Abortion debate thread

Peregrinus

doctoremma wrote: »

This morning, a little thought experiment came to me. While I have don't recall having heard of the below scenario before, there is little original in this world, so if I am subconsciously plagiarising, I will give due credit as appropriate. Feel free to point out gaping holes (except the unreality of the scenario), as it's a first attempt at formulating...The aim is determine the "vehicle", the "biological container" of personhood.

Let's consider two women, Jane and Sarah. Both have families, jobs, friends, lives. The world they inhabit is far in the future, where brain transplants into both human bodies and artificial hosts (computer systems, robots) are possible.

1. Let's imagine that Jane and Sarah swap brains. Which body does the person "Jane" inhabit? Do we refer to that body as Jane's body? Which of those two bodies should (and should want to) tuck Jane's children into bed at night? If you were Jane's friend, who do you now wish to share drinks with?

Is there anything that was previously attributed to Jane, in terms of her personhood, that remains with her original body and would warrant protection as part of Jane's personhood?

2. Let's imagine that Jane's brain is transplanted into a computer system or robot. Is that system now "Jane"? Would that system be afforded the label of "personhood"? If you permanently switched off the system, would that constitute murder?

It’s an interesting thought-experiment, but – no offence – I don’t know that it’s a terribly useful one. Both of the post-transplant women are plainly persons, and if we kill either of them we commit murder, and this remains true whether we see them as Jane and Sarah, or as Sarah and Jane. From the point of view of knowing whether we are obliged to respect them as persons we don’t have to able to name them, or to say whether either of them is the “same” person as one of the pre-transplant women. (Maybe they’re two new persons!)

But I don’t think we’re any nearer to an answer to the question posed by abortion; whether the human individual at a much earlier stage of development is a “person” in the relevant moral sense, or can we identify a point in time or stage of development at which they become a person in that sense?

Even the phrase you coin about the “biological container” of personhood seems to me to imply a dualistic matter/spirit distinction which someone of pro-life sensibility would not necessarily accept as valid (and certainly can’t be empirically demonstrated). The body isn’t necessarily a “container” of the person; it can just as easily be seen as an expression of the person, or a dimension of the person. (And, in a thread devoted to Christian perspectives, it’s probably relevant to point out that most Christians would reject the “container” language.)

doctoremma

Peregrinus wrote: »

It’s an interesting thought-experiment, but – no offence – I don’t know that it’s a terribly useful one.

No offence taken!

Peregrinus wrote: »

Both of the post-transplant women are plainly persons, and if we kill either of them we commit murder, and this remains true whether we see them as Jane and Sarah, or as Sarah and Jane.

I think this a bit of a cop-out (and perhaps the scenario needs to be adapted to close this loophole). I take your point but it's not what I asked, which was "Who is who?".

Peregrinus wrote: »

But I don’t think we’re any nearer to an answer to the question posed by abortion; whether the human individual at a much earlier stage of development is a “person” in the relevant moral sense, or can we identify a point in time or stage of development at which they become a person in that sense?

I think if it can be determined that the brain is the "biological container" of personhood, then we can think more carefully about whether the premise of "personhood" is relevant or appropriate for the pro-life position.

If, of course, the pro-lifer throws out the whole premise, on the basis that the definition of personhood they are using in the abortion debate is only relevant for the abortion debate (and that the one they use to answer any of the questions in the thought experiment is a different kind of "personhood"), then there's pretty much nothing I can do about that, except point out the weakness of that position.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Even the phrase you coin about the “biological container” of personhood seems to me to imply a dualistic matter/spirit distinction which someone of pro-life sensibility would not necessarily accept as valid (and certainly can’t be empirically demonstrated). The body isn’t necessarily a “container” of the person; it can just as easily be seen as an expression of the person, or a dimension of the person. (And, in a thread devoted to Christian perspectives, it’s probably relevant to point out that most Christians would reject the “container” language.)

Point taken. However, that position becomes problematic for other moral dilemmas such as switching off life support machines? Either there is no dualism - the body and brain are one and the same - and turning off a life support machine is murder. Or there is dualism and we can see that once the brain is dead, the person is dead.

philologos

As interesting as I find artificial intelligence as a self-confessed computer nerd, can I ask you to explain how each one of those questions directly applies to abortion-by-choice?

doctoremma

philologos wrote: »

As interesting as I find artificial intelligence as a self-confessed computer nerd, can I ask you to explain how each one of those questions directly applies to abortion-by-choice?

