Legalise abortion

sold · 14-01-2010 07:39PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Aren't you killing an innocent life when you eat food, or blink your eyes?

I presume you hold that human life is more valuable.

The question then becomes why is human life more valuable than non-human life? Or why are some lives (humans, apes, dolphins, horses) more valuable than other lives (cows, fish, bacteria, lettuce)

Once it is established what properly these life forms have that makes them valuable you have to ask the question does the fetus have this properly and at what stage?

Does it gain this property before conception, after conception, after implantation, after the embryo forms, after birth?

If someone can do this I'll listen to their argument even if it is different to my position, but this nonsense that human life is valuable just because is pointless.

Humanity is the centre of creation, the only animal capable of knowing itself consciously. If we follow your argument then YOUR life has no value. If humanity looses the sense of its own dignity and value then it becomes relative to the whims of the day, .. I love my family but the staving in africa are not my problem... I don't like jews because they are different so lets get rid of them... Mentally handicapped are a waste to society so lets abort them... People over 80 should be put down.. These are the statments that have come out from gorups who don't hold human life sacrid. As soon as you remove the objective value of mankind, then hundreds subjective views replace this and you end up with a world where "To be human" is not a value we all hold as central. In Hitlers world there was "his" view of humanity, in Stalins world there was another view. Lets not forget Man is Man from conception to natural death and should be respected as man.

Lets get rid of all religious talk, even you know you would like to be treated with respect for who you are, this is you natural inclination,.

The Corinthian · 14-01-2010 07:44PM

sold wrote: »

Lets get rid of all religious talk, even you know you would like to be treated with respect for who you are, this is you natural inclination,.

I hate to point this out, but given you have repeatedly employed vocabulary such as 'sin', 'creation' and 'sacred', the only religious talk appears to be coming from you.

Zombrex · 15-01-2010 01:39AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

That would be fair enough as an argument except for two points:

The first that having a clearer definition is pretty essential, given the stakes, and to date Nozz has avoided this like the plague.

It is if you want to start making laws, but I think a lot more debate and science is needed.

Simply because it is difficult to define exactly what we are talking about (scientists and philosophers have been trying to tie down "consciousness" for years) doesn't invalidate the reasoning leading up to the point though.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Secondly, the foetus is not the only entity that may fail to qualify, and two other scenarios have been raised. The first (you have it but lose it) has been addressed by the "once you have rights you can't lose them" caveat.

Well I don't actually agree with that, for example I see no issue in killing a brain dead patient.

People use the example of mentally handicapped people as if that highlights a flaw in the rational but it doesn't unless you are using a definition of consciousness or higher thought that a mentally handicapped person is missing, which I personally would be very cautious about doing.

But again there needs to be a proper debate over the issue of what exactly are we talking about and level of consciousness do we consider valuable. If people think that the level of consciousness in a mentally handicapped person is valuable then of course we should not terminate them, and we should apply the same criteria to the fetus.

The Corinthian wrote: »

The second is where one may never develop such faculties - and this has not yet been addressed.

I don't see the issue there. I'm aware of certain diseases where the fetus will develop in essentially a brain dead state and I see no issue terminating it.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I would also add that even if we accept Nozz's or any other position, it should be taken as starting point for rights (or 'personhood') not as an automatic right to life. The right to life is not absolute in all cases; a man requiring a lung to live cannot force a compatible doner to part with one of theirs, even though both would live if he did and he would die if not.

Well that is sort of different issue, the right to life is normally taken as the right not to be killed not the right to live at the expense of others.

That sort of gets into a different argument for abortion, the idea that a woman has the right to do with her own body as she sees fit and that right over rides the fetus' right to life.

There is certainly some logic in that argument but it can be countered some what by the idea of parental responsibility and neglect. We generally don't think that a parent has the right to say leave a baby at home for 3 days while she goes on holiday because she has a responsibility to her child that overrides her right to say freedom of movement and action.

Isn't ethics fun

Zombrex · 15-01-2010 01:50AM

sold wrote: »

Humanity is the centre of creation, the only animal capable of knowing itself consciously.

Well leaving aside that other animals seem to possess this ability (look up Great Apes and the mirror test to see more), that comes back to my point.

If the valuable, important, property of a human life is the ability to "know yourself consciously" then how can you consider a fetus that has yet to develop a nervous system or brain valuable since it has not yet developed the ability to do this?

sold wrote: »

If we follow your argument then YOUR life has no value.

Why?

I possess a brain capable of higher brain functions (ie I can know myself consciously as you put it), and thus by my definition and yours my life has value, or more specifically my consciousness and collective memories (my physically neural network) has value.

sold wrote: »

If humanity looses the sense of its own dignity and value then it becomes relative to the whims of the day, .. I love my family but the staving in africa are not my problem

What?

Are you suggesting that the starving in Africa are not self aware or possessing of higher brain functions?

sold wrote: »

As soon as you remove the objective value of mankind, then hundreds subjective views replace this and you end up with a world where "To be human" is not a value we all hold as central.

What is the objective value of mankind? How can anyone have an objective view of something's value? It is just opinion. You and I value human life, Hitler didn't. Neither view is objective.

