Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

antiskeptic

aloyisious wrote: »

With your reference to faith, do you mean religious faith-based belief or a faith in science?

It's not so much "faith in Science". I myself have faith that science understands how the mechanism of, e.g. pain works and if science says an abortion doesn't cause pain at x weeks because the mechanism for pain transmission hasn't yet developed, then I believe it.

It's faith that Science is the appropriate commentator on what constitutes human that the trouble comes from. Science can describe some aspects of what it is to be human, but one can't suppose that the full ( or even most significant part) of what it is to be human can be determined by science.

We revert then to philosophy - something in you which decides to ascribe wholesale authority to science.

One's philosophy is a matter of faith. There is no proving it right or wrong. And so all that derived from that philosophy belongs to the realm of faith.

The science can be sound. But if the foundations faith, then the structure upon it is too

Cos it's important to tie down what you are referencing in regard to your use of the word "FAITH".

If you mean religious faith, you may want to recall that the main religious faith-belief of this country has faith and trust in the medical branch of science. If you mean faith in medical science, you might need to heed that faith's belief in medical science and make it clear what you mean. At the moment it is obvious that you are using words to avoid giving sensible replies, just stringing people out.

Hopefully the above clarifies

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

I myself have faith that science understands how the mechanism of pain works and if it says an abortion doesnt cause pain at x weeks because the mechanism for pain transmission hasn't yet developed, then I believe it.

Depending on what stage the fetus is at during abortion our science does not just comment on the infancy of the mechanisms by which pain is transferred.......... but on the non-existence of a target to transfer it to.

So we would not just be saying " an abortion doesnt cause pain at x weeks" so much as we are also saying "there is no one there to even cause pain to at x weeks".

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's faith that Science is the appropriate commentator on what constitutes human.

More correctly I think we can decide ourselves as a species what constitutes human and then our Science can be used to measure if a given entity meets that definition.

For example if we think a human person must at the very least be conscious/sentient then our science very much shows us that a 12 week old fetus is not a human person at all. It simply does not meet the definition.

We can be open to other definitions that meaningfully define "human" in a way that is A) relevant to the abortion discussion and distinguishes "human" from other flora and fauna on the planet......... but I am not seeing a definition being offered yet that achieves those two criteria.

Rather what we do see is the move of using the biological taxonomy to establish the definition of "Human" for the fetus, into which people then import
retrospectively the implications of entirely other definitions of the word "Human".

And in any discussion that move is as dishonest as it is deranging to the conversation.

antiskeptic wrote: »

One's philosophy is a matter of faith. There is no proving it right or wrong. And so all that derived from that philosophy belongs to the realm of faith.

As I said yesterday I am not sure describing the defining of terms as being the correct use of the label "Faith". I can offer a definition for the meaning of the word "hole". It does not require faith to subscribe to that definition or agree with it or make it. The label "hole" is merely descriptive and nothing more.

Similarly I do not think offering definitions of the word "Human" requires faith. Especially if the definitions offered are grounded in actual observable and measurable differences between the thing defined, and everything else.

recedite

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

In Taxonomy it is "human" all the way down. It is simply one stage of the human life cycle. No stage in a biological cycle of humanity can be "more" or "less" human than any other. Something is either a stage in the human life cycle, or it is not. A fetus is. You are. I am. In terms of the underlying biology none of it is more or less human than anything else.

Finally we agree!
Only for you to go and spoil it all...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But it is not Taxonomy that we predicate morality on. Nor should it be.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not seeing a distinction there between your two. In both cases you are describing a system that takes sensory input and responds to it.

You're not seeing a difference between the earthworm and the android? Well, the worm is sentient, but we don't ascribe any particular rights to it. The android is also assumed to be sentient (science fiction, remember) but is also humanoid and so the ethical question posed is whether the android would have human rights.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yet for no reason you have offered to date you assume that just because that potential exists in a meat-platform..... one specifically predicated on Human DNA..... we do.

Why such a long-winded definition for this organism when you could just say "a human being"?
Is it so hard to describe a foetus as such?

So in THIS context I think the differentiation has to lie in the fact that human consciousness and sentience is the source of, arbiter of, and mostly the target of concepts like rights, morality and ethics. There are some science findings showing very low levels of these in creatures like apes but for the most part it is true to say we are the sole source and target of it...It is solely us, not any other animal it seems, and certainly not the universe itself, that holds concepts of "Value".