See my original post on this:

doctoremma wrote: »

The aim is determine the "vehicle", the "biological container" of personhood.

From my pro-choice position, the key argument for me is no brain = no sentience = no harm (OK, that's putting it more bluntly than I would normally but you get the picture). However, a key objection from the pro-life side is that a single-cell embryo has "personhood" and therefore the full spectrum of human rights applies. I'm trying to separate, for my own thoughts as much as anything, what constitutes that "personhood", as it's inexplicable to me. Are we even using the same definition of "personhood"? I don't know.

Peregrinus

doctoremma wrote: »

No offence taken!

Good!

doctoremma wrote: »

I think this a bit of a cop-out (and perhaps the scenario needs to be adapted to close this loophole). I take your point but it's not what I asked, which was "Who is who?".

But it doesn’t matter who is who. There are many circumstances in which we can say with confidence that an entity is a “person” when we are quite unable to say who that person is. Maybe the person before me is the old Jane; maybe it’s the old Sarah; maybe it’s neither the old Jane or the old Sarah, but a new person with some heritage from both. Morally, it makes no difference?

doctoremma wrote: »

I think if it can be determined that the brain is the "biological container" of personhood, then we can think more carefully about whether the premise of "personhood" is relevant or appropriate for the pro-life position.

True, in the sense that if the brain is the container for personhood, an entity without a brain cannot be a person.

Or maybe not so true. Even if we could “determine” (and how could we possibly “determine” this?) that the brain was (or was not) the container of personhood in your hypothetical, it wouldn’t follow that the brain was the container of personhood for all persons at all times. Even if we grant that it’s meaningful to talk of the container of personhood, I don’t see anything in the concept of “person” – or, for that matter, in the concept of “container” - which requires that each person should have one and only one container at all times of life. So if the brain is demonstrated to be the container of the personhood of Jane and Sarah, it doesn’t follow that it must also be the container of the personhood of an unborn human.

doctoremma wrote: »

If, of course, the pro-lifer throws out the whole premise, on the basis that the definition of personhood they are using in the abortion debate is only relevant for the abortion debate (and that the one they use to answer any of the questions in the thought experiment is a different kind of "personhood"), then there's pretty much nothing I can do about that, except point out the weakness of that position.

I don’t see that the position is necessarily a weak one. A pro-life advocate may reason from a concept of “person” which does not presume any requirement for a container at any stage of life. That concept would not, then, be relevant only to abortion questions; it would be relevant at all points from conception to death.

doctoremma wrote: »

Point taken. However, that position becomes problematic for other moral dilemmas such as switching off life support machines? Either there is no dualism - the body and brain are one and the same - and turning off a life support machine is murder. Or there is dualism and we can see that once the brain is dead, the person is dead.

I think there’s a misconception here. Whatever you may think of mainstream Christian perceptions on end-of-life decisions, they do not proceed from the assumption that a brain-dead human is not a “person”, or that they are a dead person. If there’s an inconsistency in the attitude to abortion and to withdrawal of life support, it doesn’t result from an inconsistent application of the concept of “person”. In the Christian perspective, both the unborn human and the brain-dead human are definitely “persons” (though of course the brain-dead human is a dying person).

Morbert

J C wrote: »

It's the pro-abortion people who use the argument that an unborn child's brain function is less than a born child's consciousness, to justify killing unborn children ... and I was pointing out how spurious and dangerous such an argument is. You have also pointed out a further weakness in this whole 'consciousness' argument for early abortion ... whereby somebody sleeping could be killed if a temporary state of lowered consciousness, becomes a reason to allow the killing of somebody.

I agree with you that the argument that you can abort a child on the basis of genetic tests is indeed quite obnoxious ... and has echoes of the eugenics movement that castrated people with special needs in America ... and killed them outright in Nazi Germany.

... it sounds like the pro-abortionists on this thread are rapidly running out of arguments!!!!

Its a correct inference ... and you did say that "the second camp (of pro-abortionists) agrees with your (philologos) "reality" that a foetus is a human life, or at the very least, finds it irrelevant."
The obvious inference is that everyone can define their own 'reality' ... and even use these self-defined 'realities' to kill other people and justify such killing to themselves and others.

