Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

nozzferrahhtoo

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I suppose on a fundamental level, the reason we find murder wrong goes all the way back to the Ten Commandments that said we can’t murder fellow humans.

I would be very suspicious of that claim if i was you. I would suspect it is MUCH more likely that we had an aversion to murder long prior to that which we codified in the 10 commandments, than I would be to think that it suddenly came into being with the 10 commandments.

Religions have a habit of codifying things the people in general already mostly agree with, rather than (ever?) coming up with anything original themselves. The golden rule for example existed in many forms in many places LONG before it was ascribed to the Nazerene.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Yea, your right, I was pretty much interchanging the terms life and human. I’m happy to stick with the term human since it’s more precise to what we’re talking about.

I am happy to use the term too! On the condition we acknowledge A) the different meanings it has in difference contexts which context we are using it in and most importantly C) we do not hop between contexts using the meaning from one in the other.

Alas "C" is a rule I see broken again, and again, and again in this conversation.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

We find it morally wrong to kill our fellow humans because well, they’re our fellow humans, we can relate to them on a level we can’t with other species. I’m sensing that you want me to define the “attribute” as you say that makes it wrong to kill someone. I would define it as “membership of the human race”

And that is the same "begging the question" I was telling you about.

Imagine you were an alien come here trying to grok our concepts. You land here and ask "What is ownership?". As a human I take out a map and on this map are borders. Maybe country borders. Maybe land ownership borders or houses. And I point to the borders and say "The person owns what is inside the border".

This does not answer the question "what is ownership" but "begs" it. It shows how we measure what is owed, but does not explain what IS ownership.

When you use phrases like "Human Race" you are pointing at the borders, but not actually answering the question I am asking you about what it is we value, and why we value it. You are pointing to the border YOU use to measure what you value, but in no way explaining what is valued and why.

And I honestly believe that if you engage with that question finally, and openly, you will come closer to understanding my position on abortion than you currently expect.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

which I believe is attributed at conception. You said earlier that you agreed with me that that was where life began, but you don’t agree with me that it is a human at that point. Then what is it?

Not what I said. But I do like repeating myself

What I said was that I DO think it is human at that point. Biologically. But I do not think the biological definition of the word "Human" is the relevant one when it comes to rights, and moral and ethical concern.

The problem here is we have two MASSIVELY different concepts and we have the word "Human" for both of them. Let us differentiate them merely by use of "h" and capital "H". The zygote at conception is 100% entirely and undeniable "human". I do not think it is for one moment however "Human".

Sean.3516 wrote: »

If it’s alive, then to what species does it belong? There’s no such species as “Zygote” or “Foetus”.

Again it is human. But species is just "borders" to me. It does not answer the question of what we value, and why.

King Mob

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Okay, so tell me when it stops being human and starts being a human being?

Yes, I’ll concede your second point but the moral premise to murder law in most parts of the world stems from a religious belief that murder is wrong because it says so in the Bible.

The bible also says that murder is ok a lot of the time.
It also specifically endorses abortion in the case of adultery.

Do you think that the ritual described here in the bible is acceptable?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+5:11-22&version=NRSVCE

And again, no, the majority of the world is not Christian and does not get their morality from the Bible.
And even so, "cause the bible said so" is not a good or ethical reason.

Sean.3516

aloyisious wrote: »

Re question 1, if you see having a working brain as a quality, that's a definition.

Your second [two-part] question is answered by the fact that your comatose person is a born human entity and the feotus is not. The law here is clear on the separate issue of terminating a comatose human's life. Hopefully these answers help you. It'd be only fair to let you know the same questions from others have been answered here regularly in the past.

So you actually have 2 prerequisites, the first, that it must have a functioning brain and the second that it must belong to a born human.

So explain to me what the difference is between a 24 to 32 week foetus with a functioning brain and a newborn baby. How does the vaginal canal magically transform it into a human when it passes through?

.......

This post has been deleted.

volchitsa

Sean.3516 wrote: »

So you actually have 2 prerequisites, the first, that it must have a functioning brain and the second that it must belong to a born human.

So explain to me what the difference is between a 24 to 32 week foetus with a functioning brain and a newborn baby. How does the vaginal canal magically transform it into a human when it passes through?

