Legalise abortion

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

False. I quoted sources of science papers that show when activity starts in the brain, how it forms and over what time scale. Not just science opinion, but peer reviewed real science and I can quote you more if you like, but no one has apparently read the first one yet even.

Please stop deflecting. I have repeatedly sought a definition and questioned your need for caveats to hold that definition together.

Indeed, if we are talking about brain activity, then I have to question what you mean. Originally you spoke of consciousness, then sentience and now brain activity. Which one is it?

To use an analogy to radio, I am not saying the radio waves are not what we expect, or that the transmitter is powered down. The transmitter is not even there and people on here are essentially asking me "How do you KNOW the radio waves aren't there anyway??" which is patently ridiculous.

You'll find that brain damage will often destroy the 'transmitter'. Not there any more, I'm afraid.

What part of any of that you think I am expecting to be taken "on faith" is really unclear.

Your definition. You are incredibly fuzzy on what exactly is being measured and have been hopping from one term to another repeatedly.

Since ALL the science I have read shows that higher human consciousness is not present and NO science I have read goes against that, I think I am BEYOND "beyond reasonable doubt" in this. However this is entirely falsifiable if you can show me a source of the human mind outside the brain which exists during early fetal development.

What do you mean by 'higher' human consciousness? Seriously, how can you set criteria you do not even seem to be able to define?

Even if you could define what exactly (roughly would be an improvement), it still does not rebut criticism that you need multiple caveats to deal with cases that allow unintended consequences - and it is this that you are deflecting.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do not mean to be rude in saying this but I am arguing MY position. If you want to ask why someone else holds another position then kindly ask them, not me. I am arguing for how I think rights SHOULD be allocated. No more. No less and if other people want to allocate it pre-sentience then I would like to hear their basis for same.

That's not rude, it is a helpful clarification. You said along the way that 'we' (society) assigned rights on the basis of the conciousness/sentience and that, on that basis, when conciousness/sentience was not present, a foetus had no rights.

I am very glad to hear that that you are only claiming that it is your view that conciousness/sentience is the only basis of rights. That's fine. You are, of course, wrong. Rights are in actuality and should be properly assigned based on other criteria also, membership of the human species being one such important criteria. Every society assigns this entity a variety of rights, from a little to a lot.

Your suggestion that conciousness/sentience should be the only basis for the assignment of rights is interesting, but is fundamentally flawed as many people have pointed out; of course, dont take the word of the people on this forum's word for it - that no society anywhere has decided to base its valuation of the embryo/foetus only on the presence or absence of conciousness/sentience is strong enough evidence for me that it is a fundamentally flawed idea. Obviously they havent had you as a special moral/science advisor though, so i suppose there is still time.:eek:

drkpower wrote: »

Your suggestion that conciousness/sentience should be the only basis for the assignment of rights is interesting, but is fundamentally flawed as many people have pointed out

In fairness, while this was his original assertion, he has subsequently added the word 'human' (which I would take to be homo sapian) to his argument.

The Corinthian wrote: »

In fairness, while this was his original assertion, he has subsequently added the word 'human' (which I would take to be homo sapian) to his argument.

Only to the extent that he is referrring to 'human' conciousness/sentience; it still remains, in his view, the only factor that confers rights upon an entity. The mere fact of being a member of the human species, does not, apparently, confer anything, anything at all. It seems that is a totally irrelevent consideration.

That is a notion of rights that no other society promotes, yet Nozz states repeatedly and blankly that rights derive only from human conciousness/sentience and, apparently, nothing else. It is how he can completely disregard any value in an early foetus/embryo.

Don't get me wrong, conciousness/sentience is a factor we should look at (so long as we can satisfactorily determine what it means and where it exists), but it is only one factor. Nozz views it as the only factor; and that is a deeply flawed perspective, thankfully rejected by all societies of which I am aware.

drkpower wrote: »

Only to the extent that he is referrring to 'human' conciousness/sentience; it still remains, in his view, the only factor that confers rights upon an entity. The mere fact of being a member of the human species, does not, apparently, confer anything, anything at all. It seems that is a totally irrelevent consideration.

