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

sup_dude wrote: »

I'm getting the feeling you don't really understand pregnancy and what involved, based on these posts?

I've an idea, my partner was recently pregnant.

gctest50 wrote: »

If all those were that good there wouldn't be any women needing to travel

I think we have different views on necessity, about how many pregnant women actually need to travel abroad.

Ave Sodalis

thee glitz wrote:

I've an idea, my partner was recently pregnant.

Was she very lucky? Or did you not notice the sickness, the pain, the energy loss, the cravings, as well as the immense amount of pain and danger involved in giving birth, and then the recovery and dealing with the fact your body may end up scarred and disfigured. It's difficult enough for a woman who wants the child to do this.

Also, was your partner ever on contraception? Has she ever explain to you the amount of pills, injections, implants, coils you go through until you find one that suits? Has she evee told you about the side effects of the ones that didn't suit? It's been nearly 6 years since I started women's contraception and I'm still chopping and changing.

thee glitz wrote: »

I didn't mean to jump in there.

He said second trimester, so not an enbryo.

Mea culpa, I missed the second trimester bit. So, 12 weeks on then. I think several European countries do have this sort of legislation, so depending on what is meant by health concerns, that looks like a reasonable compromise that many people who want the 8th removed from the constitution could agree on.

I'm just puzzled at what seems like a radical about turn from this poster. Or perhaps I misunderstood his previous posts?

Quote: thee glitz................

Given chances of conception, contraception and availability of the morning after pill, this must be rare.

If all those were that good they wouldn't be having abortions

sup_dude wrote: »

Was she very lucky? Or did you not notice the sickness, the pain, the energy loss, the cravings, as well as the immense amount of pain and danger involved in giving birth, and then the recovery and dealing with the fact your body may end up scarred and disfigured. It's difficult enough for a woman who wants the child to do this.

She was lucky enough. Sure she had the above during pregnancy, but was able to function pretty well most of the time. If someone was in this position, and didn't like it,
that's a side concern. The fact is that they are, and need to deal with it is as best they can.

Also, was your partner ever on contraception? Has she ever explain to you the amount of pills, injections, implants, coils you go through until you find one that suits? Has she evee told you about the side effects of the ones that didn't suit? It's been nearly 6 years since I started women's contraception and I'm still chopping and changing.

She didn't need it, she was told - ours was a miracle baby of sorts. She may do now though. I understand it's not as simple as deciding on one form of it and away you go. That's not really the point though, and contraception isn't the primary method of not getting pregnant.

thee glitz wrote: »

......... contraception isn't the primary method of not getting pregnant.

What method are you advising so ?

gctest50 wrote: »

What method are you advising so ?

Don't do it - don't have intercourse. If you can't deal with the consequences (as with anything), don't do it.
This method is super effective.

What realistic method are you advising so ?

Realistically, we all take actions with uncertain outcomes. The decision process involves evaluating the outcomes, assigning probabilities to each, and the utility each outcome would bring (possibly negative). Based on these, we decide how to perform an action, if at all.

Based on that, you may wish to employ the natural method, the use of contraceptives, and/or possibly emergency contraceptives. Or you may decide it's too risky and give him a bj instead. If you get your maths right, you'll make the right choices for you.

thee glitz wrote: »

Don't do it - don't have intercourse. If you can't deal with the consequences (as with anything), don't do it.
This method is super effective.

...if totally unrealistic as a method of contraception for a couple actually living and sleeping together - and who still feel desire for each other of course.

You're not seriously suggesting that married couples who don't want any more children should never have sex again until the menopause? Sounds like a recipe for marital conflict and infidelity, IMO.

thee glitz wrote: »

Don't do it - don't have intercourse. If you can't deal with the consequences (as with anything), don't do it.
This method is super effective.

super effective alright - start that craic n she'll be gettin in a subcontractor that's fully functioning instead

volchitsa wrote: »

You're not seriously suggesting that married couples who don't want any more children should never have sex again until the menopause? Sounds like a recipe for marital conflict and infidelity, IMO.

I suggest they appraise their situation the same as anyone else.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lw8SFhOvEYU

volchitsa wrote: »

I'm just puzzled at what seems like a radical about turn from this poster.

Well, I'm equally as puzzled by your statement as you are mine, as I have stated many times on the thread, and other recent ones on Boards, that I plan to vote to repeal the 8th in the hope that it leads to the better legislation on abortion here, hopefully with it being brought into line with that of countries like Spain, where first trimester abortion is legal and late term abortion is also (if the life of the mother is at risk etc.)

The reason I would concede to first trimester abortion becoming legal here is not because I have no moral regard for first trimester fetuses, it's because I see what has goes on in other countries where abortion is totally illegal (like Chile) and it hasn't resulted in less abortions at all, just more illegal ones (close to a quarter of a million annually). The pro choice movement there even made the following videos insinuating that if legislation remained as is, women wishing to obtain an abortion would have no option but to resort to actions such as the following:

Also, given that the vast amount of miscarriages occur during first trimester, I think it's really pointless trying to prevent women from obtaining abortions at that stage of pregnancies. Like I keep saying, if we can get people to focus on just what stage of a pregnancy it is that they feel it should be legal at and at which stage they feel it should not, then we can have a more honest all round debate, part of which of course is education with regard to just when it is that fetuses have a sense of awareness. Which is why it is hugely frustrating to see people not only say that 16-week-old fetuses have 'no sentience' but indeed that that it makes no sense for researchers to even bother looking for evidence of it in them. How the hell can a woman, or man, make an informed choice (in the context of abortion decision or a referendum regarding legislation) with that kind of nonsense being bandied about. Quite clearly they couldn't.

eviltwin wrote: »

Yes

At what gestational point would you stop saying 'Yes' to that question at though? 20 weeks? 24? Apologies if you have already said, but when, in your eyes, does a developing baby's life become worthy of protecting from those wishing to still it's heartbeat?

