Abortion

partyatmygaff

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Doesn't the MAP prevent fertilisation? Or is it just implantation it prevents?

It does both. In most cases, i'd say it prevents fertilisation.

Seachmall wrote: »

It's not,

"Biologically, a child is anyone between birth and puberty or in the developmental stage of childhood, between infancy and adulthood."
- Wiki

"a person 6 to 12 years of age. An individual 2 to 5 years old is child, preschool."
- Biology Online

They're two very wooly definitions as far as i'm concerned. A perfect definition to my mind would be similar to the definition of progeny except in the singular. The definitions you have are specific to humans and aren't particularly robust.

A robust definition would be:
"A child is an individual organism who is the progeny of one or two other individuals from the previous generation."

That's a much better definition of the term.

harperlee

I'm not pro abortion but I am pro choice, women should be allowed to decided this very though decision with out religion and society making them feel like crap about it. It should be available along with counselling and support and not a guilt trip.

partyatmygaff

harperlee wrote: »

I'm not pro abortion but I am pro choice, women should be allowed to decided this very though decision with out religion and society making them feel like crap about it.

It's nothing to do with making people feel crap about anything. Elective abortion is nothing short of immoral (And no, not for religious reasons. I'm not Catholic). If you do something that you know is wrong then guilt is a perfectly natural reaction. If there ever was a vote, as far as i'm concerned, I wouldn't help make it easier for people to do something I consider completely immoral.

It should be available along with counselling and support and not a guilt trip.

Counseling and support for people who went abroad and had an abortion is fine. Counseling and support for people who have to abort for medical reasons is also fine.

Counseling and support before an elective abortion to try and make it seem less immoral isn't on though.

Seachmall

partyatmygaff wrote: »

It does both. In most cases, i'd say it prevents fertilisation.

They're two very wooly definitions as far as i'm concerned. A perfect definition to my mind would be similar to the definition of progeny except in the singular. The definitions you have are specific to humans and aren't particularly robust.

A robust definition would be:
"A child is an individual organism who is the progeny of one or two other individuals from the previous generation."

That's a much better definition of the term.

That's your definition, not necessarily a biological one.

partyatmygaff

Seachmall wrote: »

That's your definition, not necessarily a biological one.

Which is the more accurate definition? Just because something's in Wikipedia or in a book doesn't necessarily make it perfect.

"A child is anyone between birth and puberty or in the developmental stage of childhood, between infancy and adulthood."

You're still your mother's child, right? No matter what age you are, you're still someone's child.

When you look at the definition I gave however:
"A child is an individual organism who is the progeny of one or two other individuals from the previous generation."

That's perfectly valid in all circumstances for all species at all ages.

Seachmall

partyatmygaff wrote: »

That's perfectly valid in all circumstances for all species at all ages.

Yes, but it's your definition, not necessarily an accepted definition within biology.

Your claim that "child" is an accurate biological term is irrelevant if you're defining the term and if it doesn't coincide with a widely accepted biological definition.

harperlee

partyatmygaff wrote: »

harperlee wrote: »

I'm not pro abortion but I am pro choice, women should be allowed to decided this very though decision with out religion and society making them feel like crap about it.

It's nothing to do with making people feel crap about anything. Elective abortion is nothing short of immoral (And no, not for religious reasons. I'm not Catholic). If you do something that you know is wrong then guilt is a perfectly natural reaction. If there ever was a vote, as far as i'm concerned, I wouldn't help make it easier for people to do something I consider completely immoral.

It should be available along with counselling and support and not a guilt trip.

Counseling and support for people who went abroad and had an abortion is fine. Counseling and support for people who have to abort for medical reasons is also fine.

Counseling and support before an elective abortion to try and make it seem less immoral isn't on though.

