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

Child Item

Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

robindch

...continuing on from previous threads on abortion (abortion part 1, part 2 and part 3).

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

smacl

recedite wrote: »

I pointed out to you before that an earthworm is sentient, in that it can feel pain in a subjective way (possibly pleasure too, but who knows)
A foetus will squirm if poked with a needle. It would be unethical to experiment by inflicting pain on foetuses and embryos to determine the youngest age of sentience.

What evidence do you have to support the opinion that an earthworm is sentient, as it seems not to be broadly held. For example, from the following NIH publication we see

For the purposes of this paper, exactly which animals are sentient and which are not is immaterial. Most people will agree that dogs, chimpanzees, and mice are sentient while most will also agree that fruit flies, worms, and members of Cnidarian are not.

I'm not sure anyone objects ethically to carrying out experiments on earthworms for the progress of science, or even in basic biology classes for school students. If you consider reacting to an external stimulus as evidence of sentience you might as well start campaigning for equal rights for ferns and fungal welfare

volchitsa

recedite wrote: »

I pointed out to you before that an earthworm is sentient, in that it can feel pain in a subjective way (possibly pleasure too, but who knows)
A foetus will squirm if poked with a needle. It would be unethical to experiment by inflicting pain on foetuses and embryos to determine the youngest age of sentience.

However it is certainly nothing to with the birth process itself, therefore we can say in a general way that "the unborn" are sentient.
And obviously they are human, although not fully developed.

You're using the word sentience as a synonym for feeling pain, which is significantly less than its usual definition, and then extrapolating from that to attribute what may only be reflex actions to a conscious reaction to pain.

There's really no evidence that this corresponds to what the fetus is or does at all. After all, plants respond to stimulae but we don't think they are sentient.

recedite

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I think that the cut off point is when consciousness/sentience arises in an entity. That is the point for me when it moves from being a mere biological entity.... to being an agent for whom we should have moral and ethical concern.

I pointed out to you before that an earthworm is sentient, in that it can feel pain in a subjective way (possibly pleasure too, but who knows)
A foetus will squirm if poked with a needle. It would be unethical to experiment by inflicting pain on foetuses and embryos to determine the youngest age of sentience.

However it is certainly nothing to with the birth process itself, therefore we can say in a general way that "the unborn" are sentient.
And obviously they are human, although not fully developed.

nozzferrahhtoo

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I wonder if the "clump of cells" argument is a subconscious attempt to have ones cake and eat it. We were all a clump of cells at one stage.

Yes and my house was once nothing more than a blue print. If someone had burned or destroyed the blue print I would expect the repercussions to be MUCH different than if they burned down my actual house. And I doubt those repercussions would be much mediated by the criminal claiming "All houses were just blue prints once".

But it is funny that while questioning the use of the term and why people use it.......

Kidchameleon wrote: »

I get that a cancer tumor is a clump of cells too but not one that will form a human.

.... you make their point for them. Because when you say "will form a human" what you are ALSO saying is it is not a human now. Which is exactly their point!!

So then the moral and ethical argument of the pro-choice speaker becomes "Why should we assign HUMAN rights to something you have just openly admitted is not human?".

Kidchameleon wrote: »

it may turn out that a 12 week old fetus is conscious on some level, we don't know yet.

It may. And if it does I will massively and completely change my position on abortion over night without apology or embarrassment or reservation.

But currently the level of argument, evidence, data or reasoning we have to think a 12 week old fetus is conscious is about the same as thinking a rock or table leg is.

So it is one very big "may" you are postulating there.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

But its just a clump of cells? Surly anyone could walk in off the street and turn the machine off and face no consequences?

They should face consequences, just not the ones you probably mean. The cells would still likely be.... in a legal sense.... property. And they should therefore face the consequences pertinent to the damage or destruction of the property of another.

I think this also answers your "man and women with an artificial womb" thought experiment. The moral and ethical issues of one turning it off without the permission of the other will likely fall under issues of property rather than issues of homicide. Or at least to my mind they should do.

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Using imaginary scenarios is a common tool of philosophical and intellectual discussion but if you wish, we will stop.

Interesting that your post was thanked by a user who declared all attempts from me to postulate imaginary scenarios as "irrelevant" and refused to engage with them.

The best example of this I can give is when I received from that user a claim that things have a "right to become sentient".

