nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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

rjpf1980

Since pro life campaigners believe abortion is murder wouldn't this mean women who abortions should be jailed for life or executed in many jurisdictions?

In Ireland this doesn't happen because women just travel to Britain and other EU countries where it is legal so no need to be arrested in Ireland.

Apart from a few crazies nobody in the referendum in the early 1990s wanted to prohibit women from travelling for an abortion abroad or accessing information on abortion.

In the ideal world Pro Life campaigners wish no where on earth would abortion be legal and for abortion to be murder. In an ideal world they would have women thrown into jail for life wouldn't they?

If you are pro life what is your view,?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

gctest50

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

........ but I have seen far too many ultrasounds like the following .............

Human heart muscle in a dish, beating spontaneously :

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

but I have seen far too many ultrasounds like the following where fetuses are .......... sucking their thumb etc,

This is probably what you are seeing :

(WARNING - actual 12 week old ( unfortunately miscarried )

http://i.imgur.com/gUw7HKV.jpg

Outlaw Pete

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And you, quite dishonestly I fear, put a font size stress on the wrong part of the quote. You should have stressed the words "morally speaking" because as I said in post #115 I demonstrably did not compare fetuses and rocks. I compared my moral position on fetuses and rocks.

Unbelievable. Here is the quote again, andwithout emphasis this time:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is, morally speaking, the equivalent of a rock or a table leg for me.

By "it", you meant the fetus so essentially you were saying a 12-week-old fetus is, morally speaking, the equivalent of a rock or a table leg and so therefore there was nothing wrong with my saying you equated a fetus with a rock, as that is what you did. Yeah, we know, you did so "morally speaking" but I didn't say differently and so this is all just pointless semantics, but seeing as it seems to mean so much to you from this point on, whenever I feel it relevant to point out that you equated fetuses with rocks, I shall go out of my way to always emphasize that you did so "morally speaking"..... how about that?

Any clearer for you now, or do you wish to distort my position further?

Nobody distorted your position dude.

The failure in the analogy is that one side of it is a scenario with ONE ethical agent.... the mother. The other side of it is a scenario with SEVERAL ethical agents. So the two scenarios are not usefully analogous for that reason.

Well, I'll give you this, you sure have a great knack at making utter nonsense sound rational and perceptive.

What you highlight is correct, but so what? An analogy can still be useful despite that and mine absolutely was just that, and still is for that matter. You even agreed with it (indirectly) as you claimed that it failed only because there was no reason to have ethical or moral concern for a 12-week-old fetus....... then when I point out that you what you just said essentially conceded that you feel the analogy would have been sound if we had been discussing fetuses at a stage of gestation you did feel a moral and ethical concern for.... you decide to move the goalposts and are now ludicrously saying that one side of my analogy has more 'ethical agents' than the other and so now that's the new reason why my analogy failed ...... would ya pull the other one

I repeat, the "slogan" with which you have an issue is very much context based. And the context in this case is that of the temporal time period under which people apply that slogan. Which likely differs from person to person.

Slogans serve a purpose, but they are by necessity short little sound bites which tend to only paint a fraction of the position the person behind the slogan actually holds. If you wish to appraise the slogan alone, rather than explore what the people saying it actually think and mean then that is your failing, not theirs.

So, these slogans such as 'Her Body, Her Choice' are not hollow, even if the same people repeating them believe that it should be illegal for women to have abortions at 16 weeks (for example) because in their minds they have their own context, and perhaps even a 'temporal time period' in mind for which the slogans pertain.......

Yeah, sure that's not waffle at all like.

So when I say the lights are out and no one is home, I do so based on the fact that we know what the pre-requisites for HCSSE are generally, and they are all simply absent. I am not merely saying HCSSE is absent, I am saying all the things we connect with the production and existence of HCSSE are themselves also absent.

Well, at the start of the thread you were just saying fetuses full stop and now you seem to be softening on that. I can understand that argument being made for the first six to seven weeks by the way, which is why I have no real problem with making first trimester abortions legal, but I have seen far too many ultrasounds like the following where fetuses are moving around in response to sounds, the mother's movements, scratching, sucking their thumb etc, not to have a moral and ethical concern of some degree for them. I find it hard to comprehend how anyone could feel differently tbh, let alone say that morally speaking they have the same level of concern for them as they would a rock.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQVI9FjE3C8

You also said at one point that...

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

..the well being of people who actually exist, rather than people who might potentially exist, should be the focus of our health system...

Now I know you said the above in a the context of a discussion about who should foot the bill for abortions but I just wanted to say that I don't see why we can't do both: focus on the health of a devolving fetus as well as the mother. I have no problem with therapeutic abortions also if they are necessary by the way but I think it's important to make that point as all too often the abortion debate is framed in such a way as paint those who would be against abortion, to one degree another, as placing more importance on fetal life than the do the mother's life and that is just totally untrue, in my experience at least.

thee glitz

Grayson wrote: »

So you're not in favour of switching off machines to kill the body of a brain dead coma patient?

People who will never again understand the simplest of ideas?
It's a matter of what the alternative is.

Wibbs

Grayson wrote: »

So you're not in favour of switching off machines to kill the body of a brain dead coma patient?

There is a difference however. In the case of a healthy pregnancy anyway. The potential for a full life. The coma patient is a vegetable waiting for body death, so no potential there, save for as an organ donor(which is good). I'm not saying yay or nay to abortions BTW, but I would make some distinction in the above examples.

Grayson

thee glitz wrote: »

Lots of people argue in favour of abortion on the basis of bodily autonomy, ignoring the unborn's ability to act autonomously. If abortion stops a beating heart (it does), I don't see how its legalisation can be morally justified.

So you're not in favour of switching off machines to kill the body of a brain dead coma patient?

thee glitz

seamus wrote: »

So clearly we consider humanity as being in possession of a little more than some rudimentary autonomic movements.