Please see it from the view of women who are in this situation, I doubt it's a decision that is anyway easy to make. I agree it's an awful thing to do but it's not our lives and I don't think we have the right to make that choice for anyone.

nozzferrahhtoo

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Elective abortion is nothing short of immoral

Says you. Thankfully however you simply saying it does not make it so and I have yet to see this declaration being backed up by any cogent arguments ever. Let alone on this thread.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Counseling and support before an elective abortion to try and make it seem less immoral isn't on though.

I am unaware of any counselling programme that is there to dictate the morality or immorality of your situation so we are rather in danger of entering straw man territory here. Counselling is not about deciding something in your past was moral or not. It is about coming to terms within yourself regarding events and choices in ones past. Counselling is not just applicable to things like abortion either. At times even people who have had a heart bypass can need counselling as not everyone confronts their own mortality equally well when they meet it that closely.

If elective abortion ever comes to Ireland I do indeed think access to counselling consultation will be required and it has nothing whatsoever to do with the morality of abortion.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Which is the more accurate definition?

How one defines things like "Life" and "individual" and "child" is not quite as easy as simply declaring a definition to be the best and running with it throughout life. Context is clearly important.

Alas this means that some level of trickery is afforded the speaker on issues like abortion. The speaker merely has to leave the context of abortion... create a definition that sounds pretty generally good... then wheel it wholesale back into the discussion at which point they can go "Therefore the fetus is a child, and killing children is bad, so abortion is immoral."

At the end of the day the context here is whether the fetus has rights or not and hence whether there is a moral implication in terminating it. As such I do not think one can coherently define the fetus into attaining rights solely by playing a generalized linguistic definition game aimed at attaining a definition that allows one to sneak those rights in the back door.

I simply see no cogent argument for affording a fetus rights at certain stages in the development and a generalized cherry picked definition of "child" is certainly not a jumping point for getting there.

OldNotWIse

harperlee wrote: »

Please see it from the view of women who are in this situation, I doubt it's a decision that is anyway easy to make. I agree it's an awful thing to do but it's not our lives and I don't think we have the right to make that choice for anyone.

Interesting choice of words...

Pushtrak

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Irish-government-rejects-UN-findings-in-abortion-rights-131581738.html (Oct '11)

The Irish Government has rejected six recommendations by the UN Human Rights Council to legalize or partially legalize abortion, according to the Irish Times.

Out of a total of 126 recommendations, the Government accepted 62 and claimed that they would “study carefully” 49 more before the next Human Rights council session in March, 2012.

These recommendations to Ireland were "based on the first review of Ireland’s record under the UN’s Universal Periodic Review, a process that culminated in a hearing involving Minister for Justice Alan Shatter in Geneva last week," the article reported.

These 49 recommendations addressed controversial issues such as conditions in prisons, gender equality, mental health, torture prevention, and children's rights.

Just under half of the 15 recommendations the Government rejected were on the topic of abortion. These included a plea from Slovenia to allow for abortion "at least when pregnancy poses a risk to the health of the pregnant woman" and for the country to implement the judgement made by the European Court of Human Rights on the A, B, and C v Ireland case.

The current law in Ireland regarding abortion holds that abortion is illegal, except where there is a substantial risk to the life of the mother, including the risk of suicide. In those cases, abortion may be legal, but this rule is only applied after the 28th week of pregnancy. However, the 2010 landmark decision that held that Ireland had violated article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which confirms the right for respect with regard to one's privacy, without any interference by a public authority figure. The decision held that, although abortion is illegal in Ireland, it was uncertain whether or not the third participant, C, could have had access to an abortion if she feared her life was in danger; that is, there was no information available to her at the time where she could simply learn her rights in such a situation.

Justice Shatter reported that an "expert group" was to be appointed by the Government next month in order to implement the ruling in the historical civil rights case in an "adequate and comprehensive" way.

partyatmygaff

Seachmall wrote: »

Yes, but it's your definition, not necessarily an accepted definition within biology.

Ask any biologist which definition is more robust and you'll get a consensus.

