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?
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
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.0 -
-
That's interesting Pete. I agree with all of it, except the bolded part: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:
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.
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?0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
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.0 -
-
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.0 -
-
@nozzferrahhtoo I'll reply some of the rest of your contradictions / points later but just on this one:nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »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
We are in Ireland and the State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn. That is all that is needed for my analogy to be sound and for it to do what I wanted it to do: which was to show that the primary intention of having abortion laws is the same primary intention of having drink driving laws: to protect innocent life. You might not see certain fetuses as qualifying as innocent life but that is irrelevant as the analogy was not about you or your views, it was made to retort certain sanctimonious mantras which are made in the context of the body autonomy argument.But neither of us appeared to be discussing the current legislation at that time.
I first made the analogy to point out the intention of abortion laws.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.
lol. Yeah, I noticed.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.
How convenient. So now that I have shown that even by your own moral concern standards, my analogy would stand in the context of abortion in the UK, given that they allow abortion up to 24 weeks.... you conveniently say the point a which you have concern for fetuses is "closer to 24" weeks. And you say you're not running??
And people give me a hard time for asking you for clarification on your views in that regard??
That is why I asked you for clarification, yet when I did I got comments such as the following made in your defense. Comments which you thanked:I can't count on my digits the amount of times nozz has said 0-20 weeks. Anyone with half a brain can see that.
And lets not forget you have already confirmed yourself that you begin to have moral concern for fetuses at 20 weeks:nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I have made it VERY clear that I argue for abortion on demand only up to 16-20 weeks because after this point I very much DO start to have moral and ethical concerns.
But yet now suddenly for the first time on the thread, with regards to your moral concern re: fetuses, you mention '24 weeks'. Bit of a coincidence don't you think?0 -
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lw8SFhOvEYU
Advertisement