That is a notion of rights that no other society promotes, yet Nozz states repeatedly and blankly that rights derive only from human conciousness/sentience and, apparently, nothing else. It is how he can completely disregard any value in an early foetus/embryo.

Don't get me wrong, conciousness/sentience is a factor we should look at (so long as we can satisfactorily determine what it means and where it exists), but it is only one factor. Nozz views it as the only factor; and that is a deeply flawed perspective, thankfully rejected by all societies of which I am aware.

I agree with Nozz actually that consciousness/sentience is a much more sensible means to attribute rights than membership of a certain species.
I don't really care if other societies have not used that criterion up to now - that alone is not a reason it is flawed. If you have other reasons it is flawed, then fine, but precendent shouldn't be one of them.

Kooli wrote: »

I agree with Nozz actually that consciousness/sentience is a much more sensible means to attribute rights than membership of a certain species.
I don't really care if other societies have not used that criterion up to now - that alone is not a reason it is flawed. If you have other reasons it is flawed, then fine, but precendent shouldn't be one of them.

To use it to attribute rights is very valuable.
To value it highly in such an evaluation is appropriate.
To use it as the only criteria to attribute rights is flawed.
A question as complex and fundamental as what confers rights upon somebody is incredibly complex; it is never likely to be solved by the use of one single criteria.

And I dont use precedent as a reason; I use it as persuasive support. The fact that all modern societies essentially agree with me rather than Nozz that doesnt necessarily make me right, but it makes it more likely!

Turtwig

drkpower wrote: »

The fact that all modern societies essentially agree with me rather than Nozz that doesnt necessarily make me right, but it makes it more likely!

Saint Ruth

rantyface wrote: »

How about neutering poor people? They did it in India...

They did it in Sweden up to the early 70s...And as everyone knows Sweden is the most civilised of countries...

Kooli wrote: »

I agree with Nozz actually that consciousness/sentience is a much more sensible means to attribute rights than membership of a certain species.
I don't really care if other societies have not used that criterion up to now - that alone is not a reason it is flawed. If you have other reasons it is flawed, then fine, but precendent shouldn't be one of them.

There are numerous reasons why such a definition is potentially flawed. The most obvious one is that no one seems to know what it means, even you have referred to it using vague consciousness-slash-sentience terminology and Nozz refuses to define it beyond the most general of terms.

Secondly, even if we fix upon a definition of consciousness/sentience, unintentional scenarios begin to creep in. Other species posses consciousness and (apparently, in the case of dolphins) sentience - requiring a caveat limiting the right to our species.

We can lose either consciousness/sentience - if we live long enough, we will lose 'higher' human consciousness as Nozz called it. Some are born so mentally handicapped that it is arguable that they posses it (depending on what the definition is). And this too then requires another "once you have it you can't lose it" caveat.

Then, you have to consider that most of our 'higher' faculties do not actually develop until long after birth. Young infants, for lack of a better term, are not sentient. Do we lower the bar to simple consciousness, then or add a "you've been born" caveat?

Before long the whole thing starts getting messy and resembles the sort of convoluted astronomical orbits that were being calculated when, for largely ideological/religious reasons, the Earth was 'thought' to be at the centre of our solar system.

Whenever that happens to a theory under test or review in science, you abandon it and go back to the drawing board. If you don't, it probably means you want it to be right rather than it actually being right.

rantyface wrote: »

How about neutering poor people? They did it in India.

If fairness, they did get a transistor radio when they did.

Malty_T wrote: »

????

Malty, welcome back! I'm still waiting on you to clarify what you meant by 'the will to survive'.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Other species posses consciousness and (apparently, in the case of dolphins) sentience - requiring a caveat limiting the right to our species.

We can lose either consciousness/sentience - if we live long enough, we will lose 'higher' human consciousness as Nozz called it. Some are born so mentally handicapped that it is arguable that they posses it (depending on what the definition is). And this too then requires another "once you have it you can't lose it" caveat.

Then, you have to consider that most of our 'higher' faculties do not actually develop until long after birth. Young infants, for lack of a better term, are not sentient. Do we lower the bar to simple consciousness, then or add a "you've been born" caveat?

