Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

Kidchameleon

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But it is funny that while questioning the use of the term and why people use it........... you make their point for them.

I don't really see what is funny about it, I have no agenda other than discuss the issue with honesty. You do understand that it is possible to be pro choice and still think abortion is not a good thing don't you?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Because when you say "will form a human" what you are ALSO saying is it is not a human now. Which is exactly their point!!

So then the moral and ethical argument of the pro-choice speaker becomes "Why should we assign HUMAN rights to something you have just openly admitted is not human?".

I would say that the clump of cells is a human in some form while a blueprint for a house is a piece of paper. Something does not need to be conscious in order to be protected by us as a society. Should we go around killing everyone who is in a vegetative state?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

But currently the level of argument, evidence, data or reasoning we have to think a 12 week old fetus is conscious is about the same as thinking a rock or table leg is. So it is one very big "may" you are postulating there.

I hope you are right, I have given up being surprised by scientific advancements particularly in the medical field and I can see a day coming where we will need to reconsider weather a fetus at 12 weeks is conscious on some level.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

They should face consequences, just not the ones you probably mean.

What ones do I probably mean? You should ask what ones I mean before making assumptions.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The cells would still likely be.... in a legal sense.... property. And they should therefore face the consequences pertinent to the damage or destruction of the property of another.

Pretty much the conclusion I came to.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I postulated a situation where we develop a fully working sentient AI. The start up sequence for which takes 5 hours before it actually becomes sentient. So I hit the "start" button and 2 hours into the process I hit "stop" and I delete and destroy the code.

I recommend the works of Ray Kurtzweil and Nick Bostrom if you are interested in the philosophical implications of AI

smacl

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I recommend the works of Ray Kurtzweil and Nick Bostrom if you are interested in the philosophical implications of AI

You could probably add Daniel Dennett to that list and also have a look at some the technical discussions as to where we are now to get a flavour of where we're going. I'm becoming involved in deep learning and convolutional neural nets myself at present and find the whole area fascinating. What I think is actually happening with AI and specific intelligence at present is that, by trying to mimic it with machinery, we're actually learning a lot about how our own perception works. If you run with Bostrom's line of thinking, it seems very much like we'll make God in our own image, but for an atheist there's nothing new there. Meanwhile, Elon Musk is trying to hack his way out of the Matrix, guess he should have taken the red pill to start with

Sorry for going off topic, but it's a Friday and approaching beer time....

Hotblack Desiato

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I don't really see what is funny about it, I have no agenda other than discuss the issue with honesty. You do understand that it is possible to be pro choice and still think abortion is not a good thing don't you?

It's not a good thing, but forced pregnancy is worse.

Amputating a limb is not a good thing, but sometimes it's necessary.

I would say that the clump of cells is a human in some form while a blueprint for a house is a piece of paper.

It is 'human' in that it is human tissue. It is very far away from being "A" human.

Something does not need to be conscious in order to be protected by us as a society. Should we go around killing everyone who is in a vegetative state?

Probably. We have seen christian fundamentalists in the US get involved in cases where there is no function above the brainstem and no prospect of recovery, but "life" eh?? :rolleyes:

Similarly in Israel they never turn life support off, again for nonsensical religious reasons.

https://www.bbc.com/news/health-29132303

When Ariel Sharon died in January this year, eight years after a stroke, he'd survived for longer than would probably be expected had he lived elsewhere in the world.

Since 2005 it's been illegal in Israel to turn off ventilators when a person is dying or has no hope of recovery. The result is that large numbers of patients spend years on life support, many of them unconscious.

Brain death is not reversible and we have clear protocols and definitions. Organ donation depends on this - Israeli-type laws are a clear example of where religious BS surrounding death causes misery for those who are living.

I hope you are right, I have given up being surprised by scientific advancements particularly in the medical field and I can see a day coming where we will need to reconsider weather a fetus at 12 weeks is conscious on some level.

Consciousness requires a brain.

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

On the contrary, it's a very precise term, and it was central to the abortion referendum which excluded "the unborn" from human rights.

I already pointed out to you only last week that the "unborn" was already excluded from human rights, both before and after 1983.

There is little point in replying to a poster if replies are ignored, and then the same points are made again as if the replies never existed. Posting in such a fashion is not engaging in discussion.