The above is unrelated to anything I said, or any position tendered by the pro-choice community. I will say the same thing to you as I did to philologos. If you are unable to properly engage with the pro-choice community, you're not going to progress the debate, and you will never be able to tackle Ireland's abortion exportation issue in any meaningful way.

All analogies are necessarily limited.
Rape certainly is a hard case ... but aborting following rape is analagous to killing a burglers child, because he burgled your house.
Justice should certainly be swift and severe upon the rapist ... but punishing an innocent party to the crime isn't morally defensible ...
being pregnant after rape is one of the hardest of the hardest possible situations that a woman can find herself in ... and frankly, as a man, I can't even begin to imagine how a woman could cope with such a situation.

You are being slightly dishonest here, employing analogies for rhetorical, rather than illustrative purposes. You declare the surgeon analogy as appropriate when it suits you, but "limited" when it doesn't. Furthermore, the new analogy is completely inappropriate, for reasons mentioned by MrPudding. By your very own logic, it is morally indefensible to take control over a woman's body, to force her to carry a child against her will, if she has been raped.

Morbert

philologos wrote: »

I don't think its justified to ignore what is factual and apparent in our moral consideration. That's exactly why the pro-choice perspective is deeply lacking in my estimation.

We ignore countless things that are factual and apparent in our moral considerations for abortion. We ignore the fact that the sky is blue. We ignore the fact that the Earth is orbiting the Sun. We ignore the fact that DNA contains phosphorous. We ignore any facts we deem irrelevant to the morality of the situation.

Again, we don't reject biological facts. We reject the assertion that they dictate the morality of the situation.

doctoremma

Have tried to answer twice but the computer ate both of them. Forgive the brevity which my lack of patience induces!

Peregrinus wrote: »

Maybe the person before me is the old Jane; maybe it’s the old Sarah; maybe it’s neither the old Jane or the old Sarah, but a new person with some heritage from both. Morally, it makes no difference?

In your opinion, who is who? What's your gut feeling?

Peregrinus wrote: »

Even if we could “determine” (and how could we possibly “determine” this?) that the brain was (or was not) the container of personhood in your hypothetical

See above. It's intuitive to me that we recognise the "person" that is Jane in whichever entity her brain resides. Do you think this would be a minority view? And while it's very unsatisfying (more to you than to me, I suspect) to evoke intuition or majority rules, I think it might reveal a link between "brain" and "personhood" that perhaps the pro-life side ignore for the purposes of this debate?

Peregrinus wrote: »

it wouldn’t follow that the brain was the container of personhood for all persons at all times....So if the brain is demonstrated to be the container of the personhood of Jane and Sarah, it doesn’t follow that it must also be the container of the personhood of an unborn human.

That seems like moving the goalposts.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don’t see that the position is necessarily a weak one. A pro-life advocate may reason from a concept of “person” which does not presume any requirement for a container at any stage of life.

A flippant answer would then be: why all the fuss about destroying the container which isn't a container? More seriously, if no container is required to define a person, then arguing from strict biology - it has human DNA, it is alive - does not necessarily lead to "it is a person".

Peregrinus wrote: »

In the Christian perspective, both the unborn human and the brain-dead human are definitely “persons” (though of course the brain-dead human is a dying person).

So how can a Christian support withdrawing treatment from a brain-dead person?

Delirium

philologos wrote: »

Bioethics is the category of discussion. I never said there was no pro-choice contribution. Its like saying we are discussing theology when we discuss the Bible.

I'm interested in you presenting your own point of view, but so far I don't think much is convincing.

I've had a look at some bioethics articles regarding abortion. None of them seem to address the early stages of the pregnancy. It frames the topic with the presumption of a brain existing in the foetus.

Do you have any links to something that might touch on the earlier stages of the pregnancy?

philologos

koth wrote: »

I've had a look at some bioethics articles regarding abortion. None of them seem to address the early stages of the pregnancy. It frames the topic with the presumption of a brain existing in the foetus.

Do you have any links to something that might touch on the earlier stages of the pregnancy?

As I've told you already. Bioethics is the category of discussion. There are both pro-life arguments, and pro-choice bioethicists. I was simply explaining to you that biology must come up in this discussion when we are determining what the right thing to do is in this scenario.