Lots of people argue in favour of abortion on the basis of bodily autonomy, ignoring the unborn's ability to act autonomously. If abortion stops a beating heart (it does), I don't see how its legalisation can be morally justified.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Here is the quote:

And you, quite dishonestly I fear, put a font size stress on the wrong part of the quote. You should have stressed the words "morally speaking" because as I said in post #115 I demonstrably did not compare fetuses and rocks. I compared my moral position on fetuses and rocks.

I hold a strong pessimism as to the quality of our future discourse, or your honest conducting of it, if you can not at least keep up with the basics, and struggle ineffectually to make it look..... despite being corrected clearly twice..... like I said something I did not.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

That is 'equating' a 12-week-old fetus with a rock.

No, it is equating MY moral responses to both. Equating my moral responses to them is not the same way as equating them. This is no small or subtle difference and I feel almost embarrassed to have to explain it to you because, as my investment of my time in communicating with you hopefully demonstrates, I think you are better than that.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Stop trying to run away from your own words. You equated the two, now own it.

Stop trying to run away from my actual words. I did not equate the two. I equated my moral reaction to the two, now own it.

Once again until it sinks in for you, and in point form to simplify it for you:

1) I listed the pre-requisites I believe are necessary to treat an entity as a moral entity.
2) I explained why I believe those to be the pre-requisites.
3) I explained that when an entity lacks ALL of those pre-requisites that I can see no coherent basis for holding moral or ethical concern for that entity.
4) Therefore my moral and ethical concern towards a fetus is the same as my moral and ethical concern for a rock. That is to say: None.

Any clearer for you now, or do you wish to distort my position further?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I did get your argument right. You just want people to march to your beat on this thread.

Nice fantasy narrative you have there. The only thing I "want" from this thread is to engage with people who hold moral and ethical concerns for a 12 week old fetus.... and explore with them openly and honestly if they have any coherent basis for doing so.

Anything else you think I "want" from the thread outside of that is purely, solely and entirely of your own creation. Not mine.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You have been a great one on this thread for telling people that when they say one thing, they are also saying another

Sometimes yes. Because that is in fact what has happened. I can only guess you are referring to my comments on when someone says "The fetus is becoming human" and similar. Because YES when someone says that they are ALSO saying the fetus is NOT human.

Why? Simple logic. You generally can not BE something and be BECOMING that something at the same time. If someone tells me that something is becoming X, then I also take it they are likely to be telling me the something is NOT X now.

If the logic of that is flawed somehow, I am agog to hear how.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You say my drink driving analogy 'entirely fails' because there are no reasons to have an ethical or moral concern for a 12-week-old fetus the way we have a moral and ethical concern for those of us that might be at risk of someone who is out drink driving.

The failure in the analogy is that one side of it is a scenario with ONE ethical agent.... the mother. The other side of it is a scenario with SEVERAL ethical agents. So the two scenarios are not usefully analogous for that reason.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

therefore, what you are essentially saying (all be it indirectly) is that you also believe that the body autonomy argument is a disingenuous one (just at a later stage than others).

I do not think you and I are in much disagreement here. There is only clarification required I suspect. However since I am not clear WHAT needs clarifying please accept my apology for restating my entire position on the matter as follows...........

No I am not saying it is a disingenuous argument. I merely said there is a scope during which the argument is applicable. And as long as the argument is only applied during that scope, the argument is perfectly valid. Because during that scope there is only one ethical agent in play. The mother.

At SOME point however........ and we can have an entirely tangential discussion as to when that is.... and I am happy to have it so long as the tangential nature of it does not distract from any other points....... a second moral agent comes into play. The child. And at THAT point it IS simply wrong to say that things are ONLY about the mother and what she does with her body.

And at that point the moral concerns and desires of the mother have to take into consideration the moral requirements of that second agency. So at whatever point the second agency acquires rights, specifically the "right to life", we have to mediate the mothers right to an abortion with that in mind. And that is where MOST people on the subject of abortion start to use phrases like "When the mothers life is in jeopardy" and so forth.

However I must point out that all of this is a moot point given:

a) I argue for cut off periods for abortion LONG before I think the second moral agent comes on line and
b) 90% + of abortions actually occur LONGER again before I think the second moral agent comes on line.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

So explain at which point it is that your ethical and moral concerns for a fetus kick in and precisely why it is that you feel they are not emotionally driven.

I thought I already have, multiple times, but I am more than happy to do so again.

It is for the very reasons I have outlined numerous times already. I think moral and ethical concern for an entity is proportional to that entities capacity for sentience, consciousness and subjective experience.

And, as I said, I think you and most others do too. Which can be demonstrated by how MOST people hold more moral and ethical concerns for a fly than a bacteria, a cow than a fly, an ape than a cow, a human than an ape. The reason people would classify their moral concerns in that order generally is we all DO mediate our concerns based on that capacity.

So my moral and ethical concerns for a fetus kick in at the point where we even BEGIN to suspect it has formed those capacities. There is a grey area scientifically where we simply are not sure, and much argument abounds on the subject right up to the kind of extremes espoused by the likes of Peter Singer.

But my arguments for abortion occur LONG before such concerns ever start tending towards grey. We are still very much in the black and white clarity where I couch my position on abortion.

And none of that is based on emotion, as you challange. But based on the scientific facts of sentience and consciousness, covered with the philosophical realities of how we as a species appear to approach morality and ethics.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

And you know this, how exactly?

This brings us back to my analogy between human consciousness, sentience and subjective experience (HCSSE for short)..... and radio waves.

In my analogy I say that if we put HCSSE in the place of radio waves, then at 16 weeks in a fetus we can "know" as safely as we "know" anything in science that the radio waves are not there.

Why? Well first because we can not detect the radio waves but secondly and more importantly because we know what produces the radio waves (the broadcasting tower) and even IT has not been built yet.

So when I say the lights are out and no one is home, I do so based on the fact that we know what the pre-requisites for HCSSE are generally, and they are all simply absent. I am not merely saying HCSSE is absent, I am saying all the things we connect with the production and existence of HCSSE are themselves also absent.

If we can be said to "know" anything in science (and I am wary of that word because we do not "know" anything in science, nor do we claim to)..... then we "know" this.

