How do Pro Life campaigners want women who have abortions punished?

Depp wrote: »

I'll agree I dont know enough either to argue with you when a fetus/child becomes sentient its a confusing issue and even neurologists dont seem to be able to agree on it!

Entirely agreed. Sorry to harp on this point but I always find it useful in any discussion to CLING to points of agreement and move from there.

The point I have is that while we can not identify a point when sentience arises, we can CERTAINLY identify points where it is absolutely absent.

So surely you can see how this applies to your application of "humanity" and "person hood" to a 12 week old fetus for example? I do not mean to offend or insult by saying your moral position on this is incoherent, but to explain exactly why I find it to be so.

I know I would ENTIRELY reverse my opinion on abortion, over night.......... and without hesitation, reservation or apology....... should someone erect a coherent argument for affording a 12 week old fetus moral or ethical concern, or relevant "humanity" or "person hood".

Such arguments are simply not forthcoming however. I was genuinely curious to see if you had one as you are less shrill and more coherent that many posters espousing your position.

applehunter wrote:

I'll speak for the unborn child.

Actually, no. If my mother chose to abort me, and if for some reason I had an awareness of this, I'd fully support her decision. Because the truth is, she suffered to have me. She couldn't afford me at the time, and went hungry at the end of every week to see that I was fed. She was too young, had zero support, had to put her life on hold, and still has to fight against small, judgemental minds.
So no, you don't speak for the unborn child you know nothing about.

mansize wrote: »

Apparently they'll get breast cancer and lots of other terrible things according to this pro-life group

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFvOoMvpJGE

Well, that was pretty disturbing and manipulative.

Who was the woman giving this information out? The title says abortion advice service but I assume this is an anti abortion advice service.

Depp wrote: »

I suppose the way I see it really is the fact that a healthy fetus has the potential to and the high probability that they will develop into a sentient human being is what gives them their humanity for me. Each to their own I guess but thats just the way I see it.

Indeed, but that position kinda makes my point for me. I do not think there are many things that can simultaneously be "X" and be becoming "X" at the same time. You are either X or you are not. If you are "becoming" X then one thing we can say is you are NOT X.

So when you say it has the potential to become a human being..... you are ALSO saying it is NOT a human being. And that is why I feel the position of treating it as one gets rendered incoherent and I simply do not understand the position you hold, as you have described it.

Depp wrote: »

its not that I see a fetus as becoming a human, its that I see it as a human that is not yet fully self aware. My fundamental belief is that the fact the overwhelming likelihood of the fetus becoming sentient means for me that outside of extreme circumstances the fetus deserves the chance to be allowed to become sentient.

At the extremes though that would also be a moral argument against contraception. In both cases you are preventing biological material from becoming sentient when it otherwise quite likely would.

Now SUBJECTIVELY I can see how you differentiate the two. In one case you just have people having sex. In the other you have a fetus that is demonstrably developing.

So it SEEMS coherent to differentiate. But at an intellectual level the differentiation is not as clear. Because you are arguing nothing more than potentials and saying this mass of bio-matter has the right to become sentient. And worse, that one type of biomatter has that right (the fetus) but another does not (the sperm and egg prevented from meeting by contraception).

In both cases you simply have something that is not sentient, and you are arguing for it to have the "right" to become so. Yet for me it is the faculty sentience and consciousness itself that we even hang "rights" off.

And I fear you fuzz that a little by saying it is "not yet fully self aware". That phrase suggests, intentioned or otherwise, that it is PARTIALLY or somewhat self aware. It is not self aware AT ALL on any level at all that we can discern, and it lacks the broadcasting towers to even talk about it being self aware in any meaningful way.

Without that faculty, and the fetus at 12 weeks neither has it nor even the pre-requisites for producing it, I honestly see no coherent way to afford it rights or moral and ethical concern. It is, morally speaking, the equivalent of a rock or a table leg for me.

Depp wrote: »

I know I'm probably not getting it accross very well

I think you are getting it across perfectly well actually. It is the position itself, rather than your presentation of it, that is incoherent and fallible for me. I think I genuinely understand your position perfectly well. I just find the position faulty and internally incoherent and in some ways even self-contradictory (hence the "simultaneously X and becoming X" comment for example).

Depp wrote: »

I'm also having a hard time understanding your viewpoint.

I am happy to expand upon it further if you have questions. My position itself is quite simple to understand though I feel. Basically I think moral and ethical concern is afforded to something proportionally to it's capability for sentience and consciousness and subjective experience. And when something lacks not just that, but any faculty for even producing it, then I hold no moral and ethical concern for that thing.