What seems strange to me is that should a woman to go into preterm labour at 21 weeks, and then as that baby lay in an incubator, she decide to take it's life, she would undoubtedly be done for murder. It would no doubt also be said that she was nuts but yet if she had hopped on a Ryanair flight and popped into a Marie Stopes, nobody would think anything bad of her. Should we really define the worth and value of an unborn child so differently just because it's getting it's sustenance through a plastic tube rather than an umbilical cord? I certainly don't think so and I can't understand a society that can.

We all know the name Savita Halappanavar in this country but yet mention the name Aisha Chithira and not many would have heard of her. Just shy of six months pregnant she traveled from Dublin to the UK for an abortion and died in a taxi shortly after leaving the clinic. You'd think with how much the pro choice movement seemingly care about women's health they would have been discussing this at length, highlighting it at every turn, so that other women from Ireland could make more informed decisions. Nope. Staff at the Marie Stopes clinic were brought before the courts in the UK, but ultimately cleared. The judge stated that he won't allow this woman's death to be "brushed under the table". Lets hope not.

#TwoWomenTravel

Well, at least those two that traveled came home.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well, I'm equally as puzzled by your statement as you are mine, as I have stated many times on the thread, and other recent ones on Boards, that I plan to vote to repeal the 8th in the hope that it leads to the better legislation on abortion here, hopefully with it being brought into line with that of countries like Spain, where first trimester abortion is legal and late term abortion is also (if the life of the mother is at risk etc.)

The reason I would concede to first trimester abortion becoming legal here is not because I have no moral regard for first trimester fetuses, it's because I see what has goes on in other countries where abortion is totally illegal (like Chile) and it hasn't resulted in less abortions at all, just more illegal ones (close to a quarter of a million annually). The pro choice movement there even made the following videos insinuating that if legislation remained as is, women wishing to obtain an abortion would have no option but to resort to actions such as the following:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lw8SFhOvEYU

Also, given that the vast amount of miscarriages occur during first trimester, I think it's really pointless trying to prevent women from obtaining abortions at that stage of pregnancies. Like I keep saying, if we can get people to focus on just what stage of a pregnancy it is that they feel it should be legal at and at which stage they feel it should not, then we can have a more honest all round debate, part of which of course is education with regard to just when it is that fetuses have a sense of awareness. Which is why it is hugely frustrating to see people not only say that 16-week-old fetuses have no sentience, but that researchers shouldn't even bother looking for it in fetuses at that stage of development. How the hell can a woman, or man, make an informed choice (in the context of abortion decision or a referendum regarding legislation) with that kind of nonsense being bandied about. Quite clearly they couldn't.

That's interesting Pete. I agree with all of it, except the bolded part:
Who has ever said researchers shouldn't look for signs of sentience? What do you mean by that?

My understanding is that they have looked and that it is clear that there are no meaningful signs of sentience before at least 20 weeks, and that this corresponds to brain development.

Perhaps it's a different interpretation of what "sentience" is? Sentience normally implies conscious movements, not just reactions to physical stimuli. Would you accept that? For instance some plants turn towards the sun, but you don't consider that plants are sentient, do you?

volchitsa wrote: »

That's interesting Pete. I agree with all of it, except the bolded part:
Who has ever said researchers shouldn't look for signs of sentience? What do you mean by that?

It was said in the following post which was one of the reasons why I was asking the user to clarify their stance in that regard:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have often used the analogy to radio. If Human sentience and consciousness are analogous to radio waves.... then seeking them in a 16 week old fetus is akin to not only seeking radio waves when they are not even there.... but in fact the broadcasting tower itself has not even been built yet. It is, to me at least, a nonsense.

What the above is clearly saying is that seeking sentience in a 16-week-old fetus is not just a case of seeking something which is just not there..... but in fact, seeking something which can't be there.

My understanding is that they have looked and that it is clear that there are no meaningful signs of sentience before at least 20 weeks, and that this corresponds to brain development.

You don't think that the Spanish study which found that 16 week old fetuses moved in response to music implies some level of awareness?

Perhaps it's a different interpretation of what "sentience" is? Sentience normally implies conscious movements, not just reactions to physical stimuli. Would you accept that? For instance some plants turn towards the sun, but you don't consider that plants are sentient, do you?

Of course I accept that but two things: 1) not all fetal movement referred to as autonomic is such. I think some people take the absolute mick in that regard and 2) even if that were the case, that shouldn't mean that it is therefore incoherent to have a moral regard for it. I mean, just because a fetus is at a stage of development where it's movements can be compared to that of a plant, does not mean human concern for it should be similarly limited. A fetus is a developing human offspring, a plant is not.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It was said in the following post which was one of the reasons why I was asking the user to clarify their stance in that regard:

What the above is clearly saying is that seeking sentience in a 16-week-old fetus is not just a case of seeking something which is just not there..... but in fact, seeking something which can't be there.

