aloyisious wrote: » With your reference to faith, do you mean religious faith-based belief or a faith in science?
Cos it's important to tie down what you are referencing in regard to your use of the word "FAITH". If you mean religious faith, you may want to recall that the main religious faith-belief of this country has faith and trust in the medical branch of science. If you mean faith in medical science, you might need to heed that faith's belief in medical science and make it clear what you mean. At the moment it is obvious that you are using words to avoid giving sensible replies, just stringing people out.
antiskeptic wrote: » I myself have faith that science understands how the mechanism of pain works and if it says an abortion doesnt cause pain at x weeks because the mechanism for pain transmission hasn't yet developed, then I believe it.
antiskeptic wrote: » It's faith that Science is the appropriate commentator on what constitutes human.
antiskeptic wrote: » One's philosophy is a matter of faith. There is no proving it right or wrong. And so all that derived from that philosophy belongs to the realm of faith.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » In Taxonomy it is "human" all the way down. It is simply one stage of the human life cycle. No stage in a biological cycle of humanity can be "more" or "less" human than any other. Something is either a stage in the human life cycle, or it is not. A fetus is. You are. I am. In terms of the underlying biology none of it is more or less human than anything else.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » But it is not Taxonomy that we predicate morality on. Nor should it be.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » I am not seeing a distinction there between your two. In both cases you are describing a system that takes sensory input and responds to it.
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Yet for no reason you have offered to date you assume that just because that potential exists in a meat-platform..... one specifically predicated on Human DNA..... we do.
So in THIS context I think the differentiation has to lie in the fact that human consciousness and sentience is the source of, arbiter of, and mostly the target of concepts like rights, morality and ethics. There are some science findings showing very low levels of these in creatures like apes but for the most part it is true to say we are the sole source and target of it...It is solely us, not any other animal it seems, and certainly not the universe itself, that holds concepts of "Value".
If people want to know what I "dismiss" things (if in fact I even did "dismiss" them rather than deal with them directly) they mind find it more useful to ask ME if and why I did it, rather than allow you to invent motivations for doing so on my behalf.
Mark Hamill wrote: » Which brings us back to NIMBYism. You are perfectly happy to control choice when it is on this Ireland, but just throw up your arms when the person leaves. If you found out that someone was travelling tomorrow abroad to kill their 2 year old toddler, would you just throw up your arms and say nothing can be done because you can't realistically control their choice?
More scaremongering. Teen pregnancies are counted the same way in Ireland and the UK - by births to teen mothers. So if we don't count those who get abortions here and neither does the UK, then the teen pregnancy numbers I provided can be directly compared. Look, we can still factor them in and it won't change anything: Ireland female population aged 15-19: 137196 Irish Abortions in UK for under 19 and under: 240 rate=1.75/1000 So even factoring in Irish teens who travel for abortion in Irish teen pregnancies numbers we get 9.55/1000. Even without doing the same for UK numbers that is still less than half the UK's rate.
That still doesn't make any financial sense. Financially, the best thing to do is nothing, keep letting women travel and them/UK take the bill. Do you have any sources or numbers to this financial claim, or is this something else pulled from the air?
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: » Depending on what stage the fetus is at during abortion our science does not just comment on the infancy of the mechanisms by which pain is transferred.......... but on the non-existence of a target to transfer it to. So we would not just be saying " an abortion doesnt cause pain at x weeks" so much as we are also saying "there is no one there to even cause pain to at x weeks".
More correctly I think we can decide ourselves as a species what constitutes human and then our Science can be used to measure if a given entity meets that definition. For example if we think a human person must at the very least be conscious/sentient then our science very much shows us that a 12 week old fetus is not a human person at all. It simply does not meet the definition.
We can be open to other definitions that meaningfully define "human" in a way that is A) relevant to the abortion discussion and distinguishes "human" from other flora and fauna on the planet......... but I am not seeing a definition being offered yet that achieves those two criteria.
Rather what we do see is the move of using the biological taxonomy to establish the definition of "Human" for the fetus, into which people then import retrospectively the implications of entirely other definitions of the word "Human". And in any discussion that move is as dishonest as it is deranging to the conversation.