How does an 18 year old magically become able to vote? We define birth as the moment at which a new person comes into existence, partly because doing so before birth would lead to conflict of interests with the pregnant woman. That's how it is, and most people agree that it's the best compromise possible. We wouldn't have had people voting the 14th amendment in otherwise. Unless you think parents can take a child out of the country to kill it.

aloyisious

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Yea, I’d agree with that. However I think legislating for that would not be good, since it would be impossible to know if it simply failed to implant in the womb by natural causes or due to the morning after pill

So you reckon that using the morning after pill is the same as murder but you wouldn't be in favour of legislation. Now I'm at a loss as to what legislation you are referring-to there.

Is it the new legislation proposed by the Govt or are you proposing legislation to the effect that use of the morning after pill is an act of murder? In that case, the mention of murder in relation to the use of the morning after pill is purely an abstract concept, as you've admitted it would be impossible to know what caused the failure.

nozzferrahhtoo

Sean.3516 wrote: »

So you actually have 2 prerequisites, the first, that it must have a functioning brain and the second that it must belong to a born human.

So explain to me what the difference is between a 24 to 32 week foetus with a functioning brain and a newborn baby. How does the vaginal canal magically transform it into a human when it passes through?

That certainly would not be my position so I can not speak for the other user here. So do not take this response as if I am talking for that user. Perhaps that user entirely disagrees with me.

For me the only relevant point of concern is consciousness/sentience. If something has that, then we need to have some level of moral and ethical concern for it.

That is ENTIRELY independent of location AND platform for me.

• I do not care where the entity is (in the womb, outside it, on the ground, in the sky, on the moon, in a gas cloud).
• I do not care what platform the sentience is running on: meat based, silicon based, gas based, anything.

For me our moral and ethical concerns HAVE to be for the well being of sentient agents. Wherever or whatever they are. I certainly see no reason to have any for mere DNA, even if it is "unique".

aloyisious

Sean.3516 wrote: »

So you actually have 2 prerequisites, the first, that it must have a functioning brain and the second that it must belong to a born human.

So explain to me what the difference is between a 24 to 32 week foetus with a functioning brain and a newborn baby. How does the vaginal canal magically transform it into a human when it passes through?

You asked for definitions as to what the difference was between a feotus and a comatose human. IMO, I've answered those questions and let you know your questions were asked and answered here before. I'll leave it to others to answer your latest questions, including the "magical vaginal canal causing transformation" one. I'll grant you that that is an unusually-worded question.

_Dara_

Sean.3516 wrote: »

The premise to my arguement is that the unborn child is an individual human being from day 1 (conception). It’s pretty much undisputed in biology that that is the point at which life begins. Therefore if we can agree that something is human, then undoubtedly it must be entitled to human rights, right? I don’t believe that circumstances outside of the womb should entitle us to summarily decide if it can be kept alive or not.

I’m all for birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancies but once the new human has been created, I think it deserves protections equal to all other humans.

You mentioned that you only agree with abortion if the woman’s life at in serious risk. Does this you oppose raped women having abortions? What is a woman has a health problem that hasn’t become critical but will eventually? For example, some cancer treatments are contraindicated with pregnancy. An early stage cancer not treated can metastasise and is generally then terminal.

Sean.3516

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I would be very suspicious of that claim if i was you. I would suspect it is MUCH more likely that we had an aversion to murder long prior to that which we codified in the 10 commandments, than I would be to think that it suddenly came into being with the 10 commandments.

Religions have a habit of codifying things the people in general already mostly agree with, rather than (ever?) coming up with anything original themselves. The golden rule for example existed in many forms in many places LONG before it was ascribed to the Nazerene.



I am happy to use the term too! On the condition we acknowledge A) the different meanings it has in difference contexts which context we are using it in and most importantly C) we do not hop between contexts using the meaning from one in the other.

Alas "C" is a rule I see broken again, and again, and again in this conversation.



And that is the same "begging the question" I was telling you about.

Imagine you were an alien come here trying to grok our concepts. You land here and ask "What is ownership?". As a human I take out a map and on this map are borders. Maybe country borders. Maybe land ownership borders or houses. And I point to the borders and say "The person owns what is inside the border".

This does not answer the question "what is ownership" but "begs" it. It shows how we measure what is owed, but does not explain what IS ownership.

When you use phrases like "Human Race" you are pointing at the borders, but not actually answering the question I am asking you about what it is we value, and why we value it. You are pointing to the border YOU use to measure what you value, but in no way explaining what is valued and why.

And I honestly believe that if you engage with that question finally, and openly, you will come closer to understanding my position on abortion than you currently expect.



