smacl wrote: » .. but does the world really need more people?
smacl wrote: » Probably worth distinguishing any measurable brain waves and those that are indicative of thought as described below. From the linked article the foetus is starting to develop consciousness at week 24. That said, where termination is being considered, the earlier the intervention the better. From what I've read in this regard, the morning after pill significantly reduces the number of later abortions for example. The fact that the state now recognises this as late contraception rather than abortion, even though this is contrary to the Vatican position, is a big step forward. Putting women who do seek elective abortions in a position where they have to travel to get them does inevitably delay the intervention.
smacl wrote: » While you acknowledge that the implanted egg has vastly different physical characteristics than a baby or mature adult, you consider it no less of a person. As such, would you be able or willing to list the attributes that you consider make a person a person? Do you consider that the freshly fertilised egg that has yet to implant in the uterine wall share these attributes.
lazybones32 wrote: » Does the World need any people? (If you're questioning about resources I'd recommend an interesting book by Colin Tudge "So shall we reap", the Queen's former advisor on Agriculture)
I can't actually see what point you're making? Only those who are capable of thought are actually human and even then thet shouldn't be protected as a developing human? Or is consciousness the beginning of being human - but still not deserving of protection? I invite you to offer the comparison to a sea slug, the next time a woman tells you that she's pregnant. See where such scientific knowledge gets you:)
Absolam wrote: » In the absence of a definitive distinction, I'd say there is certainly a person at some stage, and accept that people with different philosophical views will dispute when that stage is. Personally I don't see a need to know when; barring accidents or interference once the process has begun personhood is inevitable, so what's the difference? Deciding it's ok to kill someone because they're not yet a person, despite knowing they will be if you don't kill them, seems to be a bit of a cop-out.
smacl wrote: » Not so much resources as advisability of the human population to continue to grow in an unconstrained manner. The advice to go forth and multiply seems entirely inappropriate given predicted world population growth, and is by and large ignored in the western world today where most people plan their families. As a global society, would it not be better for our total numbers to either decline slightly or remain static? The point was in reference to your comment about brain waves after six weeks, and simply to illustrate that brain waves below a certain magnitude are not an indicator of consciousness. I had assumed you raised the six week point as your consider it significant in determining when you consider a sentient person exists in the womb.
lazybones32 wrote: » I consider brainwaves after 6 weeks significant in determining that a person exists in the womb. A developing person but a person nonetheless.
Nick Park wrote: » Unless somebody died and made you mod, then you don't get to dictate to others that they have to give simplistic one word answers. Explaining why you're actually asking the wrong question and trying to take us down a rabbit trail is not 'waffling' - it's how grown ups discuss and clarify positions. I have never advanced the position that an egg is the same as a 17-week-old baby, a 35-year-old woman, or a dying pensioner. Nor indeed, are the baby, the woman or the pensioner the same as each other. They're all different. The question should not be about who is the same as anyone else. The question is whether the law should grant them an equal right to life.
lazygal wrote: » Is having an abortion equal to killing a 17 week old baby, 35 year old woman or pensioner?
Nick Park wrote: » No, nor is each killing of a pensioner, a baby or a woman necessarily equal. Each case is different depending on the circumstances (which is why some killers don't get prosecuted at all, some are convicted of manslaughter, and those convicted of murder get dramatically variations in their sentence.) While the act of killing is not equal in all cases, that does not affect the principle that each person killed had an equal right to life. I'm not sure why this very straightforward distinction seems to be so difficult for you to understand.
lazygal wrote: » What does an equal right to life mean? If I won't donate an organ to someone who needs one, am I taking away his or her equal right to life?
lazygal wrote: » What penalties should girls and women who have abortions face? Murder or manslaughter charges? Or no criminal sanctions whatsoever? Or different charges entirely?
smacl wrote: » Great point, is the requirement to maintain human life that would otherwise fail restricted to pregnant women?
Nick Park wrote: » THAT WILL DEPEND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND IS AN ENTIRELY SEPARATE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER LIFE SHOULD BE PROTECTED Said it louder since you seem to having difficulty in understanding it on the numerous instances I have given you the same answer. I have no desire to push for anyone's criminalisation. I am keen that our Constitution protect someone's right to life.
volchitsa wrote: » Except it doesn't, does it? Seeing as the people voted to allow women to have abortions for whatever reason they like, as long as they have the money to go to Liverpool. So the constituent only makes a vague hand wave at protecting the unborn's right to life.