I postulated a situation where we develop a fully working sentient AI. The start up sequence for which takes 5 hours before it actually becomes sentient. So I hit the "start" button and 2 hours into the process I hit "stop" and I delete and destroy the code.

Have I committed a crime or moral and ethically bad act? If so why? Where is the arguments it had a "right to become sentient"?

The answer I got was that this question was "irrelevant" to the claim things have a "right to become sentient" and the user simply stopped replying to my posts without any explanation as how a DIRECT analogy was "irrelevant" in the first place.

nozzferrahhtoo

recedite wrote: »

We're back to the same old chestnut; at what point does humanity begin, and when does a human get some human rights.
Obviously we're not all going to agree on that.

Probably not. Which is why I find it helps not to just answer the question but provide the reasoning behind the answer too if asked. Alas when I get given answers to when does "humanity begin" and I ask for the basis and reasoning behind it, I very often get no answers at all. For example why is "conception" used as not just the point for it to be biologically human, which I agree it is, but also to be philosophically human.... as in a human person, humanity, personhood etc.

But as you likely know by now my own answer is clear, and I have often given my reasoning when asked and will again if asked.

I think that the cut off point is when consciousness/sentience arises in an entity. That is the point for me when it moves from being a mere biological entity.... to being an agent for whom we should have moral and ethical concern.

Since we have zero data at this point suggesting 12 week old fetuses are conscious or sentient on any level.... they are the moral equivalent of a rock to me. And will remain so until that data set changes.

aloyisious

There is [not coincidentally] a resurgence of interest in abortion as far as religious organisations are concerned as it's a almost a year on from the referendum where we decided on the future of the 8th. There's an Ad on F/B sponsored apparently by the Iona Institute showing a billboard Ad with what is a slight change in wording from One Of Us [the wording of last years Ad] to Still One Of Us, said words alongside the presumed image of a foetus within a womb. At the base of the new F/B Ad below the words The Iona Institute are the words Religious Organisation.

I think there may be thoughts within religious organisations that with a referendum this month allowing us decide whether or not to approve of the altering of a previous referendum decision on a quasi-religious issue [civil divorce] it is a good time for them to rally the troops - as it were - to vote NO again using the reminder above to re-ignite a degree of religious fervour here. The elections at local and EU level also seem to have a number of organisations and groups interested in influencing our national political parties in whom to send as our Reps to the EU parliament similar to those now representing some of the other EU Govt parties. Edit: I know that this is the abortion topic debate but feel safe in posting mention here of the divorce referendums as its within the Agnostic debates section which also gets input from Christian debaters.

Calina

robindch wrote: »

People taking part in the discussion should decide for themselves whether reductio ad absurdum has become reductio post absurdum.

Or indeed whether it is even worth their while continuing to take part in the discussion.

aloyisious

robindch wrote: »

People taking part in the discussion should decide for themselves whether reductio ad absurdum has become reductio post absurdum.

True, very true. I edited my last to include this: replaced a poor choice words "power of imagination" with "flash of inspiration", inserted [ala Einstein] and [WHAT MAY SEEM TO OTHERS TO BE] to better illustrate the point I was trying to make.

I guess it's best put by saying what is conceived through the power of the thought process we have should not be limited except through examination of any proposed theory and those would include what may seem to be flat earth theories. Some people believe abortion is against the law of God irrespective of whichever religious aspect one sees that entity and follow that up with the idea that God did not necessarily want humans to use their thought process to work out what is for the betterment of humans and what is not but follow a religious social "reality" path. They then try to block other humans from following independent trains of thought [on what's happening around them] to decide what is socially important for humans themselves. Pardon my long-winded thought process on working out what I meant in my writings. Some of it is helped by reading what others post here. I have no problem whatsoever with people who opt to limit what they want for themselves but will oppose those who try to impose their "Godly-inspired" personal religious social reality paths on others.

robarmstrong

robindch wrote: »

People taking part in the discussion should decide for themselves whether reductio ad absurdum has become reductio post absurdum.

I’m not sure what spells you’re trying to cast here, robin, I’m not a big Harry Potter fan.

robindch

aloyisious wrote: »

[...] there is also the chance that people would try to use the same route, by way of the freedom of debate, to give an absurdity a status it does not merit.

