable of independent thought the day before birth? Yes, it is.

Is a 4 week old embryo capable of independent thought - no, it bloody well is not so how about you address the point I made and leave your emotive BS outside.

Sarky

aidan24326 wrote: »

However, if we consider a life to be a continuous process from the point of conception to the moment of death, which I think is reasonable,

There's a problem with that, as the sperm and the egg which fused were every bit as alive before joining as they were afterwards. No discontinuity before conception as far as life is concerned.

mbiking123

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Oh stop.
Just stop.

- no, it bloody well is not so how about you address the point I made and leave your emotive BS outside.

ooooooooooh - it's a Thursday, not a Monday morning- keep your hat on

Bannasidhe

mbiking123 wrote: »

The question was post abortion up to 2 years of age. Are you really saying it should be up to the woman ? I think possibly some crossed lines here !

More emotive BS.

Are you talking about an already born two year old?

That would be infanticide not 'abortion' because that particular pregnancy would already have been 'aborted' due to birth having occurred.

Who here has advocated infanticide?

Bannasidhe

mbiking123 wrote: »

ooooooooooh - it's a Thursday, not a Monday morning- keep your hat on

How about you debating the points I actually made rather than spouting emotive hyperbole?

Sarky

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Who here has advocated infanticide?

Didn't mbiking123 do that a while ago? Something about AK-47s and acceptable sacrifices for the greater good...

mbiking123

Sarky wrote: »

Didn't mbiking123 do that a while ago? Something about AK-47s and acceptable sacrifices for the greater good...

Mod dealt with that - something about the way to prove I was a pro-lifers was to shoot people at abortion clinics,

getting smart again Sarky

mbiking123

Bannasidhe wrote: »

spouting emotive hyperbole?

funny

pauldla

mbiking123 wrote: »

Mod dealt with that - something about the way to prove I was a pro-lifers was to shoot people at abortion clinics,

getting smart again Sarky

Was that it? Or was it a quip about being for the greater good?

Sarky

mbiking123 wrote: »

getting smart again Sarky

Someone has to. Lord knows you haven't tried.

Turtwig

pauldla wrote: »

Was that it? Or was it a quip about being for the greater good?

It's in the past. Water under the bridge and move on.
Sarky, cut out those petty snipes!

aidan24326

Sarky wrote: »

Brain activity can be measured. So can the level of connectivity within the brain. We've established when a foetus brain undergoes a rush of increasing the connections between cells (synaptogenesis, I believe it's called), and when it's finally complicated enough to be called a life. Without those connections, all you have is a lump of wobbly grey matter that's as much a person as the liver or pancreas it shares a body with.

Now there's no hard and fast timeframe for this to occur, it happens slower for some embryos, faster for others, and when you give or take a few days on nailing down exactly when conception occurred, you have a week or two window where this growth spurt happens. And even during the growth spurt there's no one point from non-person to person. Life just doesn't work in the black and white spectrum people so often want it to.

But it's a much more thought-out point than "life begins at conception".

I appreciate your informative and interesting reply, but I wasn't implying that I think 'life' in the sense of personhood begins at conception, just that we shouldn't discount what an incredibly important event that was in the history of any person's life. Without conception everything else is irrelevant.

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Define 'normal' life?

In Ireland this is not taken into consideration when discussing abortion - if it were there would not be a case on the way to the UN now would there?

In the context of how I said it, I simply meant sentient, conscious, some degree of quality of life, that sort of thing. Normal isn't a good word to use admittedly. And I don't know about the UN case you speak of?

Bit of a developmental leap between a 4 week embryo and a 6 month fetus - who here has advocated termination of a 6 moth pregnancy unless the fetus has no chance of living what you call a 'normal' life - so what is the difference between them and the 'brain dead' person on life support?

I appreciate the developmental leap, I was just pointing out that it's a continuous process, albeit not a smooth linear process as Sarky pointed out.

Neither will ever be sentient and both will be utterly dependent their whole existence so Why 'protect' the life of one, but not the other?