As I said yesterday I am not sure describing the defining of terms as being the correct use of the label "Faith". I can offer a definition for the meaning of the word "hole". It does not require faith to subscribe to that definition or agree with it or make it. The label "hole" is merely descriptive and nothing more. Similarly I do not think offering definitions of the word "Human" requires faith. Especially if the definitions offered are grounded in actual observable and measurable differences between the thing defined, and everything else.
antiskeptic wrote: » It's not so much faith in Science. I myself have faith that science understands how the mechanism of pain works and if it says an abortion doesnt cause pain at x weeks because the mechanism for pain transmission hasn't yet developed, then I believe it. It's faith that Science is the appropriate commentator on what constitutes human. It can describe some aspects of what it is to be human, but can't suppose that the full ( or even most significant part) of what it is to be human. We revert then to philosophy - sonething which decides to ascribe wholesale authority to e.g. science. One's philosophy is a matter of faith. There is no proving it right or wrong. And so all that derived from that philosophy belongs to the realm of faith. The science can be sound. But if the foundations faith, then the structure upon it is too Hopefully the above clarifies
aloyisious wrote: » No it doesn't. Mechanism for pain transmission exists. Proof of that is when the feotus, or any other creature, responds to stimuli.
It's that you didn't refer to or mention the human bit that does the computation, the brain, to work out and understand that the stimuli is PAIN and respond accordingly that doesn't exist in any human feotus in the period of growth that others have been mentioning.
Faith as a philosophy
a faith in the working out through science what the composite working bits of humans are, and how they work, is a very important part of humanity's working out the why's and where-fors of what we are all about. Taxonomy [if you like] show's us what makes us superior to other species is our brain and it's capacity to formulate theory about life. The brain even allows us to explore it, and it's workings, itself.
Sure science is not the great god,
but it help's us to understand that things do not work out for the best in nature for humanity and that some actions are almost obligatory if and when the other part of the belief coin, philosophy, tell's one that it is kinder to be humane, rather than human, to the feotus.
One's own version of faith is what lead's one to accept or decline the call to humane action whe it comes to ending the crueller part of nature's way when it comes to some feotus harmed, or made incomplete, during it's growth.
I mentioned cruel and unusual treatment in respect to some people insisting that a woman must go through to a full-term birth while in the sure and certain knowledge throughout the 9 months that after it's birth, her born baby would die. To have that as part of one's faith philosophy is, IMO, a very inhumane version of faith.
Sometimes we find out that what was accepted as an essential part of a philosophy is in fact rubbish when existing or newly discovered information or theory is given proper scrutiny, scientific or through philosophical discussion; eg, the ending of the supposed flat earth theory.
Appledreams15 wrote: » Hi guys I was wondering what the no side think of this, That abortion up to 12 weeks is allowed in nearly every other county in Europe. Never mind should it be allowed here for a sec. It is happening in hundreds of thousands of cases (including Irish women abroad) in the world that you live in. So what do you think of it happening as it does now?
antiskeptic wrote: » A modern day dark age. This time round however, I expect the light will be extinguished in The Land of Saints and Scholars. Darkness 1 - Light 0
Overheal wrote: » The list of things you think are the same thing as abortions now includes The Holocaust Genocide The Dark Ages I’m assuming the Bubonic Plague as well? :rolleyes:
antiskeptic wrote: » The point was that I have faith in science to establish this. You're merely kicking the can around the same garden. The overarching issue is the decision that the presence of certain physical bits in certain stages of development is the determining factor of whether a person is a card carrying member of the human race. You are deciding that a certain stage (scientifically evidenced) has to be reached before the card is issued. In order to do that though, you have to show why feeling pain / sentience or whatever achieves the currency you attach to it. Sciences ability to determine pain/sentience development doesn't in itself validate the currency. Your the one deciding where the line ought to be drawn. You misunderstand. What I mean is that philosophy, any philosophy, rests on an act of faith. There may be arguments as to why you hold to the philosophy you do but you never arrive at a proof of it. Ultimately, it is an act of faith to hold to a philosophy, whether materialism, rationalism empricism .. or theism. So: This assumes the composite workings of ourselves (at least, the ones we can scientifically investigate) form the totality of ourselves. From whence perhaps, the