Bioethics covers a wide array of issues, not just in respect to abortion. It's like saying that Postmodernism and Moral universalism are both philosophy.

philologos

Morbert wrote: »

We ignore countless things that are factual and apparent in our moral considerations for abortion. We ignore the fact that the sky is blue. We ignore the fact that the Earth is orbiting the Sun. We ignore the fact that DNA contains phosphorous. We ignore any facts we deem irrelevant to the morality of the situation.

Again, we don't reject biological facts. We reject the assertion that they dictate the morality of the situation.

We should consider realities concerning the very subject we're speaking of.

I would have thought this was plainly obvious. Biology is relevant because we're talking about an issue that concerns embryology, that concerns the unborn child in the womb, we're dealing with biology. Therefore it is right and proper to consider it.

I almost can't believe that you even brought up the colour of the sky, or the earth orbiting the sun, it is evident that when discussing abortion it is right to consider the biology that we're dealing with and what that says about the situation at hand.

What we know, should influence how we act. That's obvious.

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

It is only dangerous if you are an idiot who is prone to reducing everything to reductio ad absurdium. Seriously JC, you need to try joining the grown ups.

Just because something is allowed in a particular set of circumstances does not mean it is be allowed in a weakly analogous set of circumstances. We are already allowed to turn off life support for brain dead patients, but I am yet to hear of any sleeping people being killed because there state of consciousness is lowered. Grow up.

We can obviously legitimately turn off life support for an already dead person. However, if a state of temporary lowered consciousness (which is the case with both an unborn child and a born person sleeping) is justification for abortion then it has no objective basis at all ... unless it's 'open season' on all sleeping persons!!!:)

MrPudding wrote: »

For what it is worth, I will point out once more that very few, if any, of the people on this thread are pro-abortion. I don’t expect that will have any particular effect as accuracy and rational discussion don’t appear to be something the pro-life crowd are interested in.

Pro-choice is a euphemism for pro-abortion ... as the 'choice' being advocated is Procured Abortion. Please, have the courage of your convictions and face up to the bloody child-killing 'choice' you are advocating. Anti-abortion people support the availability of all other 'choices' to pregnant women ... other than killing their child.

MrPudding wrote: »

The pro-choice people aren’t running out of arguments, we have plenty, that fact that you ignore or dismiss them do not mean we don’t have any.

Apart from suggesting reasons for killing unborn children that would result in murder charges if they were appled to born children, no substantive reasons were proffered by the pro-abortion people for abortion.

MrPudding wrote: »

Some are more limited than others. For example, this one is terrible. Perhaps if the burglar’s child was surgically grated to the victim of the burglary and would remain there for 9 months you might have something approaching an accurate analogy. What you are actually advocating in you analogy is a simple punishing the child for the sins of the rather, which is more of a religious thing really.

Aborting a child conceived in rape is punishing the child for the actions of the father.

MrPudding wrote: »

When a woman has an abortion after a rape she is not punishing the child for her being raped. You will argue that this is the case, but it simply isn’t. It may appear that the child is being punished, but that is not the intention of the act. It is most unfortunate that it is the result, but it is not the reason. Just because your god has a hard on for punished children for the sins of the father does not mean all people do.

God loves everybody and wants to Save them ... from themselves.
... and aborting a child conceived in rape is indeed applying the death penalty to the child.

MrPudding wrote: »

So as a man you can’t imagine how a woman would cope with that situation, but you are quite happy to dictate how she will have to cope with it. Got it.

MrP

Killing somebody doesn't solve anything ... what a victim of rape needs is support ... and not some 'knee jerk' solution like an abortion.

The real question is whether having having an abortion will improve the womans state ... or will it simply be imposing another violation on her.

J C

philologos wrote: »

What we know, should influence how we act. That's obvious.

That is indeed obvious ... but then if somebody wants to kill another person ... facing the known fact that they are Human, just like themselves, is so repulsive ... that denial of the Humanity of the victim (despite all of the evidence being to the contrary) is the only option.
Equally, in a society where a murder conviction will result from the deliberate killing of another person, the personhood of the unborn must be legally denied, if they are to be killed with legal immunity.

philologos

Morbert wrote: »

The above is unrelated to anything I said, or any position tendered by the pro-choice community. I will say the same thing to you as I did to philologos. If you are unable to properly engage with the pro-choice community, you're not going to progress the debate, and you will never be able to tackle Ireland's abortion exportation issue in any meaningful way.

