Abortion Discussion, Part the Fourth

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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 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

Plants have tropisms. You need a nervous system to have "a reflex action", which animals have. A brain is a part of the most advanced nervous systems, but even lesser ones have a degree of sentience.

If you are looking for a word that separates humans from the other animals, or a born human from an unborn one, then you're going to have to look elsewhere. "Sentience" is not it.

nozzferrahhtoo

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)

I am not sure they are sentient and another user above links to why. However even if they are sentient in the vaguest sense.... that would indeed by why I would have MORE moral and ethical concern for an earth worm than I do for a fetus.

recedite wrote: »

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.

I do not think it would be unethical as the fetus at 12 weeks is not sentient. So there is no grounding for ethics.

What it WOULD be however is just plain dumb and pointless. Even an amoeba reacts to stimulus for example. So too do many man made machines.

Merely reacting to a stimulus would simply be a patently stupid way to ascertain sentience. And an even worse way to define it.

recedite wrote: »

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.

Way too much vagueness in those sentences. "The unborn" can refer to everything between day 1 and week 40. It is a meaningless and all encompassing term that informs us of almost nothing at all other than perhaps location.

Your definition of "sentient" in order to call that unborn "sentient" however appears to be nothing but reaction to a stimulus. This is not a definition I am aware of anyone other than yourself using. So when you call it sentient in a "general way" you really are making it VERY "general".

Put another way.... you are basically defining into sentience by redefining sentience.

.......

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.

A lot wrong with this tbh.

Sentience in an earthworm is a very narrow definition and not the usual way it would be understood.

Many non sentient things recoil from things that cause them damage at a cellular level - has nothing to do with sentience or consciousness.

Pain response does not indicate sentience - its simply a reflex.

We cannot say at all that the unborn are sentient (in the usual definition), in fact, we cannot say that the unborn have any level of consciousness at all. We cant even say that about very young babies.

We know very little about consciousness and even less about human consciousness. We dont know what gives rise to it, what it means, how to detect it. Its far more complex than a simply nerve reflex.

recedite wrote: »

Plants have tropisms. You need a nervous system to have "a reflex action", which animals have. A brain is a part of the most advanced nervous systems, but even lesser ones have a degree of sentience.

If you are looking for a word that separates humans from the other animals, or a born human from an unborn one, then you're going to have to look elsewhere. "Sentience" is not it.

Could be, but you're assertion that worms are sentient would appear to be an unsupported minority opinion that is not based it fact. Would you seriously have an ethical dilemma in killing a fruit-fly for example? If not, I don't see any basis for your argument.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Way too much vagueness in those sentences. "The unborn" can refer to everything between day 1 and week 40. It is a meaningless and all encompassing term that informs us of almost nothing at all other than perhaps location.

On the contrary, it's a very precise term, and it was central to the abortion referendum which excluded "the unborn" from human rights. It plainly means a human at any stage right up to the moment of birth. That's a wide range, but its not imprecise.

Your definition of "sentient" in order to call that unborn "sentient" however appears to be nothing but reaction to a stimulus. This is not a definition I am aware of anyone other than yourself using.

No I did not say that, you impugned it. A thermostat reacts to a stimulus, but its not even alive.
I talked about a life form that can experience pain or pleasure in a subjective way. We know that non-human animals can have these kind of experiences.

Just out of curiosity what is your definition of sentience? Do you believe it is some kind of defining feature unique to "personhood"?

.......

recedite wrote: »

We know that non-human animals can have these kind of experiences.

Whoooaaa - we absolutely do not.

We know nothing about the subjective experiences of non human animals.

....... wrote: »

Whoooaaa - we absolutely do not.
We know nothing about the subjective experiences of non human animals.

You obviously know very little about animals, if you think that. Perhaps I was wrong to use the word "we".

.......

recedite wrote: »

You obviously know very little about animals, if you think that. Perhaps I was wrong to use the word "we".

Ok - please show me the evidence you have for our knowledge about the subjective experiences of non human animals.

We do not even have knowledge of each others subjective experiences - it is not possible to know the inner mind experience of another. You might poke me repeatedly with a pin and say my response shows pain. However I might feel it as pleasure and you can never know that that is my experience - because it is subjective to me.

....... wrote: »

You might poke me repeatedly with a pin and say my response shows pain. However I might feel it as pleasure...

You are a weird, and somewhat scary, person.

I feel the new mods have been waiting for a chance to exact their revenge by banning me, but before that happens I QUIT :cool:

Bannasidhe

recedite wrote: »

You are a weird, and somewhat scary, person.

MOD: PLAY NICE PLEASE. NO NEED FOR THAT.

Bannasidhe

recedite wrote: »

I feel the new mods have been waiting for a chance to exact their revenge by banning me, but before that happens I QUIT :cool:

I have no intention of banning you unless you do something serious enough to require banning - and that goes equally for every other poster.
I have, however, requested politely that you do not attack other posters via an in thread warning.

recedite wrote: »

I feel the new mods have been waiting for a chance to exact their revenge by banning me, but before that happens I QUIT :cool:

You might want to actually wait for someone to treat you unfairly first. Don't think it is going to happen, but feel free to prove me wrong.