decision to draw a line below which "not human enough" To suppose that is a philosophy. Materialism: "the theory or belief that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications." Note the words theory / belief. Belief is another word for faith, in this context Science is great. It's the philosophy that elevates science to be a god that's the problem. Not sure I get this This is an argument from utility. It rests upon the philosophical belief regarding what a human is. Once that's decided, then thresholds can be drawn up as you do. But that doesn't detract from the problem that you are acting on faith (however well informed you believe that to be, however accurate you think it describes things, however well intentioned). The counter argument is: because we don't actually know what constitutes humanity, we ought leave the killing of it well alone. That the utility argument is trumped by our not actually knowing what the hell we're messing with. It's to be humble with our philosophies whenever we realise we might well be standing on "holy ground". I don't mean this in any derogatory way, but once you decide your faith-based philosophy is sufficient to justify taking away the life of another (because it has decided the other isn't another) then you are playing god. Hopefully the above might inform the motivation behind what some people think in respect to the above issue. Once deciding that life in the womb can be killed (whether limited to FFA or a.o.d. for any reason) we're in the realm of god. I'm doing it (with respect to being okay with legislation for FFA), you're doing it (w.r.t. abortion on demand) Indeed. But I don't see how we can ever get to a final answer on the matter of what and who we are. Until then, it's faith in degrees of humility when standing on holy ground. Or trampling all over it - as I see it presented in the legislation.
King Mob wrote: » Don't forget slavery in the American South.
antiskeptic wrote: » I'm not sure how you get from "no target" (mechanical system to receive a pain impulse) to "no one". The former is a scientific statement, the latter a philosophical one. Faith?
antiskeptic wrote: » We can indeed decide. But the decision derives from the philosophy: I mean, why would you chose to measure with a scientific instrument if you hadnt already decided that a science was the appropriate way to measure the fullness of what constitutes a human being? Surely what you find meaningful will be referenced to the philosophy you believe in? If meaningless and unconvincing (for you, subjective) then not meaningful in an objective sense? But you do the same in the reverse. You start out with your faith definitions, show the foetus doesnt match up scientifically and job done. Its understandable (if you don't understand that you are starting from a faith position). Not dishonest. I was thinking of things that derive from a philosophy. The philosophy is faith based. The evidential findings are fed back into the philosophy and projected back out into the world.
antiskeptic wrote: » Deciding that sentience defines humanity in some overriding way, is a faith stance. That science can tell you when sentience starts and you set abortion limits on the basis of that is faith into action via science. The reasoning is circular. You can't use science to undergird a philosophy that has already decided science is the meaningful way to demonstrate the truth of the philosophy.
recedite wrote: » Finally we agree! Only for you to go and spoil it all...
recedite wrote: » You're not seeing a difference between the earthworm and the android?
recedite wrote: » Why such a long-winded definition for this organism when you could just say "a human being"? Is it so hard to describe a foetus as such?
recedite wrote: » Sorry, I can't let you off so easily. Either there is some qualitative difference or there is not. Humans can't be "the sole source" "for the most part". That's an oxymoron.
antiskeptic wrote: » What, does anyone think, women who are refused an abortion here under our supposedly non-UK-like legislation are going to do? Head to England of course. How long might that situation last before the cry goes up to "bring them home" I stand amazed that the No side have forgotten to remind us how little we trust politicians.
Delirium wrote: » Can you give examples of where an abortion would be available in England but not in Ireland (under legislation post-repeal of the 8th)?
antiskeptic wrote: » Whatever cases the government refers to when it insists we won't have UK style abortion.
antiskeptic wrote: » Are there any immigrant cultures in our land for whom a boy (or a boy as first baby) is preferable to a girl?
antiskeptic wrote: » I stand amazed that the No side have forgotten to remind us how little we trust politicians.
pauldla wrote: » You shouldn't speak in riddles, really. Why not just come right out and say what you mean? Is it something like 'Some of them forinners will be having gender-selection abortions, so vote No!'...?
Delirium wrote: » such as.....?
antiskeptic wrote: » How do I know? We don't know what the legislation here will be (other than it will be more restrictive than the UK). If it is in practice, then folk will travel.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w8.vanillicon.com/v2/867a9f20e705add43a3ada2e4f4480cc.svg)