Sorry, I can't let you off so easily. Either there is some qualitative difference or there is not. Humans can't be "the sole source" "for the most part". That's an oxymoron.
If the taxonomic classification is so unimportant, then what is?

If people want to know what I "dismiss" things (if in fact I even did "dismiss" them rather than deal with them directly) they mind find it more useful to ask ME if and why I did it, rather than allow you to invent motivations for doing so on my behalf.

But you did say...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But it is not Taxonomy that we predicate morality on. Nor should it be.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Which brings us back to NIMBYism. You are perfectly happy to control choice when it is on this Ireland, but just throw up your arms when the person leaves. If you found out that someone was travelling tomorrow abroad to kill their 2 year old toddler, would you just throw up your arms and say nothing can be done because you can't realistically control their choice?

The fear of increased abortion rates is a motivation that circumvents nimbyism

Whether thats a valid fear or not is a different issue.

More scaremongering. Teen pregnancies are counted the same way in Ireland and the UK - by births to teen mothers. So if we don't count those who get abortions here and neither does the UK, then the teen pregnancy numbers I provided can be directly compared.
Look, we can still factor them in and it won't change anything:
Ireland female population aged 15-19: 137196
Irish Abortions in UK for under 19 and under: 240
rate=1.75/1000
So even factoring in Irish teens who travel for abortion in Irish teen pregnancies numbers we get 9.55/1000. Even without doing the same for UK numbers that is still less than half the UK's rate.

Sweden has one of the lowest teen pregancy rates yet very high abortion rates. So lets leave that as a driver for the moment

That still doesn't make any financial sense. Financially, the best thing to do is nothing, keep letting women travel and them/UK take the bill.
Do you have any sources or numbers to this financial claim, or is this something else pulled from the air?

Politically there is a drive to bring abortion home. Once having decided to do something politically, you cant deny that of all the options this is a cheap one. Now is it that the option chosen, once feeling something need be done politically, is chosen because it's the cheap one? That you know to approach the matter by way of prevention of crisis isn't going to actually happen?

I know that rests on the assumption that the status quo re expenditure on prevention and non aborting approach to crisis remains the same. But Im not confident of change.

Perhaps you'd like to pick up on the discussion with overheal and see what you make of my fear? It revolves around a fairly spectacular increase in the number of abortions registered in the UK after abortion was liberalised there.

Latest post here:

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=107073292&postcount=631


Data table here:

http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/ab-unitedkingdom.html

antiskeptic

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Depending on what stage the fetus is at during abortion our science does not just comment on the infancy of the mechanisms by which pain is transferred.......... but on the non-existence of a target to transfer it to.

So we would not just be saying " an abortion doesnt cause pain at x weeks" so much as we are also saying "there is no one there to even cause pain to at x weeks".

I'm not sure how you get from "no target" (mechanical system to receive a pain impulse) to "no one". The former is a scientific statement, the latter a philosophical one.


Faith?

More correctly I think we can decide ourselves as a species what constitutes human and then our Science can be used to measure if a given entity meets that definition.

For example if we think a human person must at the very least be conscious/sentient then our science very much shows us that a 12 week old fetus is not a human person at all. It simply does not meet the definition.

We can indeed decide. But the decision derives from the philosophy: I mean, why would you chose to measure with a scientific instrument if you hadnt already decided that a science was the appropriate way to measure the fullness of what constitutes a human being?

We can be open to other definitions that meaningfully define "human" in a way that is A) relevant to the abortion discussion and distinguishes "human" from other flora and fauna on the planet......... but I am not seeing a definition being offered yet that achieves those two criteria.

Surely what you find meaningful will be referenced to the philosophy you believe in?

If meaningless and unconvincing (for you, subjective) then not meaningful in an objective sense?

Rather what we do see is the move of using the biological taxonomy to establish the definition of "Human" for the fetus, into which people then import
retrospectively the implications of entirely other definitions of the word "Human".

And in any discussion that move is as dishonest as it is deranging to the conversation.

But you do the same in the reverse. You start out with your faith definitions, show the foetus doesnt match up scientifically and job done. Its understandable (if you don't understand that you are starting from a faith position). Not dishonest.

As I said yesterday I am not sure describing the defining of terms as being the correct use of the label "Faith". I can offer a definition for the meaning of the word "hole". It does not require faith to subscribe to that definition or agree with it or make it. The label "hole" is merely descriptive and nothing more.