Not what I said. But I do like repeating myself

What I said was that I DO think it is human at that point. Biologically. But I do not think the biological definition of the word "Human" is the relevant one when it comes to rights, and moral and ethical concern.

The problem here is we have two MASSIVELY different concepts and we have the word "Human" for both of them. Let us differentiate them merely by use of "h" and capital "H". The zygote at conception is 100% entirely and undeniable "human". I do not think it is for one moment however "Human".



Again it is human. But species is just "borders" to me. It does not answer the question of what we value, and why.

Yes, I think I understand the angle you are coming from now.

I’ve never actually distinguished from the h and the H. I don’t think there’s a difference between human biologically and human in terms of rights because I think being human biologically is a prerequisite to actually attaining those rights.

I’ll try and define what I mean by membership of the human race. What makes both of us members of the same species? We could quantify it in terms of physically features, eyes and nose and arms and legs and a brain. However a human at an early stage of development hasn’t developed those yet. But it will. It gradually will. (h) does not turn into (H) at any certain point. As I said I believe they are synonymous. We could quantify biologically why a human in early gestation is the same species as a born human. You could probably take a sample of it’s DNA somehow inside the womb and find the genetic simalarities.

My point is I get that we began this from radically different premises, but I hope this helps you understand mine.

Sean.3516

_Dara_ wrote: »

You mentioned that you only agree with abortion if the woman’s life at in serious risk. Does this you oppose raped women having abortions? What is a woman has a health problem that hasn’t become critical but will eventually? For example, some cancer treatments are contraindicated with pregnancy. An early stage cancer not treated can metastasise and is generally then terminal.

Yes, I’m against killing the foetus if it was conceived through rape. I don’t the manner in which it was concieved has any bearing on it’s humanity and it’s rights as a human.

I’m in favor of allowing abortion if the case will eventually become terminal and the continuance of the pregnancy will threaten the mother’s life, like cancer.

nozzferrahhtoo

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I’ve never actually distinguished from the h and the H. I don’t think there’s a difference between human biologically and human in terms of rights because I think being human biologically is a prerequisite to actually attaining those rights.

I do not think it is. For example if a fully sentient alien race landed here tomorrow.... would we not afford them rights given they are not human? Or would we (should we) treat them as equals as they are every bit as sentient as us?

If I could transfer your consciousness to a machine tomorrow and preserve your body.... which one should I show moral and ethical concern for? Which one would it be wrong or most wrong to torture and why? Would it even mean anything to torture the corpse?

What about animals? We show them moral and ethical concerns, and afford them rights. And we do so in proportion to their species level of sentience. We would likely jail someone for torturing a dog or dolphin. Yet we have no issue AT ALL with people murdering flies by the 1000s every summer.

What if we attain a full artificial intelligence tomorrow? Something that is sentient like us. something that can attain well being or suffering. Why should I not torture it?

I do not think the pre-requisite you offer here is valid. "Human" is a measurement of what we assign rights to, not a prerequisite for it. Just like a "border" is a measurement of the land you own, not a prerequisite for what "ownership" even is.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

I’ll try and define what I mean by membership of the human race.

No need. I already know AND agree with what you are saying here. You are "human". I am "human". A zygote is "human". I just do not think that that is relevant morally. And I do not think you have put forward an argument for why it is and/or should be.

Rather I think innately you know what you value, you are identifying that with the word "human", and then you are working BACKWARDS from that word rather than FORWARDS from what it is you actually value morally and ethically.

Sean.3516 wrote: »

My point is I get that we began this from radically different premises, but I hope this helps you understand mine.

I do absolutely. It is indistinguishable from the position of maybe 100 people who posted on the several threads on abortion leading up to the referendum on this, and multiple other, sites that I read and post on.

I absolutely understand your position at the basic level and 100% agree with you when you write "We could quantify biologically why a human in early gestation is the same species as a born human.". It is. you are right!

The part I do not understand is why we leap from "it is human" to "it should have Human Rights". The ONLY basis for that leap seems to be that the word "human" is in both places, even though it means different things in both places.

Sean.3516

aloyisious wrote: »

So you reckon that using the morning after pill is the same as murder but you wouldn't be in favour of legislation. Now I'm at a loss as to what legislation you are referring-to there.

Is it the new legislation proposed by the Govt or are you proposing legislation to the effect that use of the morning after pill is an act of murder? In that case, the mention of murder in relation to the use of the morning after pill is purely an abstract concept, as you've admitted it would be impossible to know what caused the failure.

