Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
How do Pro Life campaigners want women who have abortions punished?
Comments
-
-
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.
0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
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.
Discuss.0 -
-
-
-
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?0 -
Advertisement
-
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 already0 -
-
-
-
-
-
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.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
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.
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.0 -
-
-
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Unbelievable, I still maintain that I did not equate the Rock (X) and the Fetus (Y) but my moral position on rocks (X1) and my moral opinion of fetuses (Y1).
You can "maintain" what you like but that won't change what you didExcept you, in the ways I outlined. Dude.
Had I changed the context of what you said in some way, then you would have a legitimate gripe... but I didn't... and so you don't.If an analogy does not hold, there is little utility in it. The purpose of analogy is to explain a point in a way that is more accessible to the target, so when they move back to your ACTUAL point, it will be easier to parse. But the analogy you used fails because there is no analogy to be drawn between a scenario with one moral agent, and scenarios with multiple moral agents.
I know what an analogy is, dude. Cut the condescension. You said:nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »... 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...
By saying the above you were suggesting that if you DID have a moral and ethical concern for a fetus, then there would be something left in the debate OTHER than the woman... you're running from that now and I don't blame you.Except I did not move any goalposts. What I did is to point out there are more than one playing FIELDS, with different goal posts and rules, in which the same ball can be played but under different conditions.
It doesn't matter if there is more than one playing field. It would if my analogy was attempting say both scenarios were the very same but I wasn't. I was merely saying that the motive behind drink driving legislation is to protect the life of the innocent and while enforcing the laws regarding it we have to restrict what people can do with their bodies, but that's a consequence of the legislation.. not the intent of it.What I am saying is that if you merely harp on about the slogan, rather than also considering how, why and when people apply that slogan.....then you are taking their positions and words out of the context that renders them coherent.
How the hell could I be ignoring the very context which I have spoken about?You seem to think that if someone disagrees with some aspect of what the pro choice crowd do or say, well then they must not fully appreciate it what they are about. Eh, we get it, some of us just don't agree is all.
If someone stands on O'Connell St with a sign that says THE WORLD IS FLAT well then they are gonna have people arguing to the contrary. If that person says: 'What I'm saying is right because I'm only referring to a specific section of the world and not the WHOLE world'.. would that make sense? Contextually speaking, I guess maybe it would, but who gives a fcuk... his sign suggested otherwise and the same goes for the 'Her Body, Her Choice' brigade. They don't believe it and so they should quit saying it. I get that 'Her Body, Her Choice, Up Until The 24th Week' is a bit of mouthful but I'm a great believer in saying what you actually mean. They should give it a try.I am not aware that my position has changed at all since entering into the thread. So I think what is more likely that my position "softening" is that your understanding of what my actual position IS has been improving.
This happens a lot on forums. Person X's understanding of what person Y is actually saying changes..... but person X assumes (often, and in your case, falsely) that this is because person Y's position has changed.
Nope. Quite feeling sorry for yourself. Just looking for clarification as earlier in the thread you said:nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »My own position on abortion was formed when I decided to not only sit down and REALLY understand what I mean by those words.... but specifically what I mean by them in the context of a fetus or the subject of abortion.
And what I realized is there is no coherent way to ascribe person-hood or "humanity" to a fetus. All the things I would hang moral or ethical concern off..... say the faculty of human consciousness and sentience for example..... are simply ABSENT in the fetus. And in the absence of these things I have no basis to hold any moral or ethical concern for a fetus over, say, a rock.
Now, in the above you didn't mention the age of the fetus. You merely said because there was no coherent way to ascribe person-hood or "humanity" to a fetus, you held as much moral concern for them as you would a rock, but you no longer seem to be speaking about 'all' fetuses, just those between 12-16 weeks or below. A non-condescending clarification is what I'm looking for and the less you use the word 'fuzzy' the better.Firstly because while watching such videos as the one you have linked to, you are merely ASSUMING to know what the "movement" is in response to. You tell me it is in response to "sound" for example. How do you know that? I do not see any basis to believe you do know that. I think you are assuming it because you are parsing it true a narrative that renders it true for you.