Saying that something can't be there still is not saying researchers shouldn't look for it. If someone wants to prove the earth is flat, am I saying they shouldn't look for evidence when I point out that I already know the answer?
I'm saying they're wasting their time. Not the same thing.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You don't think that the Spanish study which found that 16 week old fetuses moved in response to music implies some level of awareness?

Well I've taken a quick look at that study, and it seems to be testing whether the capacity for hearing exists post 16 weeks. You'll notice that they start off by saying that they think it may do because the structures for hearing exist at that point. They don't say they're looking for sentience (possibly because the structures don't yet exist?) so unless there's more to the study - as I said I've only skimmed it so far - it makes no sense for you to push their claims much further than they do.

So I suspect you're making the mistake I mentioned earlier, of mistaking instinctive or reflex actions for conscious movement.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Of course I accept that but two things: 1) not all fetal movement referred to as autonomic is such. I think some people take the absolute mick in that regard and 2) even if that were the case, that shouldn't mean that it is therefore incoherent to have a moral regard for it. I mean, just because a fetus is at a stage of development where it's movements can be compared to that of a plant, does not mean human concern for it should be similarly limited. A fetus is a developing human offspring, a plant is not.

I've no idea what you're saying here, TBH.

It looks like an entirely different argument from your earlier claim about sentience, if you're now going to say that even if it isn't sentient, its humanity means sentience is not a necessary pre requisite.

But perhaps that wasn't your point?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You don't think that the Spanish study which found that 16 week old fetuses moved in response to music implies some level of awareness?

Bacteria respond to sound, can help them grow

The similarity between the frequency of the sound produced by B. subtilis and the frequencies that induced a response in B. carboniphilus and the previously observed growth-promoting effect of B. subtilis cells upon B. carboniphilus through iron barriers, suggest that the detected sound waves function as a growth-regulatory signal between cells.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12501293

gctest50 wrote: »

Bacteria respond to sound, can help them grow

A Venus flytrap can eat meat.

So should we have a similar moral regard for them as we do for humans, given that we share this characteristic with them?

volchitsa wrote: »

Saying that something can't be there still is not saying researchers shouldn't look for it.

I said the comment was suggesting that researchers shouldn't "bother" looking for sentience, not that they 'shouldn't' look for it at all, but just to save myself getting dragged into yet another one of these pedantic arguments, my comment now reads:

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Which is why it is hugely frustrating to see people not only say that 16-week-old fetuses have 'no sentience' but indeed that that it makes no sense for researchers to even bother looking for evidence of it in them.

Incidentally, do you think looking for sentience in a 16-week-old fetus is a nonsense? Wasn't sure from your reply where you stood on it, other than to take issue with the wording that is.

But perhaps that wasn't your point?

Just quote the comments which you feel are contradictory and I'll respond.

Well I've taken a quick look at that study, and it seems to be testing whether the capacity for hearing exists post 16 weeks. You'll notice that they start off by saying that they think it may do because the structures for hearing exist at that point. They don't say they're looking for sentience (possibly because the structures don't yet exist?) so unless there's more to the study - as I said I've only skimmed it so far - it makes no sense for you to push their claims much further than they do.

Well, firstly, just because users say that what I have posted doesn't prove sentience, doesn't mean that I was actually trying to prove sentience. The reason is because 1) people have difference views for just what sentience and 2) I have moral regard (and think others should too) for all fetal life regardless of sentience. What I am trying to show is evidence of a certain amount of awareness, not because I think the presence of such is why fetuses deserve a right to life, but merely because some people seem to place a lot of weight on such things being present in a fetus. This or similar seem to be the cornerstone of what informs many people's views on when it is and is not morally correct to obtain an abortion and so for that reason, and that reason alone, I present what I do.

Now with regards to the suggestion that I 'pushed the claims of the study', well I don't see how as all I said was that the '16 week old fetuses moved in response to music'. The movement were not pin prick type nerve impulses or muscle responses as you appear to suggest, but in fact were facial movements (mouth and tongue).

...such an early response registered in our study suggests the involvement of anatomical elements and neural substrates formed at an earlier stage. Thus, our results suggest possibly earlier functioning, although the intensity or quality of the perception remains unknown.

With respect to neural substrates, various studies in the literature suggest that these MT and TE movements, apparently induced by a musical stimulus, could be related to preparation for vocalization.

Future studies could shed more light on the significance of our findings and, most particularly, on the nerve pathways that could be involved from so early in fetal development.

Similarly, neurofilaments associated with auditory structures are observed as early as week 16.

Tracer studies in primates have located centers in the reticular formation that generate vocalization patterns, with connections to the cranial motor nuclei (trigeminal, facial, ambiguous, and hypoglossal) and to the premotor centers involved in these activities.

These reticular centers also receive connections from the midbrain periaqueductal gray (PAG), which could function as a subcortical center responsible for the integration between hearing and phonation, as it is associated with the motor systems of the lingual, laryngeal, and pharyngeal musculature, and with speech processing in humans.

In this respect, there is evidence that the specific region of the PAG that produces vocalization in primates, when stimulated receives direct connections from the inferior colliculus, an auditory relay center, and from the superior colliculus; this has been related in the human brain with the perception of dissonance and musical memory.