On flipside unless people advocating a pro-choice view are able to demonstrate a meaningful consideration of biological reality I don't think you can progress in this argument with those of a pro-life persuasion. I don't believe you can have a decent argument on this topic without referring to the foetus and the embryo at a biological level.

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

This morning, a little thought experiment came to me. While I have don't recall having heard of the below scenario before, there is little original in this world, so if I am subconsciously plagiarising, I will give due credit as appropriate. Feel free to point out gaping holes (except the unreality of the scenario), as it's a first attempt at formulating...The aim is determine the "vehicle", the "biological container" of personhood.

Let's consider two women, Jane and Sarah. Both have families, jobs, friends, lives. The world they inhabit is far in the future, where brain transplants into both human bodies and artificial hosts (computer systems, robots) are possible.

1. Let's imagine that Jane and Sarah swap brains. Which body does the person "Jane" inhabit? Do we refer to that body as Jane's body? Which of those two bodies should (and should want to) tuck Jane's children into bed at night? If you were Jane's friend, who do you now wish to share drinks with?

Is there anything that was previously attributed to Jane, in terms of her personhood, that remains with her original body and would warrant protection as part of Jane's personhood?

2. Let's imagine that Jane's brain is transplanted into a computer system or robot. Is that system now "Jane"? Would that system be afforded the label of "personhood"? If you permanently switched off the system, would that constitute murder?

We'll cross that bridge, in the very very unlikely event, that we ever come to it ... and the exact circumstances at the time would determine what the morally-defensible answer would be.

However, to add to your 'thought experiment' I must point out that you are adopting the unfounded Materialist assumption that the physical brain is where the person 'resides' ... when it is our spirit that is our person.

J C

philologos wrote: »

On flipside unless people advocating a pro-choice view are able to demonstrate a meaningful consideration of biological reality I don't think you can progress in this argument with those of a pro-life persuasion. I don't believe you can have a decent argument on this topic without referring to the foetus and the embryo at a biological level.

There is actually no morally-defensible argument for procured abortion unless the Humanity and Personhood of the unborn is denied ... so I wouldn't expect any real engagement from the pro-abortion people on these issues any time soon.
The introduction and continuance of abortion services requires the denial of the Humanity and Personhood of the unborn ... for legal and bio-ethical reasons.

Peregrinus

doctoremma wrote: »

In your opinion, who is who? What's your gut feeling?

I don’t know that there’s a simple answer to that question. If I see personhood to be something expressed in relationships, for example, Jane’s-brain-in-Sarah’s-body has Sarah’s genetic and chromosomal relationships with Sarah’s children, but Jane’s memories of her shared experiences with Jane’s children. If I see personhood as expressed in emotions, then Jane’s-brain-in-Sarah’s-body has emotions shaped by Sarah’s hormones and hormonal system, not Jane’s. And so forth.

We won’t know unless we actually do the experiment. (Even now I am constructing a rudimentary laboratory in a cellar under my house! Are you free next Saturday evening? Bring a friend of about your own age! And some spare hacksaw blades!) But I suspect if we did do the experiment we’d find that to say that Jane’s-brain-in-Sarah’s-body was Jane, or that she was Sarah, was absurdly reductive. What we’d have, I suspect, is a blended person.

doctoremma wrote: »

See above. It's intuitive to me that we recognise the "person" that is Jane in whichever entity her brain resides. Do you think this would be a minority view? And while it's very unsatisfying (more to you than to me, I suspect) to evoke intuition or majority rules, I think it might reveal a link between "brain" and "personhood" that perhaps the pro-life side ignore for the purposes of this debate?

I have no problem with invoking intuition in relation to moral questions. But I think we have to recognize that the value of your hypothetical is that it illuminates your intuition; it doesn’t validate it as a model which corresponds to reality. For that, we’d actually have to do the transplant, and observe the results.

And, of course, while we can imagine that the results would tend to validate your intuition, we can equally imagine that the results would tend to undermine it. We might find, for example, that personhood degrades, fractures and disintegrates under the pressure of dissonance, dysfunction, etc that comes from having a self-perception and a self-awareness which is wholly disconnected from most of the physical self. The results might well show that personhood can’t be accurately understood as something contained in and by the brain.