I'm assuming nothing. I have attended ultrasounds at between 12 and 16 weeks where movement was stimulated by asking the mother to cough etc. Whenever I see these videos showing fetuses sucking their thumbs, I don't think a study is needed (for some of us at least) for that to warrant people having more moral concern for it than they would say... a rock, or a table. Is that an emotional reaction? Sure, but so what, it's not an unreasonable one. Not like they are looking at footage of sperm swimming and cooing at it. Although I suspect you see no difference between the two.
There is quite a bit of science to suggest that fetuses feel pain / stimuli at an earlier gestational stage than many would like us to believe though...“A motor response can first be seen as a whole body movement away from a stimulus and observed on ultrasound from as early as 7.5 weeks’ gestational age. The perioral area is the first part of the body to respond to touch at approximately 8 weeks, but by 14 weeks most of the body is responsive to touch.”
The fetus starts to make movements in response to being touched from eight weeks.."
“Movement of the fetus in response to external stimuli occurs as early as 8 weeks gestation…”
“The earliest reactions to painful stimuli motor reflexes can be detected at 7.5 weeks of gestation"
In any event we don't really need to focus on such young fetuses as you apparently have no moral or ethical regard for fetuses at any stage of human development, even long past the point at which science is debating whether or not their movement is reactionary or not.Secondly movement does not indicate the lights are on and anyone is home. Even a bacteria, one of the simplest forms of life we know and not one I think you or I would consider holds ANYTHING even remotely relating to "HCSSE", will change it's behaviors, direction and movements in response to light sources or needle pricks.
Back to bacteria again, eh. We are not talking about pathogens, dude, we are talking about prenatal human development. Maybe you struggle with moral and ethical concern for our species at that stage, but many of us don't and for sound reasons.Fair enough, I can understand that position emotionally. You look at something human shaped, making human like movements, and your moral centers light up in your brain.
lol "Human shaped, making human like movements??"
Yeah, I'm down in Smyth's every day crying about how their battery operated dolls are being mistreatedI get that.
You get nothing. You think you do, you think have a grasp of the opposing side of the debate but you do not. It's just yet more condescending clap trap about how your opinion is science based and everyone's else's is just emotionally based and incoherent.But it simple is not coherent at the intellectual level at all. So perhaps we differ solely in that I do not let emotional fallacy over ride intellectual truths.
And there we have it again. This from the guy was whinging about how health care should focus on women who are actually alive and not on fetuses that just had the potential to exist. Why should your emotionally fueled opinion (and it is) be considered any more legitimate that anyone else's opinion one wonders.Because for me on one hand we have a blob of biological matter with no moral agency I can discern..... and on the other we have an ACTUAL person with emotional concerns striving towards maximizing her own well being and happiness.
Blobs "of biological matter"?? All fetuses?? And you have the cheek to refer to other users' arguments as 'incoherent'Why do our moral and ethical concerns only kick in at the extremes? That makes little sense to me when only one moral agent is involved.
According to you only one moral agent involved but there is a reason that abortion over 24 weeks is illegal in most civilized parts of the world and that is because the vast majority of people are capable of seeing that there is another... the developing fetus... and while you may not have the ability to see fetuses as being worthy of your ethical or moral concern, the vast majority of us can.And SHE has decided that maximizing her own well being and happiness involves not becoming a mother, not being pregnant, and exercising autonomy over her own biological and reproductive processes.
And given there is only one moral agency in the equation..... herself..... I see absolutely no moral reason to stand in the way of her choice at all.
Yeah, Sarah Catt "maximized her own well being and happiness"..... they locked her up.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCO0vTlw-v8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ3_JAPpH3U
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQVI9FjE3C8
Advertisement