Future studies could shed more light on the significance of our findings and, most particularly, on the nerve pathways that could be involved from so early in fetal development. The possible participation of the PAG would have major implications, since it has been proposed as a node in the social behavior network, which is of great evolutionary importance in the evaluation of external stimuli and adaptive behavior.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

A Venus flytrap can eat meat.

So should we have a similar moral regard for them as we do for humans, given that we share this characteristic with them?

Has anyone said that meat-eating is evidence of sentience?
If not, this is completely irrelevant.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I said the comment was suggesting that researchers shouldn't "bother" looking for sentience, not that they 'shouldn't' look for it at all, but just to save myself getting dragged into yet another one of these pedantic arguments, my comment now reads:

It's the word "should" that misrepresents what was said though, not "bother". Should is giving advice, telling people what to do. The fact that I think there's no point in someone looking for evidence that the earth is flat is not the same as me saying they shouldn't (or even shouldn't bother) looking for it.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Incidentally, do you think looking for sentience in a 16-week-old fetus is a nonsense? Wasn't sure from your reply where you stood on it, other than to take issue with the wording that is.

It's been looked for, and the evidence is that it is impossible. If the brain structures aren't there, it can't happen.

Now if someone wants to keep looking, that's fine by me, but unless and until they prove a miracle, I think the only sensible approach is to assume that the evidence we have is reliable.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Just quote the comments which you feel are contradictory and I'll respond.

Well, firstly, just because users say that what I have posted doesn't prove sentience, doesn't mean that I was actually trying to prove sentience. The reason is because 1) people have difference views for just what sentience and 2) I have moral regard (and think others should too) for all fetal life regardless of sentience. What I am trying to show is evidence of a certain amount of awareness, not because I think the presence of such is why fetuses deserve a right to life, but merely because some people seem to place a lot of weight on such things being present in a fetus. This or similar seem to be the cornerstone of what informs many people's views on when it is and is not morally correct to obtain an abortion and so for that reason, and that reason alone, I present what I do.

Now with regards to the suggestion that I 'pushed the claims of the study', well I don't see how as all I said was that the '16 week old fetuses moved in response to music'. The movement were not pin prick type nerve impulses or muscle responses as you appear to suggest, but in fact were facial movements (mouth and tongue).

So the study didn't try to prove sentience, and didn't prove sentience, but you want to redefine the word to suit your claim that it might possibly have done so, because in fact you think the fetus should be given a moral value whether or not it is sentient.

Is that about right?

Samaris

The sad thing is that legalising it here for first trimester would result in a lot less later-term abortions. It's common sense - when you have to book enough time off work to travel to another country, and get an appointment in a group of clinics that are taking on the medical issues for women of -two- countries rather than one, plus get the money together, yeah, that takes more time and more stress.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I pointed out to that saying that implies that they analogy would be sound if it solely concerned fetuses that were at an age where you did have moral concern for them and ever since you have been running from that point..

Except I have not been running from anything at all outside the realms of your imagination. I have been very clear on distinguishing between points where there is and is not a second moral agent involved.

The analogy fails, as I said, when you are comparing situations where there is one moral agent..... a mother pregnant with a 12 week old fetus for example......... and there is more than one........ such as a drunk driver putting others lives at risk.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

the UK women can have abortions up until 24 weeks, you have now clarified (at last) that you have moral concern for fetuses at 20 weeks+

Except there is no "at last" about it. I have been ABUNDENTLY clear from the outset where my cut offs lie in this sense from the outset. That you have ignored that in favor of a narrative of me running and hiding, ducking and dodging, does not change the reality of it.

And actually it is more than 20 weeks. Closer to 24. I would just say the argument I make START to get fuzzy at around 20, but only incrementally so. And actually I think we are safe enough at 24. But I do not argue for 24 because A) the risks and fuzziness are dodgy and

it is superfluous to requirements as 90%+ of abortions actually happen before 12 weeks.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

By the way, the analogy is always sound as the laws in this country consider all stages of fetal life as "innocent life" to be protected and so it doesn't matter if you decide that you don't see a fetuses life below 20 weeks as a moral agent, as the analogy isn't about you, it's about the legislation and what the intention of it is..........

But neither of us appeared to be discussing the current legislation at that time. I certainly grant you that there is a massive difference between discussing current law and what it should be changed to......... and discussing the moral implications of abortion in and of itself. I have, almost completely entirely, been doing the latter.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Can you extend that much? That the analogy doesn't "entirely" fail?

I certainly have no issue with the soundness of the analogy in the context of making a comparison of current law and legislation. I just saw until now no implication at all that this was the conversation we were having. It certainly is not the one I was aware of engaging in. I have only and solely been discussing the morality of abortion in and of itself. Not what current law thinks of it.

And I think my position on that is clear.... that I see no coherent arguments on offer, least of all on this thread, for treating a 16 week old fetus as a moral agent.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Not to me you didn't, otherwise I wouldn't have asked you to clarify it. If you can find any post you made to me, where you clarified that you had moral concern for 20+ week old fetuses, then quote (not link) it.

I already linked to it. You preferring quotes over links does not change reality. Follow the links, they are there for all to read.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

yet you had no problem lecturing me, over and over and over again the 'one time' I didn't emphasize that you were 'speaking morally'. Talk about rich.