Your claim that "child" is an accurate biological term is irrelevant if you're defining the term and if it doesn't coincide with a widely accepted biological definition.

Wikipedia and a website or two does not make it "widely accepted". Again, if you want a consensus as to which is the "better" or more robust definition, pop on to the biology forum and ask.

harperlee wrote: »

Please see it from the view of women who are in this situation, I doubt it's a decision that is anyway easy to make.

Just because a decision isn't easy to make doesn't make it right or acceptable. Someone killing their child/offspring/progeny/whatever word you prefer just because they don't want them isn't right.

I agree it's an awful thing to do but it's not our lives and I don't think we have the right to make that choice for anyone.

I'm not making choices for anyone. I just do not want elective abortion to ever be seen as an acceptable option or to make it any easier to obtain than at present.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Says you. Thankfully however you simply saying it does not make it so and I have yet to see this declaration being backed up by any cogent arguments ever. Let alone on this thread.

How would you view people choosing to kill their offspring? (As apparently the word child bothers some people)

I am unaware of any counselling programme that is there to dictate the morality or immorality of your situation so we are rather in danger of entering straw man territory here. Counselling is not about deciding something in your past was moral or not.

You've misunderstood my post. What I said was that I don't agree with offering support for people who want to have an elective abortion (But who haven't yet obtained one).

How one defines things like "Life" and "individual" and "child" is not quite as easy as simply declaring a definition to be the best and running with it throughout life. Context is clearly important.

I'm not sure where you're going with this. "Life" is very clear-cut in biology, as is "individual". Some people view the word "child" as a stage in a human's life but my take on the word is that it's analogous to "offspring" or "progeny" as that's a more robust definition.

Alas this means that some level of trickery is afforded the speaker on issues like abortion. The speaker merely has to leave the context of abortion... create a definition that sounds pretty generally good... then wheel it wholesale back into the discussion at which point they can go "Therefore the fetus is a child, and killing children is bad, so abortion is immoral."

Well that's it, isn't it? It's the point at which you begin to consider an individual's offspring to be a child. Personally, I don't think it makes any sense to start calling an individual a child at some arbitrary number of weeks and prefer to stick to the time at which you can simply say a new individual life has begun.

At the end of the day the context here is whether the fetus has rights or not and hence whether there is a moral implication in terminating it. As such I do not think one can coherently define the fetus into attaining rights solely by playing a generalized linguistic definition game aimed at attaining a definition that allows one to sneak those rights in the back door.

Again, I ask you... do you think there's something wrong with a parent killing their offspring because they don't want them? If you think it's wrong after an arbitrarily decided X weeks, what has changed in the nature (Not necessarily morphology) of the organism to make it wrong?

Seachmall

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Ask any biologist which definition is more robust and you'll get a consensus.

Wikipedia and a website or two does not make it "widely accepted". Again, if you want a consensus as to which is the "better" or more robust definition, pop on to the biology forum and ask.

It's not up to me to verify your claim.

And the website I quoted was one you earlier quoted, so I assumed you believed it to be reasonably reliable (or at least more reliable than the Boards biology forum...?).

Morag

OldNotWIse wrote: »

So it stops a pregnancy, it doesn't undo one that already exists. Why the problem with it then?

Cos some people seem to erroneously think pregnancy starts at conception.

They also tend to have issue with any hormonal contraception which can prevent implantation, such as the pill, patch, impants.

partyatmygaff

Seachmall wrote: »

It's not up to me to verify your claim.

And the website I quoted was one you earlier quoted, so I assumed you believed it to be reasonably reliable.

Reliable and perfectly accurate in some cases. Not accurate in other cases as I demonstrated to you. I.e. You are your mother's child but you don't meet that particular definition. Even at that, just because it's written on a web page or in a book doesn't make it sound.

As for consensus, it's far too much hassle. It's not even strictly speaking necessary.

Just look at both definitions yourself and tell me which do you think is more robust. Which is true for all situations and which is only true for some situations?