Similarly I do not think offering definitions of the word "Human" requires faith. Especially if the definitions offered are grounded in actual observable and measurable differences between the thing defined, and everything else.

I was thinking of things that derive from a philosophy. The philosophy is faith based. The evidential findings are fed back into the philosophy and projected back out into the world.

Deciding that sentience defines humanity in some overriding way, is a faith stance. That science can tell you when sentience starts and you set abortion limits on the basis of that is faith into action via science.

The reasoning is circular. You can't use science to undergird a philosophy that has already decided science is the meaningful way to demonstrate the truth of the philosophy.

aloyisious

antiskeptic wrote: »

It's not so much faith in Science. I myself have faith that science understands how the mechanism of pain works and if it says an abortion doesnt cause pain at x weeks because the mechanism for pain transmission hasn't yet developed, then I believe it.

It's faith that Science is the appropriate commentator on what constitutes human. It can describe some aspects of what it is to be human, but can't suppose that the full ( or even most significant part) of what it is to be human.

We revert then to philosophy - sonething which decides to ascribe wholesale authority to e.g. science.

One's philosophy is a matter of faith. There is no proving it right or wrong. And so all that derived from that philosophy belongs to the realm of faith.

The science can be sound. But if the foundations faith, then the structure upon it is too




Hopefully the above clarifies

No it doesn't. Mechanism for pain transmission exists. Proof of that is when the feotus, or any other creature, responds to stimuli. It's that you didn't refer to or mention the human bit that does the computation, the brain, to work out and understand that the stimuli is PAIN and respond accordingly that doesn't exist in any human feotus in the period of growth that others have been mentioning.

Faith as a philosophy is great in working out some theories and coming to conclusions of right and wrong but a faith in the working out through science what the composite working bits of humans are, and how they work, is a very important part of humanity's working out the why's and where-fors of what we are all about. Taxonomy [if you like] show's us what makes us superior to other species is our brain and it's capacity to formulate theory about life. The brain even allows us to explore it, and it's workings, itself.

Sure science is not the great god, but it help's us to understand that things do not work out for the best in nature for humanity and that some actions are almost obligatory if and when the other part of the belief coin, philosophy, tell's one that it is kinder to be humane, rather than human, to the feotus.

One's own version of faith is what lead's one to accept or decline the call to humane action whe it comes to ending the crueller part of nature's way when it comes to some feotus harmed, or made incomplete, during it's growth.

I mentioned cruel and unusual treatment in respect to some people insisting that a woman must go through to a full-term birth while in the sure and certain knowledge throughout the 9 months that after it's birth, her born baby would die. To have that as part of one's faith philosophy is, IMO, a very inhumane version of faith.

Sometimes we find out that what was accepted as an essential part of a philosophy is in fact rubbish when existing or newly discovered information or theory is given proper scrutiny, scientific or through philosophical discussion; eg, the ending of the supposed flat earth theory.

Appledreams15

Hi guys I was wondering what the no side think of this,

That abortion up to 12 weeks is allowed in nearly every other county in Europe.

Never mind should it be allowed here for a sec.

It is happening in hundreds of thousands of cases (including Irish women abroad) in the world that you live in.

So what do you think of it happening as it does now?

antiskeptic

aloyisious wrote: »

No it doesn't. Mechanism for pain transmission exists. Proof of that is when the feotus, or any other creature, responds to stimuli.

The point was that I have faith in science to establish this.

It's that you didn't refer to or mention the human bit that does the computation, the brain, to work out and understand that the stimuli is PAIN and respond accordingly that doesn't exist in any human feotus in the period of growth that others have been mentioning.

You're merely kicking the can around the same garden. The overarching issue is the decision that the presence of certain physical bits in certain stages of development is the determining factor of whether a person is a card carrying member of the human race.

You are deciding that a certain stage (scientifically evidenced) has to be reached before the card is issued.


In order to do that though, you have to show why feeling pain / sentience or whatever achieves the currency you attach to it. Sciences ability to determine pain/sentience development doesn't in itself validate the currency. Your the one deciding where the line ought to be drawn.

Faith as a philosophy

You misunderstand. What I mean is that philosophy, any philosophy, rests on an act of faith. There may be arguments as to why you hold to the philosophy you do but you never arrive at a proof of it. Ultimately, it is an act of faith to hold to a philosophy, whether materialism, rationalism empricism .. or theism.