But by all means, I am not closed minded to the possibility of consciousness existing at that stage, and if you have a working model, or any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning to offer to suspect HCSSE at that stage of fetal development..... it would certainly impact quite heavily on my position on the abortion debate.

It would turn a 12 week or 16 week old fetus into a moral agent for me and that would cascade by pure necessity throughout my ENTIRE position on abortion and modify it enormously. Which I will happily do given I am not emotionally invested in my position and would be happy to change it. I only hold the position I do because it appears correct, and would happily change it as much as is required if shown to be more correct.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

<condescending nonsense snipped>

You are free to ignore any parts of my post that you want to. There is no need to pretend things that are not true about those parts of the posts to excuse ignoring it however. A) Because you do not need an excuse, least of all to me and

because it necessitates you being, frankly, wholly dishonest while doing it.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Waffle.

Nice of you to preface your paragraph with a description of it's content. Would that more people would do this.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You go on about exact meanings of terms and expressions when t suits you but .......you start trying to waffle your way out of it but it doesn't wash.

There are many things I think are important when appraising what a person says, or what the words they use actually mean. And CONTEXT is one of, if not THE most important thing out of that list.

And it is a common move by less honest interlocutors to simply ignore context when appraising the statement of another, because it makes it easier to rubbish what they say.

I repeat, the "slogan" with which you have an issue is very much context based. And the context in this case is that of the temporal time period under which people apply that slogan. Which likely differs from person to person.

So no, no one is "waffling out of" anything here, except perhaps you, so much as they are clarifying to you what they mean by their slogan and when they apply it.

Slogans serve a purpose, but they are by necessity short little sound bites which tend to only paint a fraction of the position the person behind the slogan actually holds. If you wish to appraise the slogan alone, rather than explore what the people saying it actually think and mean then that is your failing, not theirs.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You equated, morally speaking, a rock with a 12 week old fetus. There is nothing "imaginary" about that.

You really are hung up on your error here. I can only repeat myself again.... what I equated was how *I* treat the two things morally and ethically. If you think I equated them, or intended to equate them, in any other way other than that then I can simply assure you that you are in error.

At which point it is entirely up to you whether you want to continue with that error and talk past me in the assumption I hold positions I do not..... or you can take it that I know my own mind better than you, that what I intend to equate IS what I told you I intend to equate..... and parse the rest of what I say through that fact.

It is your choice, I can only point out to you that only one of those choices is correct. Or honest.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

How long are you gonna keep trying to dilute what you did for exactly?

I am happy to correct you on what my words meant, as long as you are happy to pretend they meant what they did not. I have both the time and the patience to do so. So breaking the loop is entirely up to you or, more likely, the moderators when their own patience at it wears out.

Outlaw Pete

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

No, I demonstrably did not. I equated my moral concerns for a 12 week old fetus with my moral concerns towards a rock. Entirely different thing.

Here is the quote:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is, morally speaking, the equivalent of a rock or a table leg for me.

That is 'equating' a 12-week-old fetus with a rock. There is no need to emphasize that you, or anyone else on the thread, is speaking morally. We already know that. Did I say you equated the two with regards to consistency?? Or with regards to weight?? Or smell?? NO. Stop trying to run away from your own words. You equated the two, now own it.

Because you say so, or because of some argument you can actually make as to why they are absurd? Though as I say, actually getting my argument right would be a useful start.

I did get your argument right. You just want people to march to your beat on this thread. There was no need for me to emphasize that you were speaking morally. People read your comments. They know the context in which you said them. They also the context in which I was retorting them.

The "other factors to consider" simply have not come to pass yet. Take your poor analogy to drink driving for example. The "other factors to consider" in that case are real sentient other human beings that exist and to whom we ALSO have moral and ethical concern.

The same is not true in the case of a woman containing a 12 week old fetus. There are no other human beings at that point to whom we should have moral or ethical concern, so the drink driving analogy fails entirely.

Hang on. You have been a great one on this thread for telling people that when they say one thing, they are also saying another, so if I may:

You say my drink driving analogy 'entirely fails' because there are no reasons to have an ethical or moral concern for a 12-week-old fetus the way we have a moral and ethical concern for those of us that might be at risk of someone who is out drink driving. Okay, but you have already admitted that there are at least some fetuses that you do feel an ethical / moral concern for and so on that basis, you are implying that you would feel my analogy is sound where we speaking about fetuses which have reached a stage of gestation where you feel it is reasonable to have moral and ethical concern for them......... therefore, what you are essentially saying (all be it indirectly) is that you also believe that the body autonomy argument is a disingenuous one (just at a later stage than others).

......... I am not moved by the argument from autonomic responses no. Even an amoeba, a life form I think we would both agree shows NO sign of subjective awareness or sentience at any level, can respond to stimulus like light and needle pricks. So a complex mammalian fetus with a developing nervous system is of course going to display many complex behaviors.

So explain at which point it is that your ethical and moral concerns for a fetus kick in and precisely why it is that you feel they are not emotionally driven.

But if I build a human shaped machine tomorrow that can sigh, stretch, move mouth and tongue and MORE.... you would very quickly identify that what you are looking at is a machine with no humanity that is simply going through motions. And those motions do not confer humanity upon the machine because behind those motions the lights are off and no one, quite literally, is home.

The same is true of what you speak of. It is a biological machine going through autonomic motions. But behind those motions the lights are off and no one, quite literally, is home.

And you know this, how exactly?

<condescending nonsense snipped>

So no it is not right to say the slogan is empty or not really believed because you are simply ignoring, or missing, the parameters under which people espouse it.

Waffle. You go on about exact meanings of terms and expressions when t suits you but when you, or your those on your "side", get shown to be saying things which are in stark contrast to what they believe, you start trying to waffle your way out of it but it doesn't wash. If someone says 'Her body, Her choice' or 'It's nobody's business but a woman's what she does with her own body' out of one side of their mouths and then out of the other says they think it should be illegal for women to have abortions at 24 weeks and over, then yeah, they are empty hollow mantras and I ain't missing or ignoring no damn "parameters".

Of course it does. NO ONE has said otherwise, least of all me. You seem really hung up on this imaginary comparison you feel I made between rocks and the fetus. I made no such comparison.