For what it's worth I don't agree with protecting the life of someone who is braindead as they no longer have a life in the qualitative sense, and I also don't agree with protecting the life of an ambryo at all costs, I believe that ultimately it's the mother's decision and I wouldn't criticize anyone for making what is a difficult and sometimes necessary decision.

mbiking123

pauldla wrote: »

Was that it? Or was it a quip about being for the greater good?

it was a quote from Southpark, it was quoted as being from the bible but in reality it was from Star Trek(in Southpark). With this being an Atheist forum I though someone might have found it funny. - mixing up bible with fiction

Anyway it was above everybody's head, but a good reply to what was a stupid statement

pauldla

mbiking123 wrote: »

it was a quote from Southpark, it was quoted as being from the bible but in reality it was from Star Trek(in Southpark). With this being an Atheist forum I though someone might have found it funny. - mixing up bible with fiction

Anyway it was above everybody's head, but a good reply to what was a stupid statement

I see.

You answered that question quick enough. :P

mbiking123

Sarky wrote: »

Lord knows you haven't tried.

as they would say in the UK, incitement to religious hatred. Using the 'Lord' in such a manner

Pherekydes

mbiking123 wrote: »

as they would say in the UK, incitement to religious hatred. Using the 'Lord' in such a manner

Puerile nonsense. Incitement to religious hatred would be something like "Burn the papists" of that well known Christian, Ian Paisley.

Turtwig

Mod: Incitement to hatred/Blasphemy pedantry belong in another thread. :pac:

gaynorvader

For those claiming the difference between pulling the plug on someone that has no brain activity and abortion of a foetus before it develops activity is that the foetus has the possibility of getting brain function, I think you're rather missing the point:

The foetus is reliant on the biological life support of the womb in the same way that the brain dead patient (hereafter referred to as bdp) is reliant on the mechanical life support of the hospital.
The foetus will probably gain brain activity if it is kept on this life support for long enough.
The bdp, equally, will probably gain brain activity if kept on life support for long enough, particularly if new advances find a way to reverse what happened to him/her. The world is awash with stories of bdp's whose loved ones were about to pull the plug when they 'miraculously' regained brain activity.
The only difference is the relative chance and time it might take between the two. To which I might ask a hypothetical:

Is it morally right to point a six cylinder revolver with one bullet in its chamber at a toddlers head and pull the trigger? What about a million cylinder revolver?

I'd say no to either of the above myself.

Bannasidhe

aidan24326 wrote: »

In the context of how I said it, I simply meant sentient, conscious, some degree of quality of life, that sort of thing. Normal isn't a good word to use admittedly. And I don't know about the UN case you speak of?

Abortion is expected to be back in the spotlight in the coming months, when the UN will hear a case on behalf of women carrying babies with no chance of survival outside the womb.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/fatal-abnormality-case-puts-abortion-back-in-spotlight-240972.html

What is the difference between some one who is legally 'brain dead' on life support and a fetus that has no chance of survival outside the womb?

Well, in Ireland the life of only one of those is 'protected' which means the 'unprotected' one can die in a hospital surrounded by their loved ones who can bury them with dignity while the 'protected' one has their

corpse back in the boot of their car to bury in Ireland, or have the ashes of their deceased baby delivered by couriers.

.

One is 'alive' and one is 'dead' but both are medically considered to have zero chance of fitting your ' sentient, conscious, some degree of quality of life, that sort of thing.'

So, why aren't pro- birthers campaigning on behalf of the already born 'brain dead' seeing as they are so committed to ensuring the unborn 'brain dead' are carried to term?

Turtwig

Jernal wrote: »

Mod: Incitement to hatred/Blasphemy pedantry belong in another thread. :pac:

*Cough*

mbiking123

Jernal wrote: »

*Cough*

Ok, enough said

Brian Shanahan

robindch wrote: »

Well, again to return to the "pro-life" position, when an ethical decision is declared that "life" begins at the point of conception or some time soon after that, then while the "life" of the foetus obviously depends on the life of the potential-mother-to-be, nonetheless, it's an easy ethical choice to decide that the "life" of the foetus and the life of the potential-mother-to-be are equally worth preserving - in such a case, it's easy to see why somebody might think that the emotions of the mother must take second place to the existence of the foetus.