So:

a faith in the working out through science what the composite working bits of humans are, and how they work, is a very important part of humanity's working out the why's and where-fors of what we are all about. Taxonomy [if you like] show's us what makes us superior to other species is our brain and it's capacity to formulate theory about life. The brain even allows us to explore it, and it's workings, itself.

This assumes the composite workings of ourselves (at least, the ones we can scientifically investigate) form the totality of ourselves. From whence perhaps, the decision to draw a line below which "not human enough"

To suppose that is a philosophy.

Materialism:

"the theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications."


Note the words theory / belief. Belief is another word for faith, in this context

Sure science is not the great god,

Science is great. It's the philosophy that elevates science to be a god that's the problem.

but it help's us to understand that things do not work out for the best in nature for humanity and that some actions are almost obligatory if and when the other part of the belief coin, philosophy, tell's one that it is kinder to be humane, rather than human, to the feotus.

Not sure I get this

One's own version of faith is what lead's one to accept or decline the call to humane action whe it comes to ending the crueller part of nature's way when it comes to some feotus harmed, or made incomplete, during it's growth.

This is an argument from utility. It rests upon the philosophical belief regarding what a human is. Once that's decided, then thresholds can be drawn up as you do.

But that doesn't detract from the problem that you are acting on faith (however well informed you believe that to be, however accurate you think it describes things, however well intentioned). The counter argument is: because we don't actually know what constitutes humanity, we ought leave the killing of it well alone. That the utility argument is trumped by our not actually knowing what the hell we're messing with.

It's to be humble with our philosophies whenever we realise we might well be standing on "holy ground".

I don't mean this in any derogatory way, but once you decide your faith-based philosophy is sufficient to justify taking away the life of another (because it has decided the other isn't another) then you are playing god.

I mentioned cruel and unusual treatment in respect to some people insisting that a woman must go through to a full-term birth while in the sure and certain knowledge throughout the 9 months that after it's birth, her born baby would die. To have that as part of one's faith philosophy is, IMO, a very inhumane version of faith.

Hopefully the above might inform the motivation behind what some people think in respect to the above issue.

Once deciding that life in the womb can be killed (whether limited to FFA or a.o.d. for any reason) we're in the realm of god. I'm doing it (with respect to being okay with legislation for FFA), you're doing it (w.r.t. abortion on demand)

Sometimes we find out that what was accepted as an essential part of a philosophy is in fact rubbish when existing or newly discovered information or theory is given proper scrutiny, scientific or through philosophical discussion; eg, the ending of the supposed flat earth theory.

Indeed. But I don't see how we can ever get to a final answer on the matter of what and who we are. Until then, it's faith in degrees of humility when standing on holy ground. Or trampling all over it - as I see it presented in the legislation.

antiskeptic

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Hi guys I was wondering what the no side think of this,

That abortion up to 12 weeks is allowed in nearly every other county in Europe.

Never mind should it be allowed here for a sec.

It is happening in hundreds of thousands of cases (including Irish women abroad) in the world that you live in.

So what do you think of it happening as it does now?

A modern day dark age.

This time round however, I expect the light will be extinguished in The Land of Saints and Scholars.

Darkness 1 - Light 0

end of the road

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Hi guys I was wondering what the no side think of this,

That abortion up to 12 weeks is allowed in nearly every other county in Europe.

Never mind should it be allowed here for a sec.

It is happening in hundreds of thousands of cases (including Irish women abroad) in the world that you live in.

So what do you think of it happening as it does now?

i disagree with it. i believe abortion should only be availible in circumstances of a medical nature rather then being availible to anyone for any reason. however, i can't control what goes on in other countries so it's up to the people there who are against abortion on demand to protest it if they want to.

ohnonotgmail

antiskeptic wrote: »

A modern day dark age.

This time round however, I expect the light will be extinguished in The Land of Saints and Scholars.

Darkness 1 - Light 0

Its a good job you made a measured response and didnt resort to hysterical hyperbole.

Overheal

antiskeptic wrote: »

A modern day dark age.

This time round however, I expect the light will be extinguished in The Land of Saints and Scholars.

Darkness 1 - Light 0

The list of things you think are the same thing as abortions now includes

The Holocaust
Genocide
The Triangle Trade
The Dark Ages

I’m assuming the Bubonic Plague as well?

:rolleyes:

King Mob

Overheal wrote: »

The list of things you think are the same thing as abortions now includes

The Holocaust
Genocide
The Dark Ages

I’m assuming the Bubonic Plague as well?