You equated, morally speaking, a rock with a 12 week old fetus. There is nothing "imaginary" about that.

Rocks are grey. My dads car is grey. Does that mean I think rocks and cars are comparable? NO, it does not. It merely means that under the sole attribute "grey" they are comparable. I have identified the attribute "grey" and I have identified both the rock and the car have that attribute. That is as far as the comparison goes.

lol. You have to be on a wind up. You didn't just mention the colour of something. You morally and ethically equated rocks with 12 week old fetuses. How long are you gonna keep trying to dilute what you did for exactly?

So yes a fetus is much more than a rock. No one said otherwise. But in terms of treating them with moral and ethical concern, they are to my view entirely identical.

Dude, I never said you equated rocks with fetuses for any other reason than with regard to moral and ethical concern. Cut the bullshit.

Little CuChulainn

rjpf1980 wrote: »

Can we bring this thread back to the OP.
What punishments prolifers think should be inflicted on women who have abortions?
Can you conduct your little chit chat privately and stop clogging the thread?
Stop talking in tangents

Your op was simply bait to try and raise a few arguments. That kind of **** has no place in the abortion debate because it only drives consensus further apart. The only way there will be any kind of movement is if people start to debate the main issues, when a fetus should be granted rights (conception/viability/birth etc) and what circumstances these rights should be disregarded (health of mother, fatal foetal conditions). Anything else is just circling the point and unlikely to change anyones mind.

rjpf1980

Can we bring this thread back to the OP.
What punishments prolifers think should be inflicted on women who have abortions?
Can you conduct your little chit chat privately and stop clogging the thread?
Stop talking in tangents

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Somewhat but you did equate a 12 week old fetus to a rock

No, I demonstrably did not. I equated my moral concerns for a 12 week old fetus with my moral concerns towards a rock. Entirely different thing.

And I did so because I took the time to identify to myself at length what the pre-requisites are for moral and ethical concern. And having done so I realized a fetus at 12 weeks no more possesses those qualities than a rock does.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I do accept that your arguments have been consistent, they have (some of them at least) bordered on the absurdity.

Because you say so, or because of some argument you can actually make as to why they are absurd? Though as I say, actually getting my argument right would be a useful start.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

therefore it is extremely disingenuous to frame the abortion debate in that way, as many do.

Not really. As I said, if there is no arguments for affording moral or ethical concern towards the fetus (and as I say, I simply am not seeing any) then there is nothing left in the debate OTHER than the woman and what she is doing with her own body.

The "other factors to consider" simply have not come to pass yet. Take your poor analogy to drink driving for example. The "other factors to consider" in that case are real sentient other human beings that exist and to whom we ALSO have moral and ethical concern.

The same is not true in the case of a woman containing a 12 week old fetus. There are no other human beings at that point to whom we should have moral or ethical concern, so the drink driving analogy fails entirely.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

As for comparing a developing fetus to an infection. Yeah, both are "alive" but it adds nothing to the conversation to point that out and yes we know that but we are talking about developing fetuses here, not trees, or dogs, nor tumours, or infections.

The point of the comparison has one goal only and I think the comparison does it quite well. It is merely to point out that merely being "alive" might sound good to the person espousing it, but it actually says nothing at all. It is clear that merely being "alive" is not something we mediate moral and ethical concerns on in many other contexts. So the comparison serves only to prod the speaker into thinking why they expect it to be a knock down argument in this context.

This is what I keep saying. The goal is to get people to sit down and actually think deeply on what it is EXACTLY we hang rights off or mediate moral and ethical concern based on. Because once a person does that they can only then quickly realize that the results of that thought experiment yields a short list of things that the fetus at 12 weeks simply entirely lacks, which renders the entire anti-abortion debate at that stage a silly one.

Fair enough, if someone wishes to mediate their moral concerns on things like "It has fingers and they move" then sure, they will be anti-abortion rights. And that is their right. I merely put forward that this is a completely arbitrary and incoherent position that they hold and can not be supported by any rational or intellectual arguments at all that I have seen.

And my point would be that people ALREADY do what I am recommending in other contexts. The vast majority of us already mediate our ethical concerns based on the capacity for sentience and consciousness. The vast majority of us would have more ethical concern for a fly than an amoeba, for a bird more than a fly, for a dog more than a bird, for an ape more than a dog, and for a human more than an ape.

And once we acknowledge therefore that our moral and ethical concerns are predicated on sentience and consciousness and so forth..... and we further realize the fetus not only lacks those faculties but even the structures required to produce them...... it is unclear to me what basis remains for the anti-choice side at all. And no one on the forum, or any other forum, seems all that pushed (capable?) to clarify it for me.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Although, I can still understand people's position on being against it even at that stage though.

I wish I could. I simply do not understand it that well at all. Though I can make some guesses as to what drives it. And emotional reactions are the majority of it. Which you lead into nicely...........

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well, how about the argument that a fetus at 9 weeks gestation is capable of sighing, stretching, moving the tongue, opening and closing their jaw etc? Or am I being a tad presumptuous that you would consider that an argument worthy of consideration.

.......... I am not moved by the argument from autonomic responses no. Even an amoeba, a life form I think we would both agree shows NO sign of subjective awareness or sentience at any level, can respond to stimulus like light and needle pricks. So a complex mammalian fetus with a developing nervous system is of course going to display many complex behaviors.

As I said my entire basis for affording an entity moral and ethical concern is based on their capacity for consciousness, sentience, subjective experience and so forth.

None of the things you list there are indicators of that at all. Even a little bit. But I can genuinely understand how someone can LOOK at those things happening and be subjectively and emotionally moved by it and to humanize what they observe.

But if I build a human shaped machine tomorrow that can sigh, stretch, move mouth and tongue and MORE.... you would very quickly identify that what you are looking at is a machine with no humanity that is simply going through motions. And those motions do not confer humanity upon the machine because behind those motions the lights are off and no one, quite literally, is home.

The same is true of what you speak of. It is a biological machine going through autonomic motions. But behind those motions the lights are off and no one, quite literally, is home.