The problem with this position is that those who argue this way are arguing from a scientifically and logically untenable position. And for most of its history the catholic church knew this, and allowed abortion to 16 1/2 weeks.

It is interesting to note that the catholic church's blanket ban on abortion coincides with the codification of papal infallibility. It is an issue for the church, not of morality but of hierarchical control.

mbiking123

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

The problem with this position is that those who argue this way are arguing from a scientifically and logically untenable position. And for most of its history the catholic church knew this, and allowed abortion to 16 1/2 weeks.

It is interesting to note that the catholic church's blanket ban on abortion coincides with the codification of papal infallibility. It is an issue for the church, not of morality but of hierarchical control.

Interesting when women who are pregnant refer to the unborn as their baby, is my baby a boy or girl etc. never referred to as a clump of cells. Will my clump of cells be a boy or a girl, will the foetus be a boy or girl. A woman refers to it as her baby, that's what she calls it cause that's what it is

Something to think about

_rebelkid

mbiking123 wrote: »

Interesting when women who are pregnant refer to the unborn as their baby, is my baby a boy or girl etc. never referred to as a clump of cells. Will my clump of cells be a boy or a girl, will the foetus be a boy or girl. A woman refers to it as her baby, that's what she calls it cause that's what it is

Something to think about

Not really. Saying something is "my baby" is a colloquialism. People don't often use medical or technical terms to describe things, rather they use a name for it.
Saying something is a baby does not define it as something it's not. A "baby" is always a cell cluster, but a cell cluster is not always a "baby".

My baby=My Cell Cluster.

aidan24326

Bannasidhe wrote: »

So, why aren't pro- birthers campaigning on behalf of the already born 'brain dead' seeing as they are so committed to enduring the unborn 'brain dead' are carried to term?

I don't know Bannasidhe, you'd have to ask them, though I wouldn't be expecting a cogent answer.

Most involved in the so-called pro-life movement are just pushing a narrow-minded agenda and some of them are actually a bit unhinged. I went to school with a girl who is/was active in Youth Defence (she was on the LLS a few years ago) and she is a fcuking lunatic. I'm not kiddiing. Yet her and her ilk get given airtime in the national media to spout their nonsense?

gaynorvader

mbiking123 wrote: »

Interesting when women who are pregnant refer to the unborn as their baby, is my baby a boy or girl etc. never referred to as a clump of cells. Will my clump of cells be a boy or a girl, will the foetus be a boy or girl. A woman refers to it as her baby, that's what she calls it cause that's what it is

Something to think about

Actually completely and utterly irrelevant. People refer to Pluto as a planet. It's not. People refer to Europe as a country. It's not. People can attach labels to anything they like, it has no bearing on reality.

Bannasidhe

mbiking123 wrote: »

Interesting when women who are pregnant refer to the unborn as their baby, is my baby a boy or girl etc. never referred to as a clump of cells. Will my clump of cells be a boy or a girl, will the foetus be a boy or girl. A woman refers to it as her baby, that's what she calls it cause that's what it is

Something to think about

My dog's vet always referred to her 'puppy'.

Does that mean she now has the French bulldog she was hoping for or the baby girl she actually gave birth to?

mbiking123

_rebelkid wrote: »

Not really. Saying something is "my baby" is a colloquialism. People don't often use medical or technical terms to describe things, rather they use a name for it.
Saying something is a baby does not define it as something it's not. A "baby" is always a cell cluster, but a cell cluster is not always a "baby".

My baby=My Cell Cluster.

yes and your body is your cell cluster or put it another way

'Almost 99% of the mass of the human body is made up of the six elements oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus'

So that all that you are,

what wrong with destroying oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, calcium, and phosphorus unless it's a person

mbiking123

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My dog's vet always referred to her 'puppy'.

Does that mean she now has the French bulldog she was hoping for or the baby girl she actually gave birth to?

What was she up to ?