Well actually there would be no need for these 'caveats' if sentience was the only criterion for assigning rights. My point is that membership of the human race is not a valid criterion, so of course I wouldn't add a caveat that excludes dolphins.

My point is that perhaps an adult healthy chimp should have more rights than a foetus, or a severely mentally handicapped human or an adult in a state of severe brain damage. I don't actually believe that just because someone is human, they are granted rights above all others.
(and yes, I have been reading Peter Singer as you can probably tell!!)

Kooli wrote: »

Well actually there would be no need for these 'caveats' if sentience was the only criterion for assigning rights. My point is that membership of the human race is not a valid criterion, so of course I wouldn't add a caveat that excludes dolphins.

In this you would differ with Nozz who did specify humans.

My point is that perhaps an adult healthy chimp should have more rights than a foetus, or a severely mentally handicapped human or an adult in a state of severe brain damage. I don't actually believe that just because someone is human, they are granted rights above all others.
(and yes, I have been reading Peter Singer as you can probably tell!!)

Well, I can't say I agree with your position, but it is more consistent than Nozz's.

The Corinthian wrote: »

In this you would differ with Nozz who did specify humans.

Well, I can't say I agree with your position, but it is more consistent than Nozz's.

Oh right. I'll admit I didn't read the 20 pages, just joined in at the end!

Kooli wrote: »

My point is that perhaps an adult healthy chimp should have more rights than a foetus,

Why? Assuming a healthy foetus here.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Why? Assuming a healthy foetus here.

Because I'm applying the criterion of sentience.

If a woman chooses to abort a foetus, there is less harm and suffering caused to that 'living being' than if the same women chose to kill and adult chimp. Simple as that really.

Kooli wrote: »

Because I'm applying the criterion of sentience.

If a woman chooses to abort a foetus, there is less harm and suffering caused to that 'living being' than if the same women chose to kill and adult chimp. Simple as that really.

How do you know that?

metrovelvet wrote: »

How do you know that?

I would imagine it's fairly established fact that an adult chimp has more awareness, consciousness, intelligence, independence and emotional capacity than a foetus. Is that not a given?!

Kooli wrote: »

I would imagine it's fairly established fact that an adult chimp has more awareness, consciousness, intelligence, independence and emotional capacity than a foetus. Is that not a given?!

I dont know. Thats why Im asking you. How do you know that? But ok, given that;s true. Given that an adult chimp probably has more independence, awareness, intelligence, than in infant, possibly even my two year old [independence definitley the chimp wins there] up to what age can a mother or father kill her child and it be ok with you? Or kill someone else's child? Up to what age?

metrovelvet wrote: »

I dont know. Thats why Im asking you. How do you know that? But ok, given that;s true. Given that an adult chimp probably has more independence, awareness, intelligence, than in infant, possibly even my two year old [independence definitley the chimp wins there] up to what age can a mother or father kill her child and it be ok with you? Or kill someone else's child? Up to what age?

I'm just gonna take it as a given if that's OK. I doubt there are any biologists out there who would disagree.

But your next point - of course it wouldn't be 'ok with me' for a parent to kill a two year old child. I presume you know that.
So then I guess it's simpler to leave aside independence, intelligence etc. and go just with consciousness. So I'm back where I started! A baby is conscious of itself and it's surroundings. So is a chimp. A foetus is not.

I don't really see the point of your argument unless you really believe there is a 'slippery slope' where if the government agreed to allow abortions up to 16 weeks (or whenever) then infanticide would eventually become legal?

ok so you're cut off point for conciousness is 16 weeke?

1. What is consciousness?

2. How is it signified to an observer?

3. How is its absence measured in utero under 16 weeks?

Is the criteria consciousness or sentience? You seem to be hopping from one to the other a bit.

If consciousness then not only should such a rule afford chimps rights, but also all other mammals, reptiles - even fish. On the other hand if you mean sentience, then human infants would fail on this.

You see the problem?

metrovelvet wrote: »

ok so you're cut off point for conciousness is 16 weeke?

1. What is consciousness?

2. How is it signified to an observer?

3. How is its absence measured in utero under 16 weeks?

How on earth would I know any of those things?