Rocks, table legs, sandwiches, cars, clouds and the fetus at 12 weeks have, pretty much exactly, the same level of potential for possessing that faculty. That is to say: None. Therefore they are pretty much morally equivalent for me. I hold as much moral and ethical concern for a 12 week old fetus as you likely do for a rock.

Depp wrote: »

I'm glad there are people on here still who don't just resort to telling me I'm stupid for my thinking or that I'm brainwashed by the church!

One of the reasons I enter into discussions on these kinds of topics is I find them genuinely interesting. Another reason I do so however is that I think I can represent my side better than some people do. There are SOME people (on both sides, but I am more concerned with the ones on my side) who do represent themselves, and my proxy the pro-choice movement, rather poorly indeed.

All I can do is try to keep the average level of cordiality and decorum and discourse up So it is nice to hear I am achieving that at least a bit, thank you.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

At the extremes though that would also be a moral argument against contraception. In both cases you are preventing biological material from becoming sentient when it otherwise quite likely would.

Now SUBJECTIVELY I can see how you differentiate the two. In one case you just have people having sex. In the other you have a fetus that is demonstrably developing.

So it SEEMS coherent to differentiate. But at an intellectual level the differentiation is not as clear. Because you are arguing nothing more than potentials and saying this mass of bio-matter has the right to become sentient. And worse, that one type of biomatter has that right (the fetus) but another does not (the sperm and egg prevented from meeting by contraception).

In both cases you simply have something that is not sentient, and you are arguing for it to have the "right" to become so. Yet for me it is the faculty sentience and consciousness itself that we even hang "rights" off.

And I fear you fuzz that a little by saying it is "not yet fully self aware". That phrase suggests, intentioned or otherwise, that it is PARTIALLY or somewhat self aware. It is not self aware AT ALL on any level at all that we can discern, and it lacks the broadcasting towers to even talk about it being self aware in any meaningful way.

Without that faculty, and the fetus at 12 weeks neither has it nor even the pre-requisites for producing it, I honestly see no coherent way to afford it rights or moral and ethical concern. It is, morally speaking, the equivalent of a rock or a table leg for me.



I think you are getting it across perfectly well actually. It is the position itself, rather than your presentation of it, that is incoherent and fallible for me. I think I genuinely understand your position perfectly well. I just find the position faulty and internally incoherent and in some ways even self-contradictory (hence the "simultaneously X and becoming X" comment for example).



I am happy to expand upon it further if you have questions. My position itself is quite simple to understand though I feel. Basically I think moral and ethical concern is afforded to something proportionally to it's capability for sentience and consciousness and subjective experience. And when something lacks not just that, but any faculty for even producing it, then I hold no moral and ethical concern for that thing.

Rocks, table legs, sandwiches, cars, clouds and the fetus at 12 weeks have, pretty much exactly, the same level of potential for possessing that faculty. That is to say: None. Therefore they are pretty much morally equivalent for me. I hold as much moral and ethical concern for a 12 week old fetus as you likely do for a rock.



One of the reasons I enter into discussions on these kinds of topics is I find them genuinely interesting. Another reason I do so however is that I think I can represent my side better than some people do. There are SOME people (on both sides, but I am more concerned with the ones on my side) who do represent themselves, and my proxy the pro-choice movement, rather poorly indeed.

All I can do is try to keep the average level of cordiality and decorum and discourse up So it is nice to hear I am achieving that at least a bit, thank you.

I suppose its not that I dont understand where you're coming from its that I have a similar reaction to your viewpoint as you do to mine but i guess everyone cant agree on everything!

My thoughts about the whole contraception thing is that while a fetus will develop into a sentient human, a sperm or an egg on its own will not.

the more I think about it, while its an an importiant factor, its not neceserily the brain activity that matters to me the most But I dont think a fetus that has a heartbeat should be aborted because sentient or not, theres no denying that once its heart is beating, its hard to argue that a fetus is not 'alive'

rjpf1980 wrote: »

You believe it's murder don't you so you believe in life imprisonment?

Depp wrote: »

the doctor should have his license revoked and he should be punished

We've been over this, a doctor who performs a procedure In Ireland thats Illegal in Ireland should be stricken from the register and punished. I'm not sure how many times I'm going to have to tell you that before you understand?

rjpf1980 wrote: »

What punishment for the doctor? Life?

What punishment for the women? They have killed theor babies according to you? That's illegal and there is no punishment?

how many times are you going to bang the same old drum? I think I've explaind this to you 3 or 4 times so far?

I don't agree with abortion personally but if someone does agree who am I to tell them they're wrong? My reasoning for a potential no vote is that I don't want my taxes or health insurance premiums funding it. Im not trying to oppress you or take away your ''rights'' I just think you should have to pay for your own bloody rights!