Sorry, I’ll clarify. I’m not in favor of investigating every miscarriage, but I would be in favor of banning the morning after pill

nozzferrahhtoo

Apologies but I have to take a break from the conversation for today I will rejoin it tomorrow in the early hours before work.

_Dara_

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Yes, I’m against killing the foetus if it was conceived through rape. I don’t the manner in which it was concieved has any bearing on it’s humanity and it’s rights as a human.

I’m in favor of allowing abortion if the case will eventually become terminal and the continuance of the pregnancy will threaten the mother’s life, like cancer.

Well, you’re consistent. I can’t understand people vehemently against abortion as a result of a crisis pregnancy who are fine with the abortion of a healthy foetus in the case of rape.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Sean.3516

_Dara_ wrote: »

Well, you’re consistent. I can’t understand people vehemently against abortion as a result of a crisis pregnancy who are fine with the abortion of a healthy foetus in the case of rape.

Neither can I. I don’t see how facts outside the womb change the facts inside it.

Sean.3516

....... wrote: »

So you simply have an earlier "magical" point at which biological material transforms into a human being that most people.

Your magic is informed by your god. Our magic is informed by science.

Let me be clear, I believe it’s a human being from conception because that’s where life begins. This is corroborated by science.

.......

This post has been deleted.

lazygal

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Let me be clear, I believe it’s a human being from conception because that’s where life begins. This is corroborated by science.

What science?

Sean.3516

King Mob wrote: »

The bible also says that murder is ok a lot of the time.
It also specifically endorses abortion in the case of adultery.

Do you think that the ritual described here in the bible is acceptable?

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+5:11-22&version=NRSVCE

And again, no, the majority of the world is not Christian and does not get their morality from the Bible.
And even so, "cause the bible said so" is not a good or ethical reason.

So? I’m prepared to disagree with the Bible.I never said I agreed with everything that was in the Bible or even all of the Bible. My point was that religious belief and tradition and formed the basis for morality, when the first legal systems were being developed before the enlightenment.
The majority of the world did derive their morality from some sort of religious system

Sean.3516

....... wrote: »

Please post your sources because the topic of when life begins is by no means certain according to any science I am familiar with.

Here it is said multiple times that human development starts when the sperm fertilizes the egg. https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Sean.3516

....... wrote: »

That is an biased prolife article that has specifically collected (old) quotes that support a prolife position. The quotes dont support your assertion either. They talk about development, not life. And none of them are recent, the most recent is over 20 years old.

Now show us the science you refer to and not the propaganda.

The fact that there is development means that it’s alive. The compilation was made by a pro lifer. What’s your point?
Anybody who supports my arguement is obviously going to be pro life.

.......

This post has been deleted.

aloyisious

According to RTE news, Simon Harris will be including exclusion zones in his legislation, apparently to prevent protests from impeding the proper management of maternity hospitals and care of women patients. The report say's Simon is consulting the AG after the protests outside the National Maternity Hospital and the Rotunda Hospital. It seem's one patient was intimidated by the protestors visual displays and the body cameras they were wearing. The report is including reference to how the protestors at Belfast and UK clinics are harassing patients, including one woman in Belfast being assaulted by protestors. Re the UK, a BPAS staffer was interviewed.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Timberrrrrrrr

Sean.3516 wrote: »

Hi Guys,
New to this thread and new to boards.ie. Basically on here to try and develop my views on this a bit. Basically i’m Pro life up to the point where the life of the woman is threatened by the pregnancy.

I’m completely open to a good, civil debate and perhaps even changing my mind,
Thanks

And I had such high hopes for you when you posted this, it feels like we have been taken back in time with "new posters who are open minded to discussion"

Do the numbers in your name represent a bible passage ?

end of the road

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

he has produced scientific evidence to back up his claim. he gave a link.

aloyisious wrote: »

According to RTE news, Simon Harris will be including exclusion zones in his legislation, apparently to prevent protests from impeding the proper management of maternity hospitals and care of women patients. The report say's Simon is consulting the AG after the protests outside the National Maternity Hospital and the Rotunda Hospital. It seem's one patient was intimidated by the protestors visual displays and the body cameras they were wearing. The report is including reference to how the protestors at Belfast and UK clinics are harassing patients, including one woman in Belfast being assaulted by protestors. Re the UK, a BPAS staffer was interviewed.

yeah heard that on the radio today. i don't think it is going to bring him the large scale women's vote he is hoping for at the next election due to his handling of the recent smear test issue.