:rolleyes:

Don't forget slavery in the American South.

HandsomeBob

I thought Pat did alright night. Seemed overly preoccupied about coming across as firm and in turn was a bit too eager in silencing Steen. Good thing she was poor enough anyway (this was my first experience of her and had listened to hype beforehand about how good she is debating; she was ****e tonight I honestly thought).....and that Mullen was even worse. A literally horrifying performance from that man.

PopePalpatine

On one hand, it's a relief that the mask has slipped in front of many hundreds of thousands of viewers to reveal the old Ireland of industrial schools and Magdalene laundries.

On the other hand, a literal terrorist attack on their behalf a week before the vote didn't cost Brexit their win.

aloyisious

antiskeptic wrote: »

The point was that I have faith in science to establish this.

You're merely kicking the can around the same garden. The overarching issue is the decision that the presence of certain physical bits in certain stages of development is the determining factor of whether a person is a card carrying member of the human race.

You are deciding that a certain stage (scientifically evidenced) has to be reached before the card is issued.

In order to do that though, you have to show why feeling pain / sentience or whatever achieves the currency you attach to it. Sciences ability to determine pain/sentience development doesn't in itself validate the currency. Your the one deciding where the line ought to be drawn.

You misunderstand. What I mean is that philosophy, any philosophy, rests on an act of faith. There may be arguments as to why you hold to the philosophy you do but you never arrive at a proof of it. Ultimately, it is an act of faith to hold to a philosophy, whether materialism, rationalism empricism .. or theism.

So:

This assumes the composite workings of ourselves (at least, the ones we can scientifically investigate) form the totality of ourselves. From whence perhaps, the decision to draw a line below which "not human enough"

To suppose that is a philosophy.

Materialism:

"the theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications."


Note the words theory / belief. Belief is another word for faith, in this context

Science is great. It's the philosophy that elevates science to be a god that's the problem.

Not sure I get this

This is an argument from utility. It rests upon the philosophical belief regarding what a human is. Once that's decided, then thresholds can be drawn up as you do.

But that doesn't detract from the problem that you are acting on faith (however well informed you believe that to be, however accurate you think it describes things, however well intentioned). The counter argument is: because we don't actually know what constitutes humanity, we ought leave the killing of it well alone. That the utility argument is trumped by our not actually knowing what the hell we're messing with.

It's to be humble with our philosophies whenever we realise we might well be standing on "holy ground".

I don't mean this in any derogatory way, but once you decide your faith-based philosophy is sufficient to justify taking away the life of another (because it has decided the other isn't another) then you are playing god.

Hopefully the above might inform the motivation behind what some people think in respect to the above issue.

Once deciding that life in the womb can be killed (whether limited to FFA or a.o.d. for any reason) we're in the realm of god. I'm doing it (with respect to being okay with legislation for FFA), you're doing it (w.r.t. abortion on demand)

Indeed. But I don't see how we can ever get to a final answer on the matter of what and who we are. Until then, it's faith in degrees of humility when standing on holy ground. Or trampling all over it - as I see it presented in the legislation.

On this start-piece of your's above; [You're merely kicking the can around the same garden. The overarching issue is the decision that the presence of certain physical bits in certain stages of development is the determining factor of whether a person is a card carrying member of the human race], would you agree with abortion during the period that the feotus has NO heartbeat? One of the NO campaign's posters has an image of a woman GP with the wording that the unborn has no heartbeat until around the 22nd day. The Cardinal of all Ireland was quoted as saying a few days ago, Sunday I think it was, that the unborn has no heartbeat until around the 28th day. Isn't the presence of a heartbeat a scientific and medical definition of human life? I noticed your reference to the feotus as a person.

Why do you think god [with either a small g or a large G] gave humans brains? Was it to gather together material and study it, and them work out what is worth having faith in at a human level or just go with faith in whatever some other person say's because it sound's nice and relieve's one of personal decision when faced with a hard case? I don't have great trust, or faith, in faith as a theoretical thing. I want to examine things and see if they are worth having trust in. If there is scientific fact giving extra basis for trust in what I worked out in my brain then well and good. I don't see or treat science as a god, more an aid to deciding what is right.