In short, I don’t think your hypothetical really amounts to saying more than this: “Suppose I conducted an experiment which tended to show that my intuitions about personhood corresponded to reality. Wouldn’t that tend to show that my intuitions about personhood corresponded to reality?” Well, yes. But since we can equally easily suppose an experiment whose results tend to show that your intuition didn’t correspond to reality, this doesn’t get us very far.

doctoremma wrote: »

A flippant answer would then be: why all the fuss about destroying the container which isn't a container? More seriously, if no container is required to define a person, then arguing from strict biology - it has human DNA, it is alive - does not necessarily lead to "it is a person".

Your flippant answer assumes that, if the human body doesn’t have value as a container, it has no value at all. That’s undemonstrated, and not intuitively attractive.

Your more serious point is essentially a recognition of a fundamental problem; you can’t demonstrate the truth of moral assertions from empirical facts. But it’s no vindication of a pro-choice position which proceeds from a denial of personhood, since that also cannot be argued from strict biology. “Personhood” is not a biological concept, basically.

doctoremma wrote: »

So how can a Christian support withdrawing treatment from a brain-dead person?

The key here is to recall that Christian perspectives on end-of-life issues are not confined to brain-dead people. If I’m suffering from advanced inoperable cancer, say, I may choose palliative care only, rather than care which aims to conserve and prolong my life. And if I’m in a coma (but not brain-dead) my nearest and dearest may make that choice.

The distinction made in mainstream Christian thinking about this is not that some patients are persons and others are not; it’s that some patients are dying and others are not. And the moral issue is the extent to which there is a moral obligation to intervene to stave off the death of a dying person, when the intervention itself will be burdensome.

And when you map that back to the abortion question, you find only a small overlap. There are some abortions which proceed because the foetus itself has a medical problem which makes carrying to term and live birth unlikely or impossible. There are others which proceed because, thought the foetus is fine in itself, the mother has a medical problem which will have the same outcome. In these cases, perhaps, some reasoning by analogy with end-of-life decisions is possible. But the choice for which most pro-choice advocates campaign, and the choice which motivates most abortions undertaken in the western world, is a choice to terminate a pregnancy for reasons which do not proceed from a medical problem in the foetus, or a medical problem in the mother. There is no meaningful sense in which the foetus is either dying or doomed, and no intervention is required to stave off the death of the foetus. (On the contrary, intervention is required to bring death about.) And you can seek to validate that choice on (among other grounds) a denial of the personhood of the foetus, but I don’t think you’ll find any support for that stance in Christian perspectives on end-of-life care.

Morbert

philologos wrote: »

We should consider realities concerning the very subject we're speaking of.

And, as I have been telling you over and over and over, the pro-choice community rejects your assertion that DNA and biochemistry are in any way relevant to the very subject we're speaking of. You assert relevance, when you should be arguing why it is relevant.

Meanwhile, I am perfectly happy arguing why your criteria is completely irrelevant. The DNA of my friends and family has precisely 0% importance to me when it comes to their status as a human being. If a scientist told me that they actually had exotic, non-human DNA, or that instead of potassium, they had arsenic, or that instead of being born, they were engineered, it wouldn't change their humanity in the slightest.

J C

Morbert wrote: »

And, as I have been telling you over and over and over, the pro-choice community rejects your assertion that DNA and biochemistry are in any way relevant to the very subject we're speaking of. You assert relevance, when you should be arguing why it is relevant.

Meanwhile, I am perfectly happy arguing why your criteria is completely irrelevant. The DNA of my friends and family has precisely 0% importance to me when it comes to their status as a human being. If a scientist told me that they actually had exotic, non-human DNA, or that instead of potassium, they had arsenic, or that instead of being born, they were engineered, it wouldn't change their humanity in the slightest.

The legal reason why the deliberate killing of your friends and family would be murder, is precisely because they are Human Beings ... with Human DNA.
If they were animals (with non-Human DNA) they could be killed with legal immunity.
... so the DNA of the organism being deliberately killed is very very important, both morally and legally.

Morbert

J C wrote: »

The legal reason why the deliberate killing of your friends and family would be murder, is precisely because they are Human Beings ... with Human DNA.
If they were animals (with non-Human DNA) they could be killed with legal immunity.
... so the DNA of the organism being deliberately killed is very very important, both morally and legally.

The fact that you think the above is a coherent reply suggests you are not yet ready to join in the conversation in a substantive way.

J C

Morbert wrote: »

The fact that you think the above is a coherent reply suggests you are not yet ready to join in the conversation in a substantive way.