Timberrrrrrrr

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I already pointed out to you only last week that the "unborn" was already excluded from human rights, both before and after 1983.

There is little point in replying to a poster if replies are ignored, and then the same points are made again as if the replies never existed. Posting in such a fashion is not engaging in discussion.

I wonder where we have seen this tactic before?

Kidchameleon

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Consciousness requires a brain.

Which a 12 week old fetus has. My point being, at our current level of understanding, the 12 week old brain is not conscious. We may in the future discover that, on some level, it is...

We protect the life of humans that are barely conscious or not conscious at all (you would get done for murder if you killed a vegetative patient for example).

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

If you are looking for a word that separates humans from the other animals, or a born human from an unborn one, then you're going to have to look elsewhere. "Sentience" is not it.

Unlike many humans I do not have this need to "separate" us at all. Putting things into need little boxes has never been how my mind works it seems.

I do not see Sentience as a point of separation but a continuum we and the other animals fall along. And the further up that continuum something lies the more moral and ethical concern I would show it.

Further I think most people, without realising it, would agree and operate under that continuum too. Go around and ask people what they would save from a burning building if they knew they could only save ONE thing.... and then present them with random pairings of animals..... and you will find that humans generally move to save the instance of higher sentience over not only one but often MANY instances of a lower. Most people I suspect would not only save a bird over a spider, or a cat over a bird, or an ape over a cat...... but would even move to save ONE ape over ONE HUNDRED cats and so on.

And I do not think anyone would have to waste an iota of mental energy trying to work out why this might be so.

recedite wrote: »

On the contrary, it's a very precise term, and it was central to the abortion referendum which excluded "the unborn" from human rights.

Notice the difference between our claims here however. You are saying it is precise.... and that is all. You are just saying it. I am saying it is NOT precise and I explained exactly why. I am not just saying it.

So I repeat: The reason it is not precise is that it can refer to any part of the process from the day of conception to the day of birth. And there are MASSIVE difference between a fetus at 1 week and at 40.

There is therefore nothing precise about your term at all. You say "unborn" and you have told me nothing about the entity other than perhaps it's location. What is precise about that??? Let along "very" precise???? The precision of a term should be measured by the level of information it imparts to the person you use it on. If your term tells me nothing about it other than it's location, then there is little to no precision there at all.

recedite wrote: »

No I did not say that, you impugned it. A thermostat reacts to a stimulus, but its not even alive.
I talked about a life form that can experience pain or pleasure in a subjective way. We know that non-human animals can have these kind of experiences.

Then you are saying what you just claimed you are not. You are discussing experiences and subjective realities based on nothing but reaction to a stimulus. For example you said "A foetus will squirm if poked with a needle" and did so directly after discussing your idea that earthworms "can feel pain in a subjective way". The inference and implication you are painting could not be clearer. Especially as the sentence following those two discusses the ethics of inflicting such stimulus and then going on to claim "the unborn" are sentient.

So you are VERY clearly attempting to suggest sentience in the fetus by comparing the subjective experience of an earthworm with the physical autonomic responses of something we have NO reason to think sentient. Off the back of literally nothing but response to a stimulus. The last basis for defining sentience I have seen anyone but you use or even refer to.

recedite wrote: »

Just out of curiosity what is your definition of sentience? Do you believe it is some kind of defining feature unique to "personhood"?

I do not have one single definition of it, just like I do not have one single definition of "human". It is contextual. For example in some contexts I would define sentience and consciousness as there being something it is "like" to be that entity for that entity. There is no reason to think a fetus or a rock experience what it is like to be that fetus or that rock. You suggested perhaps there is for an earthworm and while I have my doubts, that suggestion does make my point for me. Which is why I would show more ethical concern to an earth worm than an 8 week old fetus for example.

To answer your second question however I do not think it unique to personhood no, but I do consider it a core pre-requisite of personhood and humanity and things like that. For example if we were to create an Artificial General Intelligence, the question of whether we need to show it moral or ethical concern would be founded mainly on whether we have cause to believe it conscious/sentient or not.