At present, I believe that if the feotus in the womb is a burden on the woman in who's womb it rest's then it must take 2nd place to her in terms of existence AND I cede right to her to decide what she must do at her personal level with the feotus in her womb. It's cold-blooded sounding but it is NOT playing a god-role by way of belief. I suggest that you have faith in women here to decide what they do or not do, in respect of the feotus/unborn in the wombs, when abortion is legalized here. They may not all be of a mind to rush to avail of AOD, which seem's to be the fear factor in the NO campaign.

In the referendum, we will be deciding on whether to remove or keep a bar preventing women from legally deciding on what they can do with the unborn in their wombs here. We will NOT be [regardless of your attempt to infer it] deciding the fate of the unborn. The actual decision on asking, or not asking, for an abortion will be up to the women. I'm NOT going to play god and say "NO" to them. It's worth keeping in mind that by acting as god in that "NO" way, you may equally be putting womens lives in jeopardy because of your personal faith.

Overheal

King Mob wrote: »

Don't forget slavery in the American South.

Updated

nozzferrahhtoo

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'm not sure how you get from "no target" (mechanical system to receive a pain impulse) to "no one". The former is a scientific statement, the latter a philosophical one. Faith?

The reason you are not sure how I got from one to the other is your false assumption there was a transition to make in the first place. I was using both terms to describe exactly the same thing.

antiskeptic wrote: »

We can indeed decide. But the decision derives from the philosophy: I mean, why would you chose to measure with a scientific instrument if you hadnt already decided that a science was the appropriate way to measure the fullness of what constitutes a human being? Surely what you find meaningful will be referenced to the philosophy you believe in? If meaningless and unconvincing (for you, subjective) then not meaningful in an objective sense? But you do the same in the reverse. You start out with your faith definitions, show the foetus doesnt match up scientifically and job done. Its understandable (if you don't understand that you are starting from a faith position). Not dishonest. I was thinking of things that derive from a philosophy. The philosophy is faith based. The evidential findings are fed back into the philosophy and projected back out into the world.

You seem to be conflating the concept of "faith" with "philosophy" for reasons unknown. As if every philosophical discussion or concept is a 1:1 synonym for faith. It is not clear why this is a valid approach to the discourse at all. I simply do not think "faith" means what you think it does. Though you have not defined it so I can not be sure. It SEEMS to be however that.....

antiskeptic wrote: »

Deciding that sentience defines humanity in some overriding way, is a faith stance. That science can tell you when sentience starts and you set abortion limits on the basis of that is faith into action via science. The reasoning is circular. You can't use science to undergird a philosophy that has already decided science is the meaningful way to demonstrate the truth of the philosophy.

..... you are mistaking cases of definition with cases of faith. Faith is a function of belief. Definition of words and terms is not. When we define a word like "House" we are not doing so based on faith. We are doing so based on reason and our own choices. WE are choosing what the word means, not what we believe it means as if the word somehow came first and we have to believe in it's meaning on faith or evidence. And then we can observe objects to see if they do, or do not, meet that definition by checking what attributes each object has.

So if we are going to hold to a concept of a person having rights, it is up to us to decide what we mean by "person". And if something does not meet the definition we decide upon then it is not a person, and therefore the rights of a person do not apply. Nothing there requires "faith" at all.

For example take the word "god". You can define what you mean when you use that word. Having created the definition we can then check if there is any reason to think the thing defined exists. Some people define "god" as meaning basically all of everything. Clearly they think the word "everything" or the word "universe" is not sufficient for requirements so they 1:1 replace it with the word "god" giving it the exact same meaning. Clearly all of everything exists, so their god exists. No faith required to define the word, no faith required to believe the thing defined exists.

But some people define "god" to mean a non-human intelligent intentional agent responsible for the creation of, and/or maintenance of the universe and/or life within it. This is the definition most monotheists in the western world appear to subscribe to. No faith required to define that word. But given the complete lack of argument, evidence, data or reasoning on offer to suggest that god exists, least of all from yourself, then "faith" is indeed required to believe the thing defined exists.

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

Finally we agree! Only for you to go and spoil it all...

It is interesting that you describe as "spoiling" the acknowledgement of the fact there is a lot more nuance and meaning and depth behind a single word than cursory and contrived uses of it suggest. You give off a strong impression therefore that "spoiling" for you mean "Acknowledging reality". Which I assume is not a message you give off intentionally.

recedite wrote: »

You're not seeing a difference between the earthworm and the android?

That is a very disingenuous summation of my position. I see any number of differences between them. The point is I do not see a RELEVANT difference between them to support the message you appear to be trying to push.