I would entrust that one to the experts in whatever field knows that sort of thing!

And I just picked 16 weeks out of the air, I don't know what it really is.

And even if it went past the point of consciousness a little bit, I still think it's not a huge crime. I simply do not believe that a foetus's right to live should supersede the mother's right to choose. I don't think anyone should be forced to go through pregnancy, birth and motherhood (even if she gives the baby up for adoption, she is still a mother to a child that is out there)- the consequences of that on the mother are far great than the consequences of the abortion on the foetus.

And I may be changing the subject a bit here, and this may have been dealt with in the other 20 pages I haven't read, but the thread title is about 'legalising abortion' so...
I think it's a cop out that we allow abortions, but just not in our country. So making it illegal doesn't stop it happening, it just makes it harder. A cop out.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Is the criteria consciousness or sentience? You seem to be hopping from one to the other a bit.

If consciousness then not only should such a rule afford chimps rights, but also all other mammals, reptiles - even fish. On the other hand if you mean sentience, then human infants would fail on this.

You see the problem?

OK maybe what I'm referring to is what you call consciousness.

I'm not sure where I'd set the upper level to be honest i.e. how much consciousness is required before I would say an animal or human cannot be killed.

But I'm fairly comfortable about the lower level i.e. no consciousness = no automatic right to life. (note the word automatic, I don't mean that they have no right to live, just no automatic right to live just because they are a foetus)

Kooli wrote: »

And even if it went past the point of consciousness a little bit, I still think it's not a huge crime. I simply do not believe that a foetus's right to live should supersede the mother's right to choose. I don't think anyone should be forced to go through pregnancy, birth and motherhood (even if she gives the baby up for adoption, she is still a mother to a child that is out there)- the consequences of that on the mother are far great than the consequences of the abortion on the foetus.

The mother still has her life.

So if you dont think anyone should be forced to go through a pregnancy, then you probably are ok with late term or midterm abortions?

metrovelvet wrote: »

The mother still has her life.

So if you dont think anyone should be forced to go through a pregnancy, then you probably are ok with late term or midterm abortions?

I'd feel really uncomfortable about that idea, do you mean that the woman just didn't know she was pregnant until 6-8 months or something?

God, a horrible thought, I don't even know how they work?

If the baby has consciousness, as I have mentioned before, then yes I would have an issue with it.
But I guess you're asking me about it in a more black and white way, from the point of view of legislation (i.e. do I think she should be allowed to have that abortion even though I myself would find it wrong?)

A tough one...I think I'd be leaning towards 'no' to that one except in exceptional circumstances (i.e. risk to mother).

I do feel that a baby who is 8 months old in the womb is actually a baby. That's why I feel consciousness is as good a 'cut off point' as any.

What I am asking you is this.

On the one hand you talk about conciousness.

But then you back track and its about the mothers right to choose, the mother's right not to be a mother.

So which is it?

metrovelvet wrote: »

What I am asking you is this.

On the one hand you talk about conciousness.

But then you back track and its about the mothers right to choose, the mother's right not to be a mother.

So which is it?

I believe that the mother's right to choose whether to be a mother is more important than a non-conscious being's right to life.

I don't think I'm being inconsistent there, unless there is something I am missing?

When it's a conscious being, yes there is a grey area. That's why I feel consciousness is a good 'cut off' to use in terms of legislation, as I said.

OK I think I get you. Up until the point of consciousness, the mother's right superceded the foetus'. After that, the feotus' superscede the mother's?

metrovelvet wrote: »

OK I think I get you. Up until the point of consciousness, the mother's right superceded the foetus'. After that, the feotus' superscede the mother's?

I'm not AS sure about after consciousness, I definitely wouldn't say that the rights of the foetus automatically supercede the rights of the mother.
As I said to the Corinthian:

Kooli wrote: »

I'm not sure where I'd set the upper level to be honest i.e. how much consciousness is required before I would say an animal or human cannot be killed.

But I'm fairly comfortable about the lower level i.e. no consciousness = no automatic right to life. (note the word automatic, I don't mean that they have no right to live, just no automatic right to live just because they are a foetus)