The discussion of abortion is, after all, centrally about whether the fetus should be considered to have human rights or not. It pays to know exactly what we mean by "Human" here and "human rights" and how we ground the latter in the former. And if the grounding of the latter is based on attributes the fetus simply does not have..... then I await agog for your arguments as to why I fetus should have human rights. But do not feel bad if you have no answer. Seemingly no one else does either!

nozzferrahhtoo

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I don't really see what is funny about it, I have no agenda other than discuss the issue with honesty. You do understand that it is possible to be pro choice and still think abortion is not a good thing don't you?

Have I indicated otherwise? I suspect you feel you have been treated unfairly by others who have called your honesty about being pro-choice into question and have now projected that on me. Despite me never having questioned it at all.

You ask what is funny about it. What is funny about it exactly what I said was funny about it. That you moved to question the use of the term and then while questioning it you made their point for them, thus showing exactly how and why they use the term. I found that amusing. YMMV clearly.

But you managed to talk somewhat around the core point being made there by questioning things I never did or said instead. Which is that by saying it is "becoming human" you are tacitly admitting it not to be human now. And that is the core of the "clump of cells" style of rhetoric. While the anti choice people are trying to pretend we are dehumanizing the fetus to the status of subhuman..... the pro choice people are pointing out that no, the actual reality is that there was no justifiable basis for considering it human in that sense in the first place.

We are not removing humanity from the fetus, we are questioning the basis of the decision to even think it had any in the first place. Which is no small difference.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I would say that the clump of cells is a human in some form while a blueprint for a house is a piece of paper. Something does not need to be conscious in order to be protected by us as a society. Should we go around killing everyone who is in a vegetative state?

And depending on how you define it the blue print is "in some form" a house too. Really the only difference between a blueprint and the cell created at conception.... is that the former is a blueprint while the latter is a blueprint and the tools for that blueprint to build itself.

Your question about "vegetative state" is a little vague however. Depending on the state in question we actually DO very often turn the machines off and let the person die. So to answer your question you need to be more specific about what it is you are asking.

To pre-empt some of the things you MIGHT add however, given I have been asked essentially the same question 1000 times before in different ways..... I believe a sentient entity is a sentient entity even when asleep or in a coma. You either are a sentient entity or you are not, and should be treated as a member of the collective sentience you are an instance of. Be you a dog, a dolphin, or a human. The current operational capacity of your sentience, curtailed as it might be by coma for example, is not relevant to this. Nor have I been shown an argument as to why it should be. Anywhere. Ever.

So I would slightly modify your sentence from "Something does not need to be conscious in order to be protected by us as a society." to "Something does not need to be conscious in the moment in order to be a consciousness that should be protected by us as a society."

The difference, I trust you will notice, is not subtle.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I hope you are right, I have given up being surprised by scientific advancements particularly in the medical field and I can see a day coming where we will need to reconsider weather a fetus at 12 weeks is conscious on some level.

I hope so too. But to allay your concerns..... Science changes all the time, but usually on front lines. Rarely are there changes in the core, and rarely ones that are massive and entirely outside the bounds of all the evidence to date. It COULD happen of course, but to be concerned by expecting it is on a par with being concerned that it will turn out we are all in The Matrix, or that we were all created by a god. These things are possible but there is ZERO reason at this time to even begin to suspect them to be true.

It is healthy to question science and expect things in science to be wrong. But a level of realism is required there too to expect somethings to be quite likely to be wrong and some things to not at all be. There is not only no reason to think a 12 week old fetus sentient on any level..... there is not even any reason to think we may ever find reasons to think so.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

What ones do I probably mean? You should ask what ones I mean before making assumptions.

I made no assumptions. It was a probability statement based on your previous references to thinks like homicide laws and the concept of murder. Based on your previous statements about those things I merely said that you PROBABLY are referring to those things again. No assumption required ya see? Just reference to your previous content.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I recommend the works of Ray Kurtzweil and Nick Bostrom if you are interested in the philosophical implications of AI

Way ahead of you on that one. Actually anyone really interested in AI should probably start by being deeply familiar with Turing and Neumann as they wrote on it, and then work your way from there up to modern thinkers and writers on the subject like Stuart Russel, Dennett, Dyson, Pinker, Wilczek, Deutsch, Anderson, Kaiser, Tegmark and many more I could name before your eyes cross over.