But it is VERY natural to have the response to seeing that. We never evolved to see that. Our technology has given us the ability to see it. We evolved to have things like mirror neurons and more to create Human Empathy in us. We look at other humans and their motions, their eyes, their expressions, and more all illicit empathic and natural emotions in us that this is another PERSON.

And that affects us, especially when it is a child because we are also evolved to protect our young.

So when we observe this tiny "child" doing all these human motions there is a mis-firing of our empathic concerns there and we confer person hood on it purely based on emotion.

And I think that is very very natural. I just also think it is a troubling and problematic error.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The fetus is not killed though, seamus. The point I was making is that many women will say that they believe 'Her body, her choice' but don't believe in very late term abortions, therefore the slogan/mantra is an empty one as they don't really believe it.

I do not agree that it is empty, that they do not believe it, or that the "slogan" is not relevant.

What I think is that they DO believe it within the bounds of certain temporal parameters. That for a significant portion of the early pregnancy it really is just a case of her body, and her choice.

But at SOME point, and their opinions will vary from woman to woman on when that is, they realize a stage is reached where there IS another moral entity in play with a body and rights of it's own.

So no it is not right to say the slogan is empty or not really believed because you are simply ignoring, or missing, the parameters under which people espouse it.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The intention of a drunk driver is just to get home, the loss of innocent life is just "incidental" - so should we make it legal on that grounds? No.

And again the reason that analogy is so egregiously poor is that there are OTHER moral agents involved there with rights that need to be considered and protected. Which is NOT true of a woman carrying a 12 week old fetus.

Analogies will continue to fail this badly so long as you keep coming up with analogies between a situation with ONE moral agent and other situations with MULTIPLE moral agents.

Until such time as a coherent argument can be leveled, and we are seeing none on this forum, as to why we should afford moral and ethical concerns, such as rights, to a 12 week old fetus.... the analogy you present will simply not carry a point.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

What it was attempting to show was that a fetus at that stage of gestation equates to quite a bit more than a "rock"

Of course it does. NO ONE has said otherwise, least of all me. You seem really hung up on this imaginary comparison you feel I made between rocks and the fetus. I made no such comparison.

Rocks are grey. My dads car is grey. Does that mean I think rocks and cars are comparable? NO, it does not. It merely means that under the sole attribute "grey" they are comparable. I have identified the attribute "grey" and I have identified both the rock and the car have that attribute. That is as far as the comparison goes.

Similarly I have identified the attributes Consciousness, Sentience, Subjective Awareness as being the basis for moral and ethical concern. And I have identified that rocks AND fetuses at 12 weeks both lack those attributes entirely. Again: That is as far as the comparison goes.

So yes a fetus is much more than a rock. No one said otherwise. But in terms of treating them with moral and ethical concern, they are to my view entirely identical.

nozzferrahhtoo

PucaMama wrote: »

But that fetus can only develop into an adult human. There's no chance of it being any other animal so comparing it to an animal is pointless.

You make the same error Pete made in over extending the comparison past the point of comparing them.

The only point of the comparisons is to show that we DO mediate moral and ethical concerns based on things like consciousness and sentience and subjective awareness.

Anyone who doubts that need only observe that the majority of us hold more ethical concerns for a fly than a bacterian. More for a cow than a fly. More for an ape than a cow. And more for a human than an ape. On what basis our we mediating the proportions there if not consciousness and sentience and the capacity for subjective awareness???

Having admitted of that reality one can THEN look at what the pre-requisites actually ARE for consciousness and sentience and subjective awareness.

Having identified that list you can then quickly note the fetus not only lacks them, but lacks even the basic structural pre-requisites for having them. I often use the analogy to radio. If consciousness is radio waves then the fetus not only lacks radio waves..... it has not even built the broadcasting tower yet!

And saying something like "It will have these things someday if allowed to develop further" merely admits my point that it lacks them NOW.

Donald Trump

You have good reasoned arguments.

It is better than discussing with the average eejit on here!

However I want to hear more of your opinions.

metaoblivia wrote: »

You're making a false equivalency. Abortion isn't about who has the rights to control organic tissue. Abortion is about a right to privacy, namely the right to choose to have or not have a medical procedure performed on your body. You're trying to apply a narrow definition of equality to a situation that is inherently unequal. Women bear the physical burden of pregnancy. It is their bodies that endure pregnancy, ergo it is their choice to continue or discontinue that pregnancy and their choice alone. They may choose to weigh the opinions of others, but they cannot and should not be forced to either continue or terminate a pregnancy by another person, even the father.

Well lets go below the level of even organic material and think about your rights to your DNA. If you had an operation and had some tissue willingly removed and then later on learned that the hospital had tried to use that material to grow some other cells or something similar, you might not be happy.

Or fast forward a few hundred years where maybe they can grow organs, or even clone you from your leftover genetic material. Or maybe they can sequence all your DNA and rebuild a clone of you. Without your permission. What are the philosophical and moral implications of that?

Can a company, or another individual, keep a copy of your genetic information without your consent? The health/life insurance companies? A company that could look for tell-tale marker of certain conditions and sell that information to potential partners or employers. Who "owns" that information. Do I have my right to privacy over that?

metaoblivia wrote: »

I would also counter that in the vast majority of cases, men freely give their sperm of their own choosing, knowing the potential outcomes. Perhaps if a man is afraid of fathering a child, he should take every precaution to prevent that from happening. Condoms work very well 99% of the time, but of course the only 100% effective pregnancy prevention method is abstinence.

The burden of contraception is much more equally shared than the burden of pregnancy.

Very similar arguments are used against abortion to be honest! :-)

metaoblivia wrote: »

Yes, a mother can do all of those things in the US, and I don't necessarily agree with that. I think men should be given an option upon learning they are a father to either accept it or walk away. Plenty of parents find their way around paying child support anyway.