Talk about rich indeed, as that comparison is not even remotely credible. Because in BOTH of the cases you compare here it was YOU massively misrepresenting my position. Not just misrepresenting it, but massively so.

Let me repeat that for effect because it can not be said enough. You representation of my position as having no moral concern for the fetus at ANY stage is so blatantly and wantonly misrepresentative of my position, so massively different to EVERYTHING I have been saying to you and others on this thread, that it challenges what command I have over the English language to even begin to dignify the depths of it. The quantity of my text you would have to distort, change, or outright ignore to reach that summary of my position is simply madness.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The reason I asked for clarification was because the first time you equated rocks with fetuses, with regards to your moral and ethical concern for them (or lack thereof) you made no reference to their gestational stage.

I have made multiple references to it, in posts to you and others, and my last post to you contained links to a subset of these. And I am glad to note another user also rolled in to point this out too so it is not just me.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

but at no time did you talk about the age of the fetuses

Except all the points I linked you to throughout the thread.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I understand your position though, it's quite a common one for someone with your views to take, to just assume people are not as considered as you are and that their views are just emotion based.

Yet I make no such assumption, which is why I ASK them first for the coherent basis for their positions and then assess whether they appear to be based on anything other than emotion. And having read the likes of your posts, or Depps, the answer thus far has to be no.... I am seeing nothing other than an emotional reaction to seeing scans of a fetus moving about.

If there is any other such basis then fine, but given I have asked you multiple times for one and not received one, my conclusions are far from unwarranted.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It has been pointed out to you many times on this thread now that some people have a moral concern for fetuses based not just on what they are but also for what they are in the process of becoming.

And I have addressed that argument because it fails to coherently establish any reason to afford it moral or ethical concern. It just says that it is on the way to probably BECOMING something that required moral and ethical concern. But that just means it does not have such now.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You refer to these arguments as incoherent but they are not.

Except they are, for the reason I just laid out, which is that something can not be X and be becoming X at the same time. It either is something that requires moral and ethical concern.... or it is becoming something that warrants such concern. How can it be both?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

In any case, who are you to decide that lack of sentience is the point at which all arguments regarding moral concern for fetal life stop being coherent?

I did not make such a declaration. I merely pointed out that the people arguing otherwise have not offered a basis for it, or argued that position coherently.

And as I said at the time, my position does not appear to be far off the mark given the behavior of most people in mediating their ethical concerns for other life forms in proportion to their sentience. By all means explore for yourself why people generally have more ethical concern for cows than insects, or for apes than cows, or for humans over apes.

If they are not mediating their concerns based on the relative capacity for sentience and subjective awareness then I am all ears to hear what it is they ARE doing so based on.

And if you concede that they are indeed mediating it on what I claim they are..... then what your issue with my position actually is I genuinely can not fathom.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Again, I am fully aware of the context in which these slogans are used.

Yet your desire to render the slogans ineffectual or empty is achieved only by ignoring that context. Which is, at best, odd.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

What you need to understand is that there is a difference between someone 'ignoring' something and 'disagreeing with it'.

The difference is abundantly clear to me thanks, which is why your approach of conflating the two is so egregious and obvious.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

When a person (man or woman) says (in the context of the abortion debate) that it's 'HER BODY, HER CHOICE' what they are doing is making a fundamental statement that they believe nobody should have a right to tell a pregnant woman what she can and cannot do with her own body.

I will leave it for THEM to tell me what they believe when they espouse your slogans given A) your apparent MO for representing the position of others so blatantly falsely and

your inability to contextualize their slogans and see past them to what they actually want and claim.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Believing in things which are unsubstantiated doesn't mean they are wrongheaded let alone incoherent.

It does not mean that in 100% of all cases anywhere, everywhere. But certainly more often than not the subscription to unsubstantiated nonsense does render people incoherent. Once again, your emotional reaction to seeing a fetus moving about is entirely understandable. But there is NO basis of any kind on offer to think the lights are on, and anyone is home, in <16 week old fetuses, regardless of what your emotions might do while looking at one.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Some of us allow our opinions to be informed by science and then there are some of us that are slaves to it

And then there are the moderates, like myself, who lie in between. Who are open to exploring and being influenced by the world of emotion..... but allowing oneself to temper those opinions and emotions in the light of hard reality when doing so involves other moral agents other than ourselves.... and the choices they want to make in their own lives.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The scientific consensus changes, often, and so to hang your opinions on it, all the damn time, is foolish.

To a point it does, but not hugely and not often very dramatically. Scientific consensus may change here and there, but there is no basis whatsoever to expect such a change of consensus as to think the lights are on, and anyone is home, in a <16 week old fetus. And if such a change in consensus, as dramatic and immense as that, were to occur in this regard then it would involve something so unimaginably immense in terms of our understanding of consciousness..... that my position on abortion would be the LEAST of the implications of it's application.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Only recently I was watching a docu about Prof Adrian Owen who has communicated with patients thought to be in a vegetative state and now as a result of his research the medical consensus

Such things do not surprise me. We do not understand the complexities of human consciousness and it is far from surprising at all to learn new things about it. But do not over state the shock of such discoveries. Study of things like NDE have LONG given us the suspicion that patients in states where we expect no awareness actually are more aware than we expected.