Its a fact that Human Beings enjoy legal rights and protections precisely because they are Human Beings. Other creatures don't enjoy legal protection to anything like the extent of Humans.

... so where is my reply non-coherent?

... and what exactly is the 'conversation' that you say I'm not ready to join?

J C

Morbert wrote: »

And, as I have been telling you over and over and over, the pro-choice community rejects your assertion that DNA and biochemistry are in any way relevant to the very subject we're speaking of.

So do the pro-abortion people support any special/additional rights for Human Beings in comparison with animals ... and if they do ... how do they differentiate between Humans and animals, if not in ways that are co-incident with DNA ?

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

So do the pro-abortion people support any special/additional rights for Human Beings in comparison with animals ... and if they do ... how do they differentiate between Humans and animals, if not in ways that are co-incident with DNA ?

I don't eat animals as I think every sentient being has a right to life. I support personhood for primates. I don't think chimps should be afforded the right to vote or bear arms (although I'd offer the former before the latter).

And. Again. Humans are animals.

The ONLY distinguishing feature for humans is DNA. Oh wait, that's not true. But it is. And what do you mean 'coincident with DNA'? Everything is coincident with DNA. I recognise bees because they are striped honey-making machines but they make honey and have stripes because of their DNA.

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

I don't eat animals as I think every sentient being has a right to life. I support personhood for primates. I don't think chimps should be afforded the right to vote or bear arms (although I'd offer the former before the latter).

And. Again. Humans are animals.

The ONLY distinguishing feature for humans is DNA. Oh wait, that's not true. But it is.

OK ... so here we have it ... somebody who believes that Humans and animals are equal ... which leads them to becoming a vegetarian because they cannot abide animals being killed for food ... but who advocates the killing of unborn children with abortion.

Ironically, in this scheme of things, Humans, because there are so many of them, are actually valued less than some supposedly 'rare' variety of animal ... and this leads to legal protections with severe criminal sanctions being enacted to 'save' a 'rare' snail or some such thing ... but aborted children being killed with full legal impunity!!!:(
... and unborn Humans thereby end up with less rights than unhatched snails!!!!

In this 'brave new world' we close down the abbatoirs ... and open up and expand the abortion facilities ... on the basis that all animals have a right to life ... but unborn children, have no right to life!!!:(

... this 'animal equality' thinking has further dimensions such as the belief that people can be euthanized for their own good ... just like you do with a sick dog ... because we are all animals, with the same rights, or lack of them ... and the vet (or doctor) always knows best, when the time has come to 'put down' Rover or Granny ... because their quality of life is supposedly so 'poor' !!!

... and, before anybody says I'm exaggerating ... all of this is currently law in many countries already.
Apes are protected by murder laws in Spain, Euthanasia is law in Holland and Switzerland, abortion laws are widespread, right up to birth, in some cases ... and environmental legislation creates absolute zones of protection for all kinds of organisms and their young ... including plants and fungi.

... and thus we end up being able to kill unborn children with legal immunity ... but killing frog-spawn is a criminal offense punishable by heavy fines and long terms of imprisonment.
... strange days indeed!!!

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

OK ... so here we have it ... somebody who believes that Humans and animals are equal ... which leads them to becoming a vegetarian because they cannot abide animals being killed for food ... but who advocates the killing of unborn children with abortion.

Ironically, in this scheme of things, Humans, because there are so many of them, are actually valued less than some supposedly 'rare' variety of animal ... and this leads to legal protections with severe criminal sanctions being enacted to 'save' a 'rare' snail or some such thing ... but aborted children being killed with full legal impunity!!!:(
... and unborn Humans thereby end up with less rights than unhatched snails!!!!

In this 'brave new world' we close down the abbatoirs ... and open up and expand the abortion facilities ... on the basis that all animals have a right to life ... but unborn children, have no right to life!!!:(

... this 'animal equality' thinking has further dimensions such as the belief that people can be euthanized for their own good ... just like you do with a sick dog ... because we are all animals, with the same rights, or lack of them ... and the vet (or doctor) always knows best, when the time has come to 'put down' Rover or Granny ... because their quality of life is supposedly so 'poor' !!!

... and, before anybody says I'm exaggerating ... all of this is currently law in many countries already.
Apes are protected by murder laws in Spain, Euthanasia is law in Holland and Switzerland, abortion laws are widespread, right up to birth, in some cases ... and environmental legislation creates absolute zones of protection for all kinds of organisms and their young ... including plants and fungi.