I disagree. I think the man should be financially responsible for his child. I don't think that signing a piece of paper should abdicate him from same. It would be gamed by certain sections of society anyway - same as how you hear that long-term couples aren't married but are unofficially living together in a house one of them gets for being a single parent to their child

When do you draw the line at the man being able to abdicate responsibility? Within a certain time of the birth or at any stage? If the couple is together for a few years and when the child is 10 the man fecks off with his new girlfriend and doesn't want to hand over anything? Can he still do it at that stage. If you say a shorter term like a year, then sure the woman can wait a year potentially before telling the man and then claim he knew all along.

metaoblivia wrote: »

By the way, have you had a think about the consequences of your suggestion - forcing women to have abortions if the father doesn't want the child? Forcing women to undergo medical procedures they don't want to have? Stripping them of their autonomy to make highly personal and private decisions concerning their own bodies?

Arghhh. I forget the name of the thing I want to link to. I'll think of it in the morning maybe.

Edit: Actually, I remember but I'll bring it up another time :-) . Plenty in this one already

metaoblivia

Donald Trump wrote: »

So when do you lose your rights to control your organic tissue? If something gets removed from your body, can the hospital use it for experiments or for some other reason without your consent?

You're making a false equivalency. Abortion isn't about who has the rights to control organic tissue. Abortion is about a right to privacy, namely the right to choose to have or not have a medical procedure performed on your body. You're trying to apply a narrow definition of equality to a situation that is inherently unequal. Women bear the physical burden of pregnancy. It is their bodies that endure pregnancy, ergo it is their choice to continue or discontinue that pregnancy and their choice alone. They may choose to weigh the opinions of others, but they cannot and should not be forced to either continue or terminate a pregnancy by another person, even the father.

I would also counter that in the vast majority of cases, men freely give their sperm of their own choosing, knowing the potential outcomes. Perhaps if a man is afraid of fathering a child, he should take every precaution to prevent that from happening. Condoms work very well 99% of the time, but of course the only 100% effective pregnancy prevention method is abstinence.

The burden of contraception is much more equally shared than the burden of pregnancy.

Donald Trump wrote: »

Seeing as how you quoted the US above, just have a think of the consequences of your suggestion. In the US a mother can sue the biological father and force him to pay child support. Whether they were previously in a long-term relationship or whether it was a drunked one off with a stranger. And it will be enforced and doesn't come with access rights attached. Your suggestion even allows someone to walk away from say a 4 year old child and just sign away his parental rights if he doesn't have to pay.

Yes, a mother can do all of those things in the US, and I don't necessarily agree with that. I think men should be given an option upon learning they are a father to either accept it or walk away. Plenty of parents find their way around paying child support anyway.

By the way, have you had a think about the consequences of your suggestion - forcing women to have abortions if the father doesn't want the child? Forcing women to undergo medical procedures they don't want to have? Stripping them of their autonomy to make highly personal and private decisions concerning their own bodies?

Donald Trump

metaoblivia wrote: »

Abortion was legalized in the US on the grounds of right to privacy, which includes the right to make private decisions concerning one's own body. Fertilized embryos are different legal ground because no one's personal body is the battleground. If a man were given the the right to choose abortion over the mother's wishes, then that would be a violation of her right to privacy, namely her right to choose which medical procedures she wants her body to undergo.

So when do you lose your rights to control your organic tissue? If something gets removed from your body, can the hospital use it for experiments or for some other reason without your consent?

metaoblivia wrote: »

To your larger point about men being forced into fatherhood, the answer isn't violating a woman's right to privacy by allowing unwilling fathers to force abortions. It's setting up a way in which men can opt out - completely sign away parental rights and you don't have to pay child support.

Seeing as how you quoted the US above, just have a think of the consequences of your suggestion. In the US a mother can sue the biological father and force him to pay child support. Whether they were previously in a long-term relationship or whether it was a drunked one off with a stranger. And it will be enforced and doesn't come with access rights attached. Your suggestion even allows someone to walk away from say a 4 year old child and just sign away his parental rights if he doesn't have to pay.

metaoblivia

Donald Trump wrote: »

You miss the point.

People make a pro-abortion argument saying that to do otherwise would be to see the woman merely as a vessel to give birth.

I am not saying she has to carry the baby to term.

I am in fact turning the question around. The woman now has some genetic matter inside her which the man says "hey, I never intended to give that to you, please remove it".

He's not asking her to carry his child. In fact the opposite. He is making the decision that she does not have to go through the pregnancy.

Equal rights? Or is it ok for the woman to decide against the mans wishes to abort a child so that she doesn't have to carry it for 9 months, but he can't make that decision to remove a potentially lifelong obligation that he doesn't want

Abortion was legalized in the US on the grounds of right to privacy, which includes the right to make private decisions concerning one's own body. Fertilized embryos are different legal ground because no one's personal body is the battleground. If a man were given the the right to choose abortion over the mother's wishes, then that would be a violation of her right to privacy, namely her right to choose which medical procedures she wants her body to undergo.

To your larger point about men being forced into fatherhood, the answer isn't violating a woman's right to privacy by allowing unwilling fathers to force abortions. It's setting up a way in which men can opt out - completely sign away parental rights and you don't have to pay child support.

Donald Trump

bubblypop wrote: »

Yep, personally I have no issue with those frozen embryos being donated to others, or even surrogate mothers, so long as both parents agree.

It's not a case of being pro choice for both parents, it's impossible for a father to become pregnant & grow a pregnancy.
I'm pro choice for women because it's their body that the foetus depends on. That's why frozen embryos are different, they are not feotuses, they are not growing & cannot without relying on a womb.
I don't believe it's possible for pregnant to donate their feotus to other women?

You miss the point.

People make a pro-abortion argument saying that to do otherwise would be to see the woman merely as a vessel to give birth.

I am not saying she has to carry the baby to term.

I am in fact turning the question around. The woman now has some genetic matter inside her which the man says "hey, I never intended to give that to you, please remove it".

He's not asking her to carry his child. In fact the opposite. He is making the decision that she does not have to go through the pregnancy.

Equal rights? Or is it ok for the woman to decide against the mans wishes to abort a child so that she doesn't have to carry it for 9 months, but he can't make that decision to remove a potentially lifelong obligation that he doesn't want

Decent Skin

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Fine, and on that we would most likely agree more than disagree (in that particular area at least).