But my position on abortion before 16 weeks is talking about a stage before the complexities of consciousness kick in. I repeat something I have said to you more than once.... this is a point not only where we think consciousness is absent but all the structures and processes even basically involved in consciousness are absent. So drawing links or analogies to surprises actual consciousness has thrown up really is to miss the relevance of what I am saying.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You are comparing fetuses to single celled bacteria, and you're telling me to have perspective?

You really have an ongoing issue with comparisons and their use that is quite boggling to say the least. I did not compare the fetus to single cell bacteria. What I said was that EVEN single cell bacteria respond to stimulus. So complex multi cellular life responding to stimulus is a no-brainer and no surprise at all.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Just because bacteria move away from needle pricks, doesn't mean it's happening for the same reason

I did not say it was happening for "the same reason". I merely said that if the most simplistic life we know can respond to stimulus without any semblance of consciousness or awareness, then there is no reason not to expect the same of more complex life.

The point merely being that response to stimulus is NOT a safe point from which to draw the conclusion that we are dealing with sentience, consciousness, or awareness.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

we are talking about human fetuses and so it's illogical to suggest that we should have the same moral regard for the same behavior in both.

Lucky that is not what I suggested then. I am suggesting ONLY that when establishing moral regard for something..... mere response to stimulus appears not to be a valid basis for doing so.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Of course it is.

Except no it is not. My entire position is based totally, and solely, on an exploration of what it is humans generally actually hang moral and ethical regard off. And then identifying the simple fact that there is no reason to afford moral and ethical regard to things that lack those attributes.

Nothing emotion based or driven there at all.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You speak of women getting on with their lives, bettering themselves, their well being, their happiness... how is that any less emotive

It might be emotive, but it is not fueled or based on my emotions. It is, as I said above, based solely on an exploration of what morality and ethics even are, and what their goal is. And if morality and ethics mean anything.... what is it other than the optimization of the well being of moral agents?

And if that is what morality is, then it is entirely coherent and not driven by my emotions to say that failing to optimize the well being of a moral agent in favor of an object for which we can not coherently establish moral agency..... is not a useful path to follow.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Fine to have empathic feelings for pregnant women considering abortion, but not for the developing fetus it would seem.

I never once said it was not fine to hold that position. I have only ever asked if there are coherent arguments for holding that position and the answer is seemingly "no".

Further it would be an error, were you to make it or imply making it, to assume that not allowing empathy and emotion to rule ones intellect as being indicative of the empathy or emotion never happening. I could look at the exact same videos you do and feel all the same strings being tugged in my head, and all the same emotions lighting up.

I just have the ability, it seems, to stand back from those emotions and say "Ok I know what I am feeling, and why, but does it make sense at all on any level to be feeling it or..... worse..... to form actual opinions and votes based on it?". And I find the answer to that is "no".

Which does not make the emotion and less real or internally valid. It just means I recognize there are times where emotion can guide us to bad conclusions if let.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

when it is being considered how much compensation the court should award them, what they were on their way to becoming will be considering relevant

And in many cases I feel it is an error to do so there too. But even then you have an ACTUAL moral agent in play, which distinguishes it from the abortion debate for the same reason I moved to distinguish your drunk driver analogy from the abortion debate. As long as we are speaking of fetal periods when no coherent argument can be made for it's being a moral agent..... I simply can not follow any analogies you make involving actual moral agents. Be it athletes, scholars, drunks or bystanders.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I didn't 'catch up' with you. This happens a lot on forums. Person X's understanding of what person Y was actually saying changes..... person X assumes (often falsely) that this is because person Y has caught up with them.

Which does not appear to be what is happening here. Your representation of my positions as falsely as you have done so far very much evidences that any impression you have that my position has changed in the last few pages of this thread are false and are likely due to your own understanding of my position merely catching up with the reality of it.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I asserted nothing. Studies have all but confirmed that fetuses as young as 16-weeks respond to auditory stimuli:

Two different things. Note once again I did NOT deny that the fetus responds to stimulus, sound included. Quite the opposite, I very much acknowledged this and said it myself.

But what I did say is that when you sit down to look at any particular video and you notice a movement or action...... and that correlated in your mind with a sound.... then you would merely be assuming the response was to the sound.

And this is quite a common mistake, including by pregnant mothers themselves. Often they will say that there is a response to their voice. That they talk or sing and suddenly they feel movement and jumping about inside them and they are convinced this is a response to their voice or song.

But humans are very pattern seeking in this regard. The person in question might have talked or sang 100 or 1000 times. But they only NOTE the 5 or 6 times it illicits a response. And this convinces them of the narrative.

It is a similar error to, say, the reaction people have when they think of a friend and that friend happens to phone them 60 seconds later. And they get this idea that some psychic connection happens and they somehow caused or predicted the phone call.

Where the reality is we think about other people all the time, and people phone other people all the time.... and for simple statistical reasons the two occasionally over lap setting off an erroneous "WOW" response in our brain.

But no, I have NO issue with the claim that the fetus at very early stages respond to all kinds of stimulus. I merely urge extreme skeptical caution at where many people would like to extrapolate to from there.

When a fetus sticks it's thumb in it's mouth we (naturally) map that onto ALL the reasons and ideas we have for an actual child doing it and the assumptions people doing so reach as a result are likely simply very wrong.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The reason I would concede to first trimester abortion becoming legal here is not because I have no moral regard for first trimester fetuses, it's because I see what has goes on in other countries where abortion is totally illegal (like Chile) and it hasn't resulted in less abortions at all, just more illegal ones (close to a quarter of a million annually).