However while recommending to me people I have already read in detail, I notice the actual thought experiment was not answered. I thought it was just Jordan Peterson that liked to avoid answering questions by merely name dropping authors tangentially

The question still remains, is there any argument to suggest that the AI had a right to become sentient and if so what are those arguments, and did I perform a moral wrong in the scenario I described.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

We may in the future discover that, on some level, it is...

And we should be, as I am, 100% willing to entirely change our position on abortion if and when that occurs, without reservation.

But UNTIL that time comes, should we not base our positions on abortion on what we do know now, not what we imagine we MIGHT known in the future???

Or put another way, do we really need a feed of red herring here and the associated whatiffery???

smacl

Kidchameleon wrote: »

My point being, at our current level of understanding, the 12 week old brain is not conscious. We may in the future discover that, on some level, it is...

We make decisions from our current level of understanding though, not from speculation of what might possibly be but in all probability is not.

The alternative, which has been the status quo up until now, is to deny a pregnant woman bodily autonomy on the basis of someone else's subjective and unsubstantiated belief. Cynically, I'm also strongly of the opinion that the motivation behind this for many people isn't the best interests of the potential new person so much as the desire to impose the broader sexual morality and control of the church on the population at large.

From a societal standpoint, I'm also of the opinion that people deciding to have children when and if they want to have children makes sense and is socially responsible.

Bannasidhe

smacl wrote: »

Cynically, I'm also strongly of the opinion that the motivation behind this for many people isn't the best interests of the potential new person so much as the desire to impose the broader sexual morality and control of the church on the population at large.

.

I have long held this view. I would have far more respect for the anti-abortion advocates if I saw them putting as much time, energy, and money into protecting born children.
But, generally speaking, the people I see campaigning against homelessness, to help refugees, to end Direct Provision - all of which (among many other ways we are failing children) are causing real and serious harm to living, breathing, born, children are the same people who worked to Repeal the 8th.

nozzferrahhtoo

Indeed, and the people who resist initiatives like earlier and more comprehensive sexual education of children..... while preaching the sexual immorality of things like condoms........ are often the same people who worked against the repeal.

I keep trying to claim that the main common ground the pro choice and anti choice side share.... is we all want to live in a world without abortions happening.

But when they work against the very things that reduce crisis and unwanted pregnancies while also working to curtail the choices of the people who become pregnant... you do wonder.

volchitsa

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Which a 12 week old fetus has. My point being, at our current level of understanding, the 12 week old brain is not conscious. We may in the future discover that, on some level, it is...

And until then, there is no reason to use that possible future discovery to reduce the woman's human rights in any way.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

We protect the life of humans that are barely conscious or not conscious at all (you would get done for murder if you killed a vegetative patient for example).

True but we don't "protect" them to the extent of forcing other human beings to risk their own health to keep them alive.

That's where your comparison falls down - because nobody has a problem with granting a fetus all the rights you like, except rights that come in conflict with the bodily autonomy and basic human rights of another human being. We don't give that right to any other humans, why would we give it to fetuses?

Igotadose

Kidchameleon wrote: »

We protect the life of humans that are barely conscious or not conscious at all (you would get done for murder if you killed a vegetative patient for example).

All good - born people are humans. Fetuses are potential humans. Not the same thing.

robindch

smacl wrote: »

Cynically, I'm also strongly of the opinion that the motivation behind this for many people isn't the best interests of the potential new person so much as the desire to impose the broader sexual morality and control of the church on the population at large.

There's certainly a power-play going on, though whether that's perceived accepted on both sides is open to question.

I also incline to the religion-as-meme view, under which different sets of (individuals and rules for individuals) interact in such a way such that the group of (individuals + rules) which outbreeds other groups becomes the dominant group for no reason other than it's succeeded in producing more babies who grew up into compliant, breeding adults than other less-prolific groups.

The various churchs' otherwise-ghoulish interest in the sex lives of their members, and of non-members, takes on a different view then - the rules are that way because they've evolved by natural selection to be that way.

volchitsa

robindch wrote: »

There's certainly a power-play going on, though whether that's perceived accepted on both sides is open to question.

I also incline to the religion-as-meme view, under which different sets of (individuals and rules for individuals) interact in such a way such that the group of (individuals + rules) which outbreeds other groups becomes the dominant group for no reason other than it's succeeded in producing more babies who grew up into compliant, breeding adults than other less-prolific groups.