Somewhat but you did equate a 12 week old fetus to a rock and so while I do accept that your arguments have been consistent, they have (some of them at least) bordered on the absurdity.

Yes, but most people that have an issue with abortions taking place at 12-weeks and below don't do so because they harbour some desire to prevent women 'doing what they want with their bodies' and therefore it is extremely disingenuous to frame the abortion debate in that way, as many do. Preventing a person from doing something with their body is merely a consequence. It would be like suggesting that the drink driving laws are really about body autonomy just because they prevent someone from putting a lot of alcohol into their bodies and then going for a drive using their body. How dare we prevent people from doing what they want with their bodies?? Well, as most people would appreciate, there are other factors to consider. Well, that is the case with the abortion debate also.

As for comparing a developing fetus to an infection. Yeah, both are "alive" but it adds nothing to the conversation to point that out and yes we know that but we are talking about developing fetuses here, not trees, or dogs, nor tumours, or infections. Surely protection of the life of our own developing species cannot be equated to protection the life of a pathogen.

Incidentally, I would vote for first trimester abortions, or thereabouts, to be made legal here as that's when mother nature seems to be no so concerned about fetal life and I feel there is something to that. Although, I can still understand people's position on being against it even at that stage though.

You said:

Well, how about the argument that a fetus at 9 weeks gestation is capable of sighing, stretching, moving the tongue, opening and closing their jaw etc? Or am I being a tad presumptuous that you would consider that an argument worthy of consideration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ3_JAPpH3U

Discuss.

PucaMama

seamus wrote: »

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well, how about the argument that a fetus at 9 weeks gestation is capable of sighing, stretching, moving the tongue, opening and closing their jaw etc? Or am I being a tad presumptuous that you would consider that an argument worthy of consideration.

Well assuming it's correct, doesn't really prove person hood.

After all, there are many if not most animals capable of all of these things throughout their lifecycle. We don't ascribe person hood or human rights to these animals.

So clearly we consider humanity as being in possession of a little more than some rudimentary autonomic movements.

But that fetus can only develop into an adult human. There's no chance of it being any other animal so comparing it to an animal is pointless.

Outlaw Pete

seamus wrote: »

Strictly speaking, they are. In fact scheduled C-sections are pregnancies that are "aborted" a week before the due date.

The fetus is not killed though, seamus. The point I was making is that many women will say that they believe 'Her body, her choice' but don't believe in very late term abortions, therefore the slogan/mantra is an empty one as they don't really believe it.

The intention of the act of abortion is to end the pregnancy. The destruction of a foetus is incidental because the foetus is not viable outside of the pregnancy.

The intention of a drunk driver is just to get home, the loss of innocent life is just "incidental" - so should we make it legal on that grounds? No.

seamus wrote: »

Well assuming it's correct, doesn't really prove person hood.

After all, there are many if not most animals capable of all of these things throughout their lifecycle. We don't ascribe person hood or human rights to these animals.

So clearly we consider humanity as being in possession of a little more than some rudimentary autonomic movements.

I never said it proved "person hood", seamus.

What it was attempting to show was that a fetus at that stage of gestation equates to quite a bit more than a "rock" and I feel that alone should count as a 'coherent argument' for "affording a 12 week old fetus moral or ethical concern" which was what the user claimed they were looking for but so far hadn't received.

seamus

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well, how about the argument that a fetus at 9 weeks gestation is capable of sighing, stretching, moving the tongue, opening and closing their jaw etc? Or am I being a tad presumptuous that you would consider that an argument worthy of consideration.

Well assuming it's correct, doesn't really prove person hood.

After all, there are many if not most animals capable of all of these things throughout their lifecycle. We don't ascribe person hood or human rights to these animals.

So clearly we consider humanity as being in possession of a little more than some rudimentary autonomic movements.

Outlaw Pete

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I think it is a red herring to even discuss it because we can certainly coherently identify points where this is NOT the case. And I find that those points are actually LATER in the process than MOST abortions actually occur. 90%+ of abortions occur after 12 weeks. The arguments I would level for abortion go as far as 16 and even 20 before things become fuzzy.

Fine, and on that we would most likely agree more than disagree (in that particular area at least).

I trust that my arguments and posts have established that I, at least, am not one of those people and I do not suffer from the inconsistencies or contradictions you feel you have uncovered in others. I think my position on abortion addresses your concern quite roundly and completely.

Somewhat but you did equate a 12 week old fetus to a rock and so while I do accept that your arguments have been consistent, they have (some of them at least) bordered on the absurdity.

Certainly abortion when most people actually have them..... 90% before 12 weeks as I said..... very much is about "women's bodies and what they do with them"..... given there is no reason at this point to afford any concern to the fetus at all, let alone in the same way or relative to the concerns of the mother.

Yes, but most people that have an issue with abortions taking place at 12-weeks and below don't do so because they harbour some desire to prevent women 'doing what they want with their bodies' and therefore it is extremely disingenuous to frame the abortion debate in that way, as many do. Preventing a person from doing something with their body is merely a consequence. It would be like suggesting that the drink driving laws are really about body autonomy just because they prevent someone from putting a lot of alcohol into their bodies and then going for a drive using their body. How dare we prevent people from doing what they want with their bodies?? Well, as most people would appreciate, there are other factors to consider. Well, that is the case with the abortion debate also.

As for comparing a developing fetus to an infection. Yeah, both are "alive" but it adds nothing to the conversation to point that out and yes we know that but we are talking about developing fetuses here, not trees, or dogs, nor tumours, or infections. Surely protection of the life of our own developing species cannot be equated to protection the life of a pathogen.

Incidentally, I would vote for first trimester abortions, or thereabouts, to be made legal here as that's when mother nature seems to be no so concerned about fetal life and I feel there is something to that. Although, I can still understand people's position on being against it even at that stage though.