People taking part in the discussion should decide for themselves whether reductio ad absurdum has become reductio post absurdum.

aloyisious

robindch wrote: »

On a philosophical note, a well-chosen piece of reductio ad absurdam can demonstrate the worth of an argument, where a more conservative approach might not.Plausibility is not needed - conceivability is.

Hence the usefulness of Einstein's reductio ad absurdam Gedankenexperiment concerning running beside a beam of light (or, more simply, measuring the speed of light from within a train moving at some detectable percentage of the speed of light).

Not in the slightest bit plausible, but splendidly illustrative.

Putting aside the FLASH OF INSPIRATION working alongside deductive thinking [ala Einstein] together to present something as being a conceivable theory, there is also the chance that people would try to use the same route, by way of the freedom of debate, to give [WHAT MAY SEEM TO OTHERS TO BE] an absurdity a status it does not merit. Unfortunately I have thought the last funny-peculiar does happen here occasionally.

Edit: replaced a poor choice words "power of imagination" with "flash of inspiration", inserted [ala Einstein] and [WHAT MAY SEEM TO OTHERS TO BE] to better illustrate the point I was trying to make.

robindch

Calina wrote: »

Reductio ad absurdum is not always enlightening especially not in life or death discussions.

On a philosophical note, a well-chosen piece of reductio ad absurdam can demonstrate the worth of an argument, where a more conservative approach might not.

Calina wrote: »

For them to work, they need an element of plausibility.

Plausibility is not needed - conceivability is.

Hence the usefulness of Einstein's reductio ad absurdam Gedankenexperiment concerning running beside a beam of light (or, more simply, measuring the speed of light from within a train moving at some detectable percentage of the speed of light).

Not in the slightest bit plausible, but splendidly illustrative.

realitykeeper

aloyisious wrote: »

On an aside but pertinent part of the debate here in Ireland, the NO campaign has not gone away. The Pro-life Campaign Ireland has a sponsored Ad on Facebook looking for canvassers for pro-life Candidates for the local and European elections, so its safe to reckon one might meet canvassers on the doorstep or on the street.

Yes. I had not planned on voting this time (or ever again) because there are so few pro life candidates and unless they let me know who they are, I can`t vote for them. (Facebook is out, I don`t use that). Of course, a lot a people might opt not to support a candidate who says they are pro life so they will not necessarily declare themselves as such, so as I say, I will not vote.

I think that if there are any pro life candidates, their other policies are likely to be the sort I would agree with, ie right wing and conservative.

There are so many far left people in the mainstream nowadays, there is really nobody worth voting for. The silver lining is I can use my valuable time for something else.

volchitsa

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Its scary to think we could be reading about these kind of situations actually going on in the not too distant future.

I somewhat agree, but of course all of that has nothing whatsoever to do with Irish abortion law, even when the 8th amendment was in place, as the Roche judgment found.

Kidchameleon

aloyisious wrote: »

Your scenario is an interesting concept [no pun] and I'd say YES in both cases, the woman and the man would both be entitled to shut off the incubator when either were allowed that as a legal option. We know that in a case of a difference between both where one wants to abort and the other doesn't it would be sorted out by a legal ruling. There's the plus factor that any such act would not put the woman at risk.

Its scary to think we could be reading about these kind of situations actually going on in the not too distant future.

aloyisious

Kidchameleon wrote: »

If you read my posts today you would see that I am in complete agreement with you. I believe a woman should have every right to end a pregnancy. I voted in favor of legalizing abortion despite believing that it is the termination of a life. I understand the contradictory nature of what I am saying, abortion is such a fascinating and that it leads to such contradictions. I am simply trying to express that I do not hide behind the clump of cells argument or the "its not murder" argument. It may be a clump of cells or it may turn out that a 12 week old fetus is conscious on some level, we don't know yet. Either way, a woman should have a choice. It may not be murder in the legal sense of the word but in my opinion, it is a form of murder.

I keep getting taken out of context and misrepresented. I feel like I have to keep explaining my beliefs on abortion. It is possible to be pro choice but still hold the belief the abortion is not an ideal situation...

How about this for a scenario....

We invent an artificial womb that allows a fertilized egg to grow from insemination to full term. A fetus is growing in said machine for the last 12 weeks. Should the father of that fetus have the right to turn off the machine, meaning the fetus will die, without the consent of the mother? Should the mother have the same right ie. to turn off the machine without the consent of the father?