Seachmall

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Which is true for all situations and which is only true for some situations?

I agree your definition is a sound definition for "offspring", but from what I've read the term "child" is not necessarily used synonymously with "offspring" in biology.

It is colloquially, but your claim was specific to biology.

It's not even strictly speaking necessary.

It is, otherwise we only have your opinion on what a "child" is.

just because it's written on a web page or in a book doesn't make it sound.

Likewise, just because that's how you define it doesn't mean that's the accepted biological definition.

OldNotWIse

Sharrow wrote: »

Cos some people seem to erroneously think pregnancy starts at conception.

They also tend to have issue with any hormonal contraception which can prevent implantation, such as the pill, patch, impants.

Yikes :rolleyes: I would consider myself to be pro-life, but I always thought that women who use the pill, implants etc were being responsible by taking steps to ensure that they dont get pregnant. So some quacks would have us believe that these women are "killing" their child even though the fertilised egg isn't even implanted yet? No wonder pro-choicers get such a bad rep. Like people who hug trees and gaze into crystal balls and only eat fruit that has given written consent to be eaten yadda yadda. It's a pity that extremists can bring everyone down with them :eek:

partyatmygaff

Seachmall wrote: »

I agree your definition is a sound definition for "offspring", but from what I've read the term "child" is not necessarily used synonymously with "offspring" in biology.

With regard to abortion and this discussion, the two words are more or less interchangeable.

It is colloquially, but your claim was specific to biology.

It is, otherwise we only have your opinion on what a "child" is.

Likewise, just because that's how you define it doesn't mean that's the accepted biological definition.

What is "biology"? It is not some body of scholars who decide upon lists of "accepted definitions". Anyone is free to delve in to biology, study life and share their findings and thoughts. If their thoughts and findings are sound then I don't see why they should be dismissed in favour of existing (And not even necessarily "universally accepted") ideas and definitions.

My definition of "child" is more robust than the definitions you found on Wikipedia and the dictionary (Which probably referenced the term from a single source). Why are you willing to continue accepting the definition provided on Wikipedia despite its flaws being demonstrated? Why are you dismissing "my" definition (That others may have possibly documented before) despite it being far more robust and accurate? The only reason I can see is: "It was printed somewhere" which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Ideas and definitions of concepts should be judged on their own merits and not solely by where they originated.

Morag

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Yikes :rolleyes: I would consider myself to be pro-life, but I always thought that women who use the pill, implants etc were being responsible by taking steps to ensure that they dont get pregnant. So some quacks would have us believe that these women are "killing" their child even though the fertilised egg isn't even implanted yet? No wonder pro-choicers get such a bad rep.

That is exactly the 'logic' being used in the USA and what those 'personhood' bills which try and give human rights from conception will do, which is pretty much make illegal all types of hormoanal contraception and iuds and the map.

Seachmall

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Why are you willing to continue accepting the definition provided on Wikipedia despite its flaws being demonstrated? Why are you dismissing "my" definition (That others may have possibly documented before) despite it being far more robust and accurate? The only reason I can see is: "It was printed somewhere" which doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Ideas and definitions of concepts should be judged on their own merits and not solely by where they originated.

I'm not arguing which is more robust a definition.


I'm questioning your claim that the current accepted biological definition of a child includes the fetus.


I thus-far reject your claim because you've yet to support your statement with anything, it contradicts what I believe to be a reasonable source (biology-online), and there is a plausible bias.

I'm more willing to agree to the Wikipedia and Biology-online definitions because I see no apparent bias in them and you acknowledged biology-online to be reasonably reliable. I also reject your speculation that they "probably" came from the same source unless you can demonstrate that they have or likely have.

I also question your belief that your definition of "child" is more accurate and robust. From what I understand it is used to address a specific period in someone's life (i.e. "childhood", between birth, or infancy, and adolescences). If this is the goal of the term, which it's apparent definition would suggest, your expansion of it is unnecessary.

partyatmygaff

Seachmall wrote: »

You haven't demonstrated your definition to be more robust and I'm not arguing which is more robust a definition.