The various churchs' otherwise-ghoulish interest in the sex lives of their members, and of non-members, takes on a different view then - the rules are that way because they've evolved by natural selection to be that way.

There's something to this of course, but I think it ignores the "exposure" factor : it only works on condition that those children can be kept away from outside influences such as education or friendship with members of other groups. I don't think it's possible for evolution to act sufficiently fast to remove human beings' natural curiosity and indeed envy of what others have got that they don't.

That's why it's so important for religions to control children's education of course, to reduce their familiarity with other groups and lifestyles, but I don't think it's possible for mainstream religions to keep those outside influences at sufficient distance to keep a tight hold on all those children as they grow up.

aloyisious

Kidchameleon wrote: »

you would get done for murder if you killed a vegetative patient for example.

Well and good, if it was not the legally-permitted switching-off of a life-sustaining machine working futilely to keep a body in working order while the brain within was no longer capable of monitoring and controlling the body's essential functions. In respect to the debate-topic, the simile-rule would apply when comparing a growing foetus approximating to that described by you - of some short weeks growth - to a born/birthed fully capable human person.

Hotblack Desiato

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Which a 12 week old fetus has.

Citation needed. A non-functioning blob is not a brain.

My point being, at our current level of understanding, the 12 week old brain is not conscious. We may in the future discover that, on some level, it is...

This is like the tired old "we can't be 100.00000% certain, so therefore..." God of the gaps argument.

There is no reason whatsoever to suspect, never mind believe, that consciousness can possibly exist at 12 weeks or anything close to it.

We protect the life of humans that are barely conscious or not conscious at all (you would get done for murder if you killed a vegetative patient for example).

Not if they meet the criteria for brain death, no, which I explained in my previous post.

Even where life support machines are not involved, i.e. there is just about enough brainstem activity to support respiration and hearbeat, it can be legal and medically ethical to withdraw nutrition and/or hydration to bring about death, where the higher brain is absent or dead and there is no prospect of anything other than a vegetative existence.

Kidchameleon

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Citation needed. A non-functioning blob is not a brain.

It may be a non functioning blob but it is a brain. I never said it was conscious or functioning, I simply said it was a brain. A 100 year old brain in a jar of formaldehyde is still a brain, that does not mean I think it is conscious or functional.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

This is like the tired old "we can't be 100.00000% certain, so therefore..." God of the gaps argument.

There is no reason whatsoever to suspect, never mind believe, that consciousness can possibly exist at 12 weeks or anything close to it.

I think it is rather naive to write it off completely, we humans are an amazing species. There have been plenty of discoveries throughout the ages that have inverted our perceptions of reality.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Even where life support machines are not involved, i.e. there is just about enough brainstem activity to support respiration and hearbeat, it can be legal and medically ethical to withdraw nutrition and/or hydration to bring about death, where the higher brain is absent or dead and there is no prospect of anything other than a vegetative existence.

Said life is still protected though. We cannot simply unplug life support machines at a whim. You would get charged with murder if you did.

nozzferrahhtoo

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I think it is rather naive to write it off completely

Great, because no one is. The user wrote "There is no reason whatsoever to suspect, never mind believe, that consciousness can possibly exist at 12 weeks or anything close to it." and that statement does not right the possibility off completely. It is a statement that refers to the CURRENT data set we have.

And in the CURRENT data set there is no basis for even suspecting such a fetus might be sentient.

So discussions about how we MIGHT get new data in the future that changes that is all very interesting as navel gazing. But in terms of discussing abortion it is a red herring and the most inane of whatiffery.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Said life is still protected though. We cannot simply unplug life support machines at a whim. You would get charged with murder if you did.

What we are protecting with such charges is not "said life" but all people in that medical state. The decision to unplug needs to go through proper procedures even if the patient is entirely brain dead and beyond even the remotest possibility or resuscitation.

Not for the sake of that individual, but for the sake of ALL individuals in similar states. Procedure has to be followed, and if it is not then yes the people bypassing it should be charged.

What this has to do with the fact there is no reason to think a fetus sentient however, I am agog to hear. We appear to be having a feast of herring here.

Charles Ingles

Babies lives matter

amcalester

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Babies lives matter

Has anyone ever said they don’t?