... and thus we end up being able to kill unborn children with legal immunity ... but killing frog-spawn is a criminal offense punishable by heavy fines and long terms of imprisonment.
... strange days indeed!!!

Yes, very nice. But you declined to bold a very important word in my reply. The word was 'sentient'.

gozunda

J C wrote: »

Its a fact that Human Beings enjoy legal rights and protections precisely because they are Human Beings. Other creatures don't enjoy legal protection to anything like the extent of Humans.
...?

And those 'rights' are assigned by - wait for it - ourselves - Humans

We have assigned ourselves our own special position because we can...

We hold ourselves above the natural world, believe we are somehow special which allows us to claim bizarrely that every human sperm is sacred....even though there are now billions of humans rapidly destroying the planet by our greed and belief that we are somehow 'special'

Other creatures ' don't enjoy legal protection to anything like the extent of humans' because we have placed ourselves above everything else.

Humans are so blinded to what they really are that they can't see what they really are

I reckon the planet will have the last laugh when as a result of our belief in ourselves as something special we in effect destroy the planet that sustains us.

The sooner the better as far as I am concerned....

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

Yes, very nice. But you declined to bold a very important word in my reply. The word was 'sentient'.

... yes you used the word 'sentient' ... but your fellow travellers, don't worry about such limits when they prescribe absolute zones of protection around non-sentient life, like frog-spawn and plants ... while removing all legal protection from sentient Human unborn children!!!

J C

gozunda wrote: »

And those 'rights' are assigned by - wait for it - ourselves - Humans

We have assigned ourselves our own special position because we can...

We hold ourselves above the natural world, believe we are somehow special which allows us to claim bizarrely that every human sperm is sacred....even though there are now billions of humans rapidly destroying the planet by our greed and belief that we are somehow 'special'

Human Beings enjoy inalienable rights from God ... and not 'ourselves'.
... and nobody that I know, claims that every Human sperm is sacred ... nor does any law I know of, do this either.

What is bizzarre, however, is that the criminal law acts as if frog-spawn is sacred ... and outlaws it's killing with very heavy fines and long terms of imprisonment ... whilst simultaneously not protecting unborn Human children at all, in most countries, and right up to birth, in some countries.

gozunda wrote: »

Other creatures ' don't enjoy legal protection to anything like the extent of humans' because we have placed ourselves above everything else.

Humans are so blinded to what they really are that they can't see what they really are

I reckon the planet will have the last laugh when as a result of our belief in ourselves as something special we in effect destroy the planet that sustains us.

The sooner the better as far as I am concerned....

Unfortunately, as Christianity declines, it is increasingly untrue that Humans enjoy legal protection that is higher than afforded to animals.
Indeed many other creatures enjoy much better legal protection than unborn Human Beings ... and as attitudes such as yours become pervasive ... born Humans will also have their right to life increasingly circumscribed and extinguished.

This is how 'the culture of death' originates ... with people who hate their own species so much, that they place no value on their fellow man ... and begin wishing for their extermination ... starting with the youngest and the most vulnerable!!

What kind of sick society protects frog-spawn with the full force of criminal law and allows the deliberate killing unborn children with full legal immunity?

doctoremma

J C wrote: »

... yes you used the word 'sentient' ... but your fellow travellers, don't worry about such limits when they prescribe absolute zones of protection around non-sentient life, like frog-spawn and plants ... while removing all legal protection from sentient Human unborn children!!!

JC, I don't support the killing of sentient humans, even those yet to be born (short of dire medical circumstances).

And what's this nonsense about frog spawn? I assume you're alluding to some law protecting an endangered species? I'm not sure ecological concerns and resulting criminal law should be directly transferable to abortion law.

J C

doctoremma wrote: »

JC, I don't support the killing of sentient humans, even those yet to be born (short of dire medical circumstances).

... so are you saying that you are anti-abortion in all circumstances other than in 'dire medical circumstances' where the mother's life is in imminent and real danger?

doctoremma wrote: »

And what's this nonsense about frog spawn? I assume you're alluding to some law protecting an endangered species? I'm not sure ecological concerns and resulting criminal law should be directly transferable to abortion law.

Of course it should go without saying (but obviously doesn't) ... that an unborn Human child is much more deserving of legal protection than any other creature or it's reproductive material!!!

... but this is not the case in most countries throughout the world.