Yes I have.

Would you agree you are your "parent's child"? If that's true, then the definition present on Wikipedia and "Biology-online" isn't particularly robust as it fails to account for your particular case. Mine however does not fail.

A definition that remains true in all conditions = Robust
A definition that is true only for some conditions =/= Robust

I'm questioning your claim that the current accepted biological definition of a child includes the fetus.

Again, what is a "current accepted biological definition"? Who decides what is accepted and what is not? Strict lists of "accepted definitions" has little to do with the reality of biology.

I'm more willing to agree to the Wikipedia and Biology-online definitions because I see no apparent bias in them.

You're willing to agree with a poor definition because you saw it typed on the Internet by a "source" but you'll dismiss what is more or less a flawless definition because of some imagined bias.

I reject yours because you've yet to support your statement with anything, it contradicts what I believe to be a reasonable source (biology-online), and there is a plausible bias.

That sounds like a load of nonsense.

I've already demonstrated the failings of the definition you found on Wikipedia. At this stage, you've put your brain aside and you're blindly assigning superiority to what you found in your "reasonable source" without actually judging the two definitions on their own merits.

If everyone thought like that scientific advancements would more or less grind to a halt.

Seachmall

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Yes I have.

Would you agree you are your "parent's child"? If that's true, then the definition present on Wikipedia and "Biology-online" isn't particularly robust as it fails to account for your particular case. Mine however does not fail.

A definition that remains true in all conditions = Robust
A definition that is true only for some conditions =/= Robust

You are expanding the apparent biological definition of "child" to include the colloquial use of the word.

This is unnecessary.

Again, what is a "current accepted biological definition"? Who decides what is accepted and what is not? Strict lists of "accepted definitions" has little to do with the reality of biology.

"Accepted definitions" have everything to do with language, without them practical communication would be impossible. In this case it's the language of a specific field of science.

If you can demonstrate your definition to be widely understood by the scientific community, as you claim, I'll accept it. Until then I've no reason to accept it.

blindly assigning superiority to what you found in your "reasonable source" without actually judging the two definitions on their own merits.

I am not discussing the merits of the definition. I'm discussing it's current use in biology.

Can you demonstrate that in biology "child" is currently used to include the unborn, regardless of how practical that definition is?

partyatmygaff

Seachmall wrote: »

You are expanding the apparent biological definition of "child" to include the colloquial use of the word.

This is unnecessary.

No it's not. Definitions should be robust and as universal as possible. As for colloquial, i'm pretty sure both "Child = Age range" and "Child = Offspring" would be equally accepted.

If you can demonstrate your definition to be widely understood by the scientific community, as you claim, I'll accept it. Until then I've no reason to accept it.

Why? Do you need someone to tell you "Yes, you should agree with that" to accept something?

Seachmall wrote: »

Can you demonstrate that in biology "child" is currently used to include the unborn, regardless of how practical that definition is?

This has really gotten to a stage where discussion has become pointless.

Let's not get bogged down by the exact meaning of "child" as it's not hugely important. Let's forget about the word. But before that... you may find this quote from Wikipedia interesting:

Human offspring (descendants) are referred to as children (without reference to age, thus one can refer to a parent's "minor children" or "adult children" or "infant children" or "teenage children); male children are sons and female children are daughters.

What do you think of electing to kill your offspring because you don't want them?

Seachmall

partyatmygaff wrote: »

No it's not. Definitions should be robust and as universal as possible. As for colloquial, i'm pretty sure both "Child = Age range" and "Child = Offspring" would be equally accepted.

As would "Infant = Child".
Or "Adolescent = Child".
And "Adult = Child".

But it's unnecessary.

Why? Do you need someone to tell you "Yes, you should agree with that" to accept something?