You said:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Well, how about the argument that a fetus at 9 weeks gestation is capable of sighing, stretching, moving the tongue, opening and closing their jaw etc? Or am I being a tad presumptuous that you would consider that an argument worthy of consideration.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCO0vTlw-v8

Decent Skin

bubblypop wrote: »

When the foetus can survive outside the womb, without relying on the mother.
It happened in this country, a woman wanted an abortion, the state performed a c- section and aborted the pregnancy.
The foetus didn't die as it could live outside the womb

I remember that case. It was phrased as "the pregnancy was terminated via c-section", which was as vile a rewording as was ever seen.

When have you ever heard of someone coming out after a c-section and announcing that they'd "had a termination" ?

[Deleted User]

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

But when is a pregnancy not a person's "own body" though?

I mean, if someone believes a pregnancy is ALWAYS a woman's "own body" and that they should be able to do what they want with it as a result, then they are saying (whether they like it or not): that women should be able to abort pregnancies mere days before they are due to give birth.

Now, before anyone jumps down my throat: I am NOT saying anyone wants to do that (well, not too many anyway, thank God) but this point needs to be made (continuously it would seem) in order for some people to see that they do not believe many of the things they are saying and mostly they are just very hollow mantras.

If everyone would just admit that they don't believe women should always be able to have an abortion, that it isn't about "women's bodies" and what they do with them, then the abortion debate could be a much more honest one.

When the foetus can survive outside the womb, without relying on the mother.
It happened in this country, a woman wanted an abortion, the state performed a c- section and aborted the pregnancy.
The foetus didn't die as it could live outside the womb

seamus

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I mean, if someone believes a pregnancy is ALWAYS a woman's "own body" and that they should be able to do what they want with it as a result, then they are saying (whether they like it or not): that women should be able to abort pregnancies mere days before they are due to give birth.

Strictly speaking, they are. In fact scheduled C-sections are pregnancies that are "aborted" a week before the due date.

This is why the issue needs to not get bogged down in the emotional.

The intention of the act of abortion is to end the pregnancy. The destruction of a foetus is incidental because the foetus is not viable outside of the pregnancy.

seamus

A Little Pony wrote: »

If you go down that route then people should be allowed to decapitate themselves or cut off their arms.

They are.

There is no law against harming oneself or killing oneself.

The state won't assist you, but they won't prosecute you for it either.

In the case of abortion the state won't assist you and they will prosecute you if you try.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I mean, if someone believes a pregnancy is ALWAYS a woman's "own body" and that they should be able to do what they want with it as a result, then they are saying (whether they like it or not): that women should be able to abort pregnancies mere days before they are due to give birth.

And we do have a user who espouses that very position on this forum, though thankfully he managed to back it up with no arguments other than his impression Hilary Clinton agrees with him. I would be aghast if there were coherent arguments for such a horrible position. Especially as I am someone who would adopt a coherently argued position, regardless of how distasteful it is to me.

But yes I do think there is SOME point in the process between conception and birth that we have to afford human rights, and ethical and moral concern, towards the child. And I am myself not 100% clear on when that point is or should be.

But I think it is a red herring to even discuss it because we can certainly coherently identify points where this is NOT the case. And I find that those points are actually LATER in the process than MOST abortions actually occur. 90%+ of abortions occur after 12 weeks. The arguments I would level for abortion go as far as 16 and even 20 before things become fuzzy.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

in order for some people to see that they do not believe many of the things they are saying and mostly they are just very hollow mantras

I trust that my arguments and posts have established that I, at least, am not one of those people and I do not suffer from the inconsistencies or contradictions you feel you have uncovered in others. I think my position on abortion addresses your concern quite roundly and completely.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

that it isn't about "women's bodies" and what they do with them, then the abortion debate could be a much more honest one.

Certainly abortion when most people actually have them..... 90% before 12 weeks as I said..... very much is about "women's bodies and what they do with them"..... given there is no reason at this point to afford any concern to the fetus at all, let alone in the same way or relative to the concerns of the mother.

Outlaw Pete

seamus wrote: »

The "choice" is not about the right to decide the fate of a pregnancy but about the right of a person to make decisions about their own body.

But when is a pregnancy not a person's "own body" though?

I mean, if someone believes a pregnancy is ALWAYS a woman's "own body" and that they should be able to do what they want with it as a result, then they are saying (whether they like it or not): that women should be able to abort pregnancies mere days before they are due to give birth.

Now, before anyone jumps down my throat: I am NOT saying anyone wants to do that (well, not too many anyway, thank God) but this point needs to be made (continuously it would seem) in order for some people to see that they do not believe many of the things they are saying and mostly they are just very hollow mantras.

If everyone would just admit that they don't believe women should always be able to have an abortion, that it isn't about "women's bodies" and what they do with them, then the abortion debate could be a much more honest one.

nozzferrahhtoo

A Little Pony wrote: »

If you go down that route then people should be allowed to decapitate themselves or cut off their arms. Certain things should not be allowed in a civil society.

I am unclear how you hope to PREVENT people intent on doing those things. Good luck with that.

That said however there ARE people who want to have limbs removed and I think they very much should be allowed to do it.

Firstly because it is, after all, their body. If possession is to mean anything in this world at all.... then what can we say we own if not our very own self?

But secondly because there is a very real condition that causes people misery, depression and even physical pain related to a desire to have a limb removed. Apotemnophilia and other forms of BIID are very real, and we have made many inroads into understanding their cause. And in our current absence of a treatment for it, who exactly is to say that lopping off limbs is not the right thing for them to do? You?

All that said however, these things are barely analogous to abortion and it is unclear why you even bring them up. The comparison is spurious at best and bordering on a red herring canard. There is a world of difference between self-harm and wishing to have full autonomy over ones reproduction cycle.

Decent Skin

A Little Pony wrote: »

If you go down that route then people should be allowed to decapitate themselves or cut off their arms. Certain things should not be allowed in a civil society.

And yet people are allowed to mutilate themselves in other ways such as piercings and tongue studs - do you want to ban those too ?

Is there even a law against cutting off your own arms ?

Actually - is there even a law against decaptiating oneself ? I thought the stigma and criminal classification of suicide was long-gone ?

Edit:

Since 1993 the act of suicide (the taking of one’s own life with criminal intent) by itself is no longer a crime