I'd say you are wrong in your opinion as to what the terminating of the foetus life is defined as. IMO it can be justifiable homicide. Its not necessarily an act to be pleased about having to opt for but can be made by way of a qualified judgement. Like you, I don't take the idea of killing lightly but allow for situations where its justifiable.

Your scenario is an interesting concept [no pun] and I'd say YES in both cases, the woman and the man would both be entitled to shut off the incubator when either were allowed that as a legal option. We know that in a case of a difference between both where one wants to abort and the other doesn't it would be sorted out by a legal ruling. There's the plus factor that any such act would not put the woman at risk.

Kidchameleon

imaginary

adjective

adjective: imaginary

1.
existing only in the imagination.
"Chris had imaginary conversations with her"
synonyms:unreal, non-existent, fictional, fictitious, pretend, make-believe, mythical, mythological, legendary, storybook, fanciful, fantastic;

Calina

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Schrodinger's cat is a perfect example of a scenario the does not obey any laws, it is far more unreal than mine. Its purpose is to fuel intellectual thought & discussion. If Schrodinger himself came to the A&A forum and tried to make a point using his cat scenario, everyone here (except myself and one or two others it seems) would miss his point by spouting "but but but your cat cant be alive and dead at the same time, that so stuuuuupid! be real man!"

You totally missed my closing point then.

amcalester

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Schrodinger's cat is a perfect example of a scenario the does not obey any laws, it is far more unreal than mine. Its purpose is to fuel intellectual thought & discussion. If Schrodinger himself came to the A&A forum and tried to make a point using his cat scenario, everyone here (except myself and one or two others it seems) would miss his point by spouting "but but but your cat cant be alive and dead at the same time, that so stuuuuupid! be real man!"

Actually Schrodinger wouldn’t think much of your thought experiment because it ignores reality, the very point he was trying to illustrate with his.

Thought experiments only work when they exist is the same reality as those who are being asked the question.

You’ve created a world that doesn’t exist and couldn’t exist so that the only answer is the one you want.

Here is what Einstein had to say about why Schrodinger's Cat is so good.

You are the only contemporary physicist, besides Laue, who sees that one cannot get around the assumption of reality, if only one is honest.

Kidchameleon

Calina wrote: »

For them to work, they need an element of plausibility. Reductio ad absurdum is not always enlightening especially not in life or death discussions.

Your artificial womb provided by a company which does not have governance is really not even close to Schrodinger's Cat in that respect. We had a big long discussion about how laws mattered here lately so context matters significantly. What is the context of a contract free service like this? It is either a completely libertarian world or absolute anarchy or some other such context. These discussions cannot be held in a black and white zone because the decisions in the real world are driven by the grey area of reality. That means sometimes the same decision may be right and sometimes it may be wrong. In that respect it aligns with Schrodinger in a way that your thought experiment does not. You are looking for an arbitrary decision where one may not always be wise.

Schrodinger's cat is a perfect example of a scenario the does not obey any laws, it is far more unreal than mine. Its purpose is to fuel intellectual thought & discussion. If Schrodinger himself came to the A&A forum and tried to make a point using his cat scenario, everyone here (except myself and one or two others it seems) would miss his point by spouting "but but but your cat cant be alive and dead at the same time, that so stuuuuupid! be real man!"

Calina

Kidchameleon wrote: »

The clue is in the title, it is an IMAGINARY scenario , it is not meant to be real.

They have been used in philosophical discussion since the dawn of man. Their purpose is to strip a thought process down to its core components. have you ever read about Schrödinger's cat?

For them to work, they need an element of plausibility. Reductio ad absurdum is not always enlightening especially not in life or death discussions.

Your artificial womb provided by a company which does not have governance is really not even close to Schrodinger's Cat in that respect. We had a big long discussion about how laws mattered here lately so context matters significantly. What is the context of a contract free service like this? It is either a completely libertarian world or absolute anarchy or some other such context. These discussions cannot be held in a black and white zone because the decisions in the real world are driven by the grey area of reality. That means sometimes the same decision may be right and sometimes it may be wrong. In that respect it aligns with Schrodinger in a way that your thought experiment does not. You are looking for an arbitrary decision where one may not always be wise.