That would make me feel a little uncomfortable I think. It suggests doing the wrong thing merely because doing the right thing fails to achieve the result you want.

It reminds me a little of the anti gay marriage debates. Gay adoption was brought up as a red herring time and time again. But in those discussions I heard often the idea that "Children adopted by gay parents would be bullied more".

Now aside from that claim likely being false, as I think it is, so what? Should we stop doing the right thing (gay marriage and gay adoption) because SOME people will do the wrong thing if we do?

I would feel the same here about abortion. IF I was against abortion at that stage (which I am not, so I am merely partaking of the Devils Avocado Salad), I would be against it. The idea that we should not make it illegal because people might go breaking the law, simply would not occur to me I think.

Should we abolish, for example, intellectual property or copyright laws.... because having them has led to more software and movie piracy?

Anyway none of that is a rebuttal to your position at all and should not be read that way. It just raises a strong discomfort in me to go down the route of not doing what one feels is right, because one does not think it will succeed.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

part of which of course is education with regard to just when it is that fetuses have a sense of awareness. Which is why it is hugely frustrating to see people not only say that 16-week-old fetuses have 'no sentience' but indeed that that it makes no sense for researchers to even bother looking for evidence of it in them.

Wow, who has been saying that? Certainly not me anyway. I think researchers should very much be investing as much time and ability as possible in understanding all the workings of human consciousness and awareness, how it works, and including when it forms and how. I would see it up there as the biological end game analagous to the "Theory of everything" in physics.

However not just some but ALL of the science we DO have on the subject of human consciousness gives us NO reason to expect any level of it in a 16 week old fetus and every reason to expect none.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

How the hell can a woman, or man, make an informed choice (in the context of abortion decision or a referendum regarding legislation) with that kind of nonsense being bandied about. Quite clearly they couldn't.

And how can they make an informed and intellectual choice when the counter arguments involve showing pictures of tiny fetuses sucking their thumb in the hope that the image will be emotive enough to over ride all sense, coherence, and intellect on the subject?

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

At what gestational point would you stop saying 'Yes' to that question at though? 20 weeks? 24? Apologies if you have already said, but when, in your eyes, does a developing baby's life become worthy of protecting from those wishing to still it's heartbeat?

That question is vulnerable to the "no true scotsman" or slippery slope fallacy though. Because we simply can not answer it. We do not have even CLOSE to enough data to draw a clearly defined line in the sand.

It is like looking at a rainbow and asking someone to show you the EXACT point where red stops being red and starts being purple. You likely will fail entirely to do it.

But there ARE points where you can say "We are certain as certain can possibly be that THIS point is red and THAT point is purple" and so I think you are asking the wrong question.

Rather than asking "When exactly does moral and ethical concern kick in, or sentience form" the question should be "At what points can we be as sure as sure can be that it is simply wholly absent.

And 16 weeks is certainly one of those points. Especially given 90%+ abortions happen in 12 weeks which is about as Red as Red is going to get on that particular rainbow.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You'd think with how much the pro choice movement seemingly care about women's health they would have been discussing this at length

And we do. Arguing for choice in a medical procedure does not blind us to the risk inherent in any medical procedure. We would ideally not only argue for choice in abortion but also for the best and safest medical practices and care that are possible.

That someone might, and did, die after making the choice says nothing about the morality of allowing that choice. There are likely few, if any, seriously medical procedures..... necessary, elective, cosmetic, or otherwise..... that have not resulted in deaths. People have even died merely getting a tooth removed due to unforeseen complications.

It is horrible, it is unfortunate, it is tragic, it is all the terms you could think of for it purely sucking.......... but in terms of arguing the morality of allowing abortion..... it is...... as offensive as some might find my saying it..... simply irrelevant.

There is but the weakest of comparisons to be drawn between someone who died due to being denied a choice she really should have had...... and someone dying because they exercised a choice they really should have had.

But absolutely such cases as the one you describe should be known and anyone seeking abortion should be FULLY informed as to the risks and issues involved. The REAL risks that is, not the ones that have been invented by a few catholic lobby groups about breast cancer and future child abuse.

volchitsa wrote: »

Has anyone said that meat-eating is evidence of sentience?
If not, this is completely irrelevant.

The suggestion was made that it was misplaced to have regard for human fetus just because they are capable of certain reactions given that bacteria can also react similarly. It was a ludicrous thing to say for many reasons which is why it got a ludicrous response. We are not bacteria, or plants, and so it does not matter how they act, as it in no way negates the importance and significance of that behavior in a human fetus.

It's the word "should" that misrepresents what was said though, not "bother". Should is giving advice, telling people what to do. The fact that I think there's no point in someone looking for evidence that the earth is flat is not the same as me saying they shouldn't (or even shouldn't bother) looking for it.

Are you really arguing that saying something is 'a nonsense' to do, is not nearly the same as saying someone "shouldn't bother" doing it?? That really is a new level of pedanticism on the thread. It's as close as makes no bloody difference ffs. In any case, as I said, I have changed the wording to accommodate the pedantic.

It's been looked for, and the evidence is that it is impossible. If the brain structures aren't there, it can't happen.