For example you mention that one is "Humanoid". What has that got to do with anything? If we had three androids with artificial intelligence installed and one was humanoid, one was shaped after the form of your earthworm, and the other was styled after the average toaster........... my evaluation of their qualification for rights would have, should have, and simply can not have anything at all to do with what shape they happen to be.

Our moral and ethical concern for the well being of sentient agents has to be independent of the platform that sentience happens to be instantiated upon.

recedite wrote: »

Why such a long-winded definition for this organism when you could just say "a human being"?
Is it so hard to describe a foetus as such?

That is rather contrived from you. You are contriving to miss the point I am making by pretending I am having some difficulty with terms. The entire point I am making is that moral and ethical concern towards a sentience should be platform independent. In other words it is not at all "difficult" to call something a "Human Being" but it is entirely irrelevant. Just like an AI instantiated on a computer system would or would not be the focus of moral and ethical concerns regardless of whether it happened to be running on IOS or Android.

recedite wrote: »

Sorry, I can't let you off so easily. Either there is some qualitative difference or there is not. Humans can't be "the sole source" "for the most part". That's an oxymoron.

There is nothing to "let me off" of in the first place. I was acknowledging that there are animal behaviours that mimic and resemble the kinds of things we practice in our moral and ethical philosophy. That acknowledgement however does not in any way suggest that there is reason to think that said animals are actually holding a concept of "rights" or perpetuating an actual moral philisophy.

The sole source or, and target of, ACTUAL moral and ethical philosophies at this time appears to be us. There simply is no other agent engaged in it at this time to our knowledge. Unless there are other sentient alien races out there, or unless you want to start inventing the existence of a god..... then we are it.

antiskeptic

What, does anyone think, women who are refused an abortion here under our supposedly non-UK-like legislation are going to do?

Head to England of course.

How long might that situation last before the cry goes up to "bring them home"

I stand amazed that the No side have forgotten to remind us how little we trust politicians.

Delirium

antiskeptic wrote: »

What, does anyone think, women who are refused an abortion here under our supposedly non-UK-like legislation are going to do?

Head to England of course.

How long might that situation last before the cry goes up to "bring them home"

I stand amazed that the No side have forgotten to remind us how little we trust politicians.

Can you give examples of where an abortion would be available in England but not in Ireland (under legislation post-repeal of the 8th)?

antiskeptic

Are there any immigrant cultures in our land for whom a boy (or a boy as first baby) is preferable to a girl?

antiskeptic

Delirium wrote: »

Can you give examples of where an abortion would be available in England but not in Ireland (under legislation post-repeal of the 8th)?

Whatever cases the government refers to when it insists we won't have UK style abortion.

Delirium

antiskeptic wrote: »

Whatever cases the government refers to when it insists we won't have UK style abortion.

such as.....?

pauldla

antiskeptic wrote: »

Are there any immigrant cultures in our land for whom a boy (or a boy as first baby) is preferable to a girl?

You shouldn't speak in riddles, really. Why not just come right out and say what you mean? Is it something like 'Some of them forinners will be having gender-selection abortions, so vote No!'...?

magicbastarder

antiskeptic wrote: »

I stand amazed that the No side have forgotten to remind us how little we trust politicians.

eh, did you not see ronan mullen's pronouncements? what more can you expect them to do?

antiskeptic

pauldla wrote: »

You shouldn't speak in riddles, really. Why not just come right out and say what you mean? Is it something like 'Some of them forinners will be having gender-selection abortions, so vote No!'...?

Phrase it however your mind sees it. And perhaps answer it whilst you're at it.

antiskeptic

Delirium wrote: »

such as.....?

How do I know? We don't know what the legislation here will be (other than it will be more restrictive than the UK).

If it is in practice, then folk will travel.

Pherekydes

antiskeptic wrote: »

Are there any immigrant cultures in our land for whom a boy (or a boy as first baby) is preferable to a girl?

Google "When can I find out my baby's sex?"

Hint: after 12 weeks

Delirium

antiskeptic wrote: »

How do I know? We don't know what the legislation here will be (other than it will be more restrictive than the UK).

If it is in practice, then folk will travel.

Well it's hard to discuss the possibility of a hypothetical scenario if you don't frame it.


They could be scenarios Ireland should provide for, but if you can't clarify then you're just posting the equivalent of "there's a monster under your bed".