Kidchameleon

Cabaal wrote: »

So the purpose of imaginary scenario is to ignore all aspects of reality?
:rolleyes:

What good is your scenario if its not based in a little bit in reality?

The clue is in the title, it is an IMAGINARY scenario , it is not meant to be real.

80cc0f4c808f3d976d72ee71d6527f49820f016c977145327776238a22e33957.jpg

80cc0f4c808f3d976d72ee71d6527f49820f016c977145327776238a22e33957.jpg

They have been used in philosophical discussion since the dawn of man. Their purpose is to strip a thought process down to its core components. have you ever read about Schrödinger's cat?

Cabaal

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Well you got me there, well done. Off to mass now, bye.

Just calling it as I see you,

Anyway, am done wasting time on you. I'd make better use of my time watching grass grow

Kidchameleon

Cabaal wrote: »

Hardly.

The ability to take any action on the artificial womb silly example you've given would depending on what was laid out on the contract for the service. This contract would also determine WHO can make decisions.

Accordingly your claim that somebody can walk off the street and make the decision is utter nonsense and false.

The contract would be inline with the laws in the country the services are provided in as well. This is very obvious and basic stuff.

For a person who claims they are pro choice I'd have to question the accuracy of your statement and I'd be more inclined to believe that you are making a false claim in this regard.

Your posts simply do not support your claimed position as they come across as the normal pro-life moving the goalposts stuff we've all encountered before.

Well you got me there, well done. Off to mass now, bye.

Cabaal

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Its amusing to watch you try to squirm out of the moral issue at hand

Hardly.

The ability to take any action on the artificial womb silly example you've given would depending on what was laid out on the contract for the service. This contract would also determine WHO can make decisions.

Accordingly your claim that somebody can walk off the street and make the decision is utter nonsense and false.

The contract would be inline with the laws in the country the services are provided in as well. This is very obvious and basic stuff.

For a person who claims they are pro choice I'd have to question the accuracy of your statement and I'd be more inclined to believe that you are making a false claim in this regard.

Your posts simply do not support your claimed position as they come across as the normal pro-life moving the goalposts stuff we've all encountered before.

Kidchameleon

Cabaal wrote: »

So the purpose of imaginary scenario is to ignore all aspects of reality?
:rolleyes:

What good is your scenario if its not based in a little bit in reality?

No business would provide such a service without a contract, for you to continue to claim no contract exists is as silly as me claiming aliens used humans as hosts.

You might like to claim to know how a contract works, but its amusing to watch you claim no contract would exist in your imaginary scenario. This to me suggests you don't understand the importance or need for contracts.

Its amusing to watch you try to squirm out of the moral issue at hand

Cabaal

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Of course there would be but that is not the purpose of the imaginary scenario.

Blatant sidestepping.

So the purpose of imaginary scenario is to ignore all aspects of reality?
:rolleyes:

What good is your scenario if its not based in a little bit in reality?

No business would provide such a service without a contract, for you to continue to claim no contract exists is as silly as me claiming aliens used humans as hosts.

You might like to claim to know how a contract works, but its amusing to watch you claim no contract would exist in your imaginary scenario. This to me suggests you don't understand the importance or need for contracts.

Kidchameleon

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

So your imaginary scenario is fine and you expect us to reply to that yet you then dismiss a different imaginary scenario because?

I know how contracts work. If there were contracts of course one party breaking said contract would cause problems. It's very basic.

Timberrrrrrrr

Kidchameleon wrote: »

Of course there would be but that is not the purpose of the imaginary scenario.

Blatant sidestepping.

So your imaginary scenario is fine and you expect us to reply to that yet you then dismiss a different imaginary scenario because?

Kidchameleon

Calina wrote: »

I find it difficult to understand why someonr who is prochoice regarding a woman and an abortion feels the need to move forward with thought experiments that seem designed to counter that decision.

Because it is interesting. It is intellectually healthy to constantly ask questions.

Calina wrote: »

we already allow IVF potentials not to complete in all cases as it were..

That's actually a very good point.

Calina wrote: »

IMO the objective here is to force an admission that in this particular case a termination should not be allowed and then use that to imply it should not be allowed when the womb is inside a woman. For this reason it is clear why the poster constantly needs to assert they are prochoice. A good chunk of their recent posts have an objective of being anti-abortion. It is an interesting dichotomy.

I don't care what you think I voted.