Nick Park wrote: » No, the people, quite correctly, voted to allow women to exercise their human right to travel (as guaranteed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights). We can hardly restrict that right based on what we think someone might do once they travel.
Nick Park wrote: » a teacher who is taking children to a museum on a field trip. If a child is crossing the road and is about to be hit by a speeding car, then we would expect the teacher, if it is practically possible, to pull the child to safety. The same would not apply if the teacher sees a perfect stranger standing in front of the traffic.
lazygal wrote: » Really? Even when they're travelling to kill the unborn?
There's no need to shout, Nick. I can hear loud and clear that you don't really want to tell me what you think of women and girls who have abortions, and instead want to refer me to some ethics textbooks.
I find it very telling that you're unable to tell me what sanctions you think women and girls who have abortions should face. Right now, it's a 14 year sentence in Ireland. Do you think that's the right sentence for a girl or woman who procures an abortion in Ireland?
Nick Park wrote: » No, I don't think 14 years, or any other prison sentence is appropriate. I am not in favour of criminalising such women (although criminalising abortionists who facilitate them would seen eminently reasonable). I think that the human rights of the unborn child to be protected is important and should be enshrined in law. Criminalising and prosecuting women for having an abortion is not, in my opinion, the best way to protect those unborn children.
lazygal wrote: » Now this is a pretty awful example. Does the teacher face a 14 year sentence if she fails to pull a child to safety?
Nick Park wrote: » The point, as you well know, is that a person in a position of responsibility may well be expected to maintain the life of another person. The penalty, if a penalty is imposed, is not equal in every case. I don't for an instant believe that you are so unintelligent as to believe that such a principle necessitates that every responsible person who fails to maintain the life of someone under their care should be subjected to the precise same penalty irrespective of the circumstances. That leads me to believe that rather than engage in genuine discussion you are just playing games.
lazygal wrote: » So what should happen when girls and women want abortions and then have abortions? No sanctions whatsoever? What is the best way to protect unborn children?
lazygal wrote: » Nope, wrong again Nick. Abortion isn't a game for me,
Nick Park wrote: » No, it's a pretty awful point. There is a difference between maintaining human life and acting to destroy human life. Anyone can see that. For example, I am not obligated by law to provide a kidney for someone who needs a transplant. However, I am forbidden by law to sneak into their hospital ward and turn off their dialysis machine.
Nick Park wrote: » First off you guarantee their right to life in the Constitution, if that is not already in a particular nation's Constitution then you can assert an amendment granting them equality of right to life. (Be warned that if you do this that people might come along 30 years later and object that you've no right to use the term 'equality'). Then you seek to remove the primary causes of unborn children having their human right to life removed. This would include better ante-natal care, more support for parents whose children are disabled, appropriate psychiatric care for the suicidal, better financial structures to remove children from poverty, better care for rape victims etc. Basically, you work to create a more just, equitable and compassionate society.
Nick Park wrote: » Sigh, I never said abortion was a game for you. I said that you are playing games in this discussion. You are doing it because you don't listen to viewpoints other than your own, and are more interested in petty point-scoring than in a nuanced discussion about how the rights and desires of different sides can be balanced.
lazygal wrote: » Even with all the support in the world I'd want an abortion in certain situations. How will your plan deal with women like me?
smacl wrote: » Not sure about Nick, but what I've seen to date the approach is turn a blind eye, point you to the boat, pretend it never happened, and hope to feck you don't raise it in polite company. It really does beggar belief the double standards and make-believe that so-called moral majority adhere to in this country.
volchitsa wrote: » Oh well to be fair (if that's the word :mad:) there was an attempt to sedate and forcibly hydrate a barely 18 year old pregnant victim of rape. Now that's what I call energetic measures to protect the life of the unborn. I wonder if any of our pro-life friends on here would be honest enough to tell us whether they'd like to see similar measures applied to their own daughters, or if that sort of thing is grand only as long as it's "just" an asylum seeker?