Kidchameleon

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So discussions about how we MIGHT get new data in the future that changes that is all very interesting as navel gazing. But in terms of discussing abortion it is a red herring and the most inane of whatiffery.

I find thinking about things we might face in the future to be very interesting.

smacl

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Babies lives matter

And on that basis perhaps the pro-life brigade could spend a bit more time looking after babies and children in need and a bit less on pregnant women in crisis. There are no shortage of children in need and that need often extremely urgent. My ongoing cynicism with the pro-life movement is that these very young people, real people by that way that everyone acknowledges as people, don't seem to be much interest them. So yes, babies lives matter and so do those of pregnant women. Compassion beyond self interest also matters.

Charles Ingles

smacl wrote: »

And on that basis perhaps the pro-life brigade could spend a bit more time looking after babies and children in need and a bit less on pregnant women in crisis. There are no shortage of children in need and that need often extremely urgent. My ongoing cynicism with the pro-life movement is that these very young people, real people by that way that everyone acknowledges as people, don't seem to be much interest them. So yes, babies lives matter and so do those of pregnant women. Compassion beyond self interest also matters.

We can do both.
Life is precious and a gift from God

amcalester

Charles Ingles wrote: »

We can do both.
Life is precious and a gift from God

Then why don’t they?

end of the road

smacl wrote: »

And on that basis perhaps the pro-life brigade could spend a bit more time looking after babies and children in need and a bit less on pregnant women in crisis. There are no shortage of children in need and that need often extremely urgent. My ongoing cynicism with the pro-life movement is that these very young people, real people by that way that everyone acknowledges as people, don't seem to be much interest them. So yes, babies lives matter and so do those of pregnant women. Compassion beyond self interest also matters.

apart from accusations by some, accusations which in my view are used by a few simply as a stick to beat the pro-life movement with, rather then showing genuine concern (note, i'm not saying this applies to you) i have saw no tangible evidence myself that the pro-life brigade, or at least some of them, don't focus on issues effecting born babies as well as the unborn. people can and do focus on multiple issues at the same time, so pro-lifers can and do focus on born and unborn.
however with a lot of organisations focusing on the born, with not so many on the unborn, it's probably understandable that some pro-lifers will focus more on the unborn, given they believe that the unborn have a right to life and that right is not being upheld as it should, and the fact that there are already plenty doing good work for the born, for which they may feel they would simply be duplicating rather then contributing to.

smacl

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I find thinking about things we might face in the future to be very interesting.

Likewise, but that's a good thing. Personally, a keen sense of wonder is one of those gems that makes life worth living. For me, the difference between atheism and honest religious faith is comparable to a game of space invaders. An atheist knows they only ever had one guy to play from the start with and play the game accordingly. Being notably finite makes life more wonderful and moments more precious. I like that this is it, it never was before and will never be again. Being afraid of death risks not making the most of life, as one thing we all face in the future is death. Oh yeah, and dilapidation, jaysus, if I could just get my old body back...

With respect to abortion, I find it utterly deplorable that anyone would seek to instruct a pregnant woman how to behave such that it suits their personal morality.

smacl

end of the road wrote: »

apart from accusations by some, accusations which in my view are used by a few simply as a stick to beat the pro-life movement with, rather then showing genuine concern (note, i'm not saying this applies to you) i have saw no tangible evidence myself that the pro-life brigade, or at least some of them, don't focus on issues effecting born babies as well as the unborn. people can and do focus on multiple issues at the same time, so pro-lifers can and do focus on born and unborn.
however with a lot of organisations focusing on the born, with not so many on the unborn, it's probably understandable that some pro-lifers will focus more on the unborn, given they believe that the unborn have a right to life and that right is not being upheld as it should, and the fact that there are already plenty doing good work for the born, for which they may feel they would simply be duplicating rather then contributing to.

So perhaps you could show us a examples of how the pro-life movement are helping children in need? Specifically, in terms of effort and expenditure when compared to similar resources devoted to preventing pregnant women from making their own choices.

Pherekydes

Charles Ingles wrote: »

Life is precious and a gift from God

If life was a gift from god don't you think the miscarriage rate would be lower?

Cabaal

Pherekydes wrote: »

If life was a gift from god don't you think the miscarriage rate would be lower?

God works in mysterious ways don't you know....