So, that's a no then, you don't think it's "a nonsense" just to look for it.

Now if someone wants to keep looking, that's fine by me, but unless and until they prove a miracle, I think the only sensible approach is to assume that the evidence we have is reliable.

There is a difference between saying something has not been found and that it won't be found.

So the study didn't try to prove sentience, and didn't prove sentience, but you want to redefine the word to suit your claim that it might possibly have done so, because in fact you think the fetus should be given a moral value whether or not it is sentient.

Is that about right?

What the hell are you on about? The line you emboldened is me specifically stating that I have moral regard for fetuses regardless of whether they are deemed to be sentient or not and you cite that as my attempting to change what the word means?

You do realize that there are some scientists still trying to debate whether or not living animals are sentient. There are also some scientists who suggest fetuses can not be declared as sentient until birth. That is why I try and steer clear of that argument. Now of someone says that to them evidence of sentience in a fetus would just mean voluntarily moving or a certain level of cognitive behavior, then I will focus on trying to show when the earliest evidence of that occurs, but again, that does not mean I am trying to show evidence of sentience... It might to that person or persons that see that particular behavior as a sentience... but that is not and never will be my goal.

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

It was a ludicrous thing to say for many reasons which is why it got a ludicrous response.

Actually it was more that it was the ludicrous response to what was a ludicrous thing to say.

But I am happy to explain it again. The ONLY reason bacteria was mentioned was to highlight the fact that mere response to stimulus tells us NOTHING about the consciousness and capacity for awareness the subject in question possesses.

No more, no less. That was all the point is and was. And there is nothing "Ludicrous" about it.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

We are not bacteria, or plants, and so it does not matter how they act, as it in no way negates the importance and significance of that behavior in a human fetus.

No one claimed we are bacteria or plants OR that it "negates the significance" of the behaviors in the human fetus. It was ONLY served as a caution as to why the aforementioned behavior might not be as relevant and significant as one might think, or want to think, or want others to think.

Response to stimulus, taken in isolation, simply tells us very little at all about what is actually going on at the level of the brain.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Are you really arguing that saying something is 'a nonsense' to do, is not nearly the same as saying someone "shouldn't bother" doing it??

I hope my clarification in the longer post above sinks home but I am happy to repeat it here too. I absolutely believe researchers should be doing anything and everything ethically possible to understanding consciousness, it's pre-requisites and its function. If you got any other impression from my words then, rather than saying who's failing it is in another pointless back and forth, simply just correct the error now.

BUT while our knowledge of consciousness and so forth is FAR from complete.... it is not small either. And not just most, but everything we currently understand about it tells us it is nonsense to expect to find any in a 0-16 week old fetus.

Does that mean that I am entirely closed off to the possibility that some new discovery at the level of the brain will entirely change my opinion on the matter? Hell no, I am open as open can be to such evidence if and when it shows up. I just find it to be supremely unlikely to occur in the same way as I am open to, but not expectant of, evidence entirely disproving Evolution by Natural Selection, or proving the perfect flatness of the earth, or the efficacy of homeopathy beyond the level of placebo.

Though I meet many people on forums, even one on another forum just today as it happens, who will happily claim in contrary to all science that 8 week old fetuses are fully aware of being ripped bodily apart during abortion.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

You do realize that there are some scientists still trying to debate whether or not living animals are sentient.

Absolutely realize it here! Which is why I am iffy, when the pre-requisites and structures that could potentially be producing it, to withold moral and ethical concern. We simply can not draw a coherent line in the sand when sentience kicks in or how. It is currently beyond us.

Hell one great line I saw in a film was following the creation of the words first General AI, a government agent was sent to asses it. The first question the Agent was asked it was "Can you prove you are sentience?" to which the computer only replied "Can you?". Which is a great point. Can we even prove OURSELVES sentient 100%???

But our inability to say when something that MIGHT BE sentient is or is not..... does not speak to our ability to simply note that some entity most likely isn't. Does your doubt about whether a cow is sentient or not call into question your ability to say rocks are simply not? Clearly it does not, and I doubt you stay awake nights obsessed with the moral concerns of garden displays.

Our abilities can be compared in terms of the fetus (our abilities I am comparing here, not rocks and fetuses lest you go down that little canard again). Our inability to conclusively decide sentience in animals says nothing about our ability to look at a 16 week old fetus and say that it lacks ANY basis at all for expecting it to have any.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

There are also some scientists who suggest fetuses can not be declared as sentient until birth. That is why I try and steer clear of that argument.

Philosophers too. Peter Singer appears to be in that group. And like you, I steer clear of the argument. And I do so by identifying points in the process (less than 16 weeks) where there simply is no argument to be made. This is not a "Hummmm-hawwwww" point I have identified. It is a point where we simply have no basis whatsoever to even suspect sentience or awareness. It is a point simply entirely outside the philosophical and scientific debate tables to which you refer**.

** Other than those of course who go down the "soul and spirit" route at which point, given their completely lack of substantiation, all bets are off on our ability to discourse coherently with them. Once entirely unsubstantiated woo is brought to the table then all things are possible, and no argument can be rebutted coherently or made coherently.

Lollipops23

My OH was born to a 16 year old mother in the late 80s. She openly admits that she considered getting a boat to Liverpool, but couldn't get the money together.

He's still admantly pro choice and attending the rally with me in a few weeks.