You seem to believe I'm discussing the value of the definitions and that I'm unable to conclude on what is the more robust.

I'm not discussing that, nor am I attempting to conclude which is more robust.

I'm attempting to find out if your definition is widely used in biology. That is not something that can be decided without something that suggests it is widely used in biology.

Let's forget about the word. But before that... you may find this quote from Wikipedia interesting:

Is that a colloquial use or a biological one?

partyatmygaff

Seachmall wrote: »

I'm attempting to find out if your definition is widely used. That is not something that can be decided without something that suggests it is widely used.

Is that a colloquial use or a biological one?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offspring

A few relevant quotes:
"This article is about a biological term."
"In biology, offspring is the product of reproduction, of a new organism produced by one or more parents."
"Human offspring (descendants) are referred to as children (without reference to age, thus one can refer to a parent's "minor children" or "adult children" or "infant children" or "teenage children); male children are sons and female children are daughters."

That would tend to imply that children is merely a term for "human offspring".

Also, a few links where the term "Adult Children" is used in a scientific/medical context:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/releases/149047.php
http://www4.dcu.ie/students/counselling/adultchildrenalcoholics.shtml
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/liking-the-child-you-love/201204/dealing-demanding-dependent-adult-children
http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=154267

Another thing, you forgot to answer the last question from my last post.

Seachmall

partyatmygaff wrote: »

That would tend to imply that children is merely a term for "human offspring".

FANTASTIC!

It only took what? 10 posts?

Another thing, you forgot to answer the last question from my last post.

Actually, I ignored it.

partyatmygaff

Seachmall wrote: »

FANTASTIC!
It only took what? 10 posts?

To be honest, I would have expected anyone talking about abortion to at least know the proper meaning of the word "child". It's fundamental to the conversation. It shouldn't have even been a point of contention.

Actually, I ignored it.

Funny that. I can only imagine why.

Seachmall

partyatmygaff wrote: »

To be honest, I would have expected anyone talking about abortion to at least know the proper meaning of the word "child". It shouldn't have even been a point of contention.

I found two definitions that contradicted your statement, we agree they're both reasonably reliable sources (as we both quoted from the further points at different times) so I'm sure you'll appreciate my scepticism which was furthered by the repeated red herrings thrown my way.

Funny that.

partyatmygaff

Seachmall wrote: »

I found two definitions that contradicted your statement

When?

so I'm sure you'll appreciate my scepticism which was furthered by the repeated red herrings thrown my way.

What red herrings?

Random video...

I assume this means "Leave me alone, I don't want to answer that question."?

Seachmall

partyatmygaff wrote: »

When?

When I posted them.

What red herrings?

The constant "which do you feel is more robust a definition?".

It wasn't relevant to the discussion what I felt to be the more robust definition.

I assume this means "Leave me alone, I don't want to answer that question."?

A) It's not a random video, it's a classic and hilarious scene performed remarkably well that I felt was relevant.
It means the question was another red herring.

partyatmygaff

Seachmall wrote: »

When I posted them.

So the non-existent ones then...

I don't know what's happened to you. A few posts ago you were quite normal. Now you've turned sarcastic and somewhat childish.

The constant "which do you feel is more robust a definition?".
It wasn't relevant to the discussion what I felt to be the more robust definition.

It was central to the point I was making. You were disputing my claim that a child is essentially analogous to human offspring. I was asking you to consider both definitions and see which was more robust to show you that both meanings of the word "child" are valid.

A) It's not a random video, it's a classic and hilarious scene performed remarkably well that I felt was relevant.
It means the question was another red herring.

How is asking "What do you think of people who elect to kill their offspring?" a red herring in a discussion about abortion?

Would you prefer I whitewashed it and twisted it to make it sound more palatable so that saying "I'd fully support that" would be acceptable?

Let's see:
"What do you think of a woman electing to purge her body of a foreign organism by killing it?"

Let me guess:
Another "RED HERRING!!!!! + Youtube video" combo.