Humanity is valuable just because? That is a bit silly. If you can't justify a moral position there is little point making one.

sold wrote: »

Lets get rid of all religious talk, even you know you would like to be treated with respect for who you are, this is you natural inclination,.

I would like to be respected for who I am (that is the point, who I am being the key phrase), the difference between you and me seems to be that I know why I would like to be respected for who I am, where as you apparently don't know.

If you don't know why human life is valuable what is the point in arguing that it is?

The Corinthian · 15-01-2010 03:39PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Simply because it is difficult to define exactly what we are talking about (scientists and philosophers have been trying to tie down "consciousness" for years) doesn't invalidate the reasoning leading up to the point though.

It's pretty difficult to assess the reasoning of something that is undefined. We can hardly test its validity if we do not even know what exactly we are testing.

Well I don't actually agree with that, for example I see no issue in killing a brain dead patient.

No one is suggesting brain death. So far we have a vague definition for something related to higher brain function. Without knowing what Nozz specifically was referring too, all we can do to test it is guess, and one guess would be the cognitive ability unique to our species (actually, he did previously cite that our ability to conceive rights is what should ascribe them to us). In this regard, some of our species can be born without this facility. Intellectually, they are on the same level as lesser primates - or lower.

Additionally, I would call into question the logic behind maintaining rights even after the facility is lost (e.g. through accident). If this faculty is what defines us as people, then how can we still be people after it is no longer there? Does a human corpse still have a theoretical right to life because it once possessed this faculty?

Well that is sort of different issue, the right to life is normally taken as the right not to be killed not the right to live at the expense of others.

It is a different issue, and IMHO more relevant than the need to define the foetus as human or not, but often overlooked because of everyone's desperate need to nip the argument at this particular 'bud' because it is easier to sell politically (regardless of your stance on abortion).

And people do have the right to live at the expense of others - if they didn't we wouldn't have a welfare system.

Isn't ethics fun

Yup.

Zombrex · 17-01-2010 12:54PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

It's pretty difficult to assess the reasoning of something that is undefined. We can hardly test its validity if we do not even know what exactly we are testing.

Not really, it is like saying we should keep the Mona Lisa because it is a beautiful painting. The fact that it is very difficult to define what exactly is a beautiful painting does not invalidate the idea that we should keep the Mona Lisa.

It does of course require a strong definition if you are trying to make a Protection of Beautiful Paintings law, and that can be the very tricky bit. But again that does not invalidate the reasoning behind the law in the first place.

I think the reasoning for what we value in human existence is sound. It is the higher functions of the human brain, I think most people would acknowledge that if they thought about it (yes a bit no true scots man, anyone feel free to present a counter argument)

The tricky part then comes in define exactly what we are talking about in this regard, just like it is tricky to define exactly why we think the Mona Lisa is beautiful. But the reasoning still holds.

The Corinthian wrote: »

No one is suggesting brain death.

Was it not being suggested that once you have "rights" based on the development of your brain you cannot lose them while still alive? Sorry I haven't read all the posts

The Corinthian wrote: »

and one guess would be the cognitive ability unique to our species (actually, he did previously cite that our ability to conceive rights is what should ascribe them to us). In this regard, some of our species can be born without this facility. Intellectually, they are on the same level as lesser primates - or lower.

That is fine but it is not my argument, so I can't really comment. Like I said I disagree

The Corinthian wrote: »

Additionally, I would call into question the logic behind maintaining rights even after the facility is lost (e.g. through accident). If this faculty is what defines us as people, then how can we still be people after it is no longer there?

That was my point, you can't. Which is highlighted by the example of the brain dead person, who is technically still alive but who's essence, the thing we hold as "them" is gone and thus we consider them to be gone as well, even if there hands and heart and liver and skin are all still alive and ticking away.

The Corinthian wrote: »

And people do have the right to live at the expense of others - if they didn't we wouldn't have a welfare system.

True, though I meant more in terms of body. For example I am required by law to pay taxes, but I am not required by law to give my blood or a kidney. We have a concept of bodily integrity, which presents an interesting argument that the woman has the right to refuse to allow the fetus to use her body for development.

metrovelvet · 17-01-2010 01:39PM

The Louvre keeps the mona lisa not because she us beautiful, but because she is a davinci. If the artist was unknown or uncertain the painting would probably not be there and would not have the artistic or material value ascribed to it. So certainty does matter.

But we are not talking about art collecting here. We are talking about life and death so before you commit genocide your definitiins should be pretty clear and certain.

The Corinthian · 17-01-2010 01:42PM

Wicknight wrote: »

I think the reasoning for what we value in human existence is sound. It is the higher functions of the human brain, I think most people would acknowledge that if they thought about it (yes a bit no true scots man, anyone feel free to present a counter argument)

The tricky part then comes in define exactly what we are talking about in this regard, just like it is tricky to define exactly why we think the Mona Lisa is beautiful. But the reasoning still holds.

The devil's in the detail though. We are proposing an undefined faculty here; to define it could be to raise it to the level of higher conciousness - the capacity to understand and formulate the concept of rights. If we do this, then those born with mental handicaps, placing them on the same level intellectual ability as many animals would fail to qualify. So would infants.

Conversely we can put the bar low, but then we would have to ask firstly why non-humans, with comparable intellect, do not qualify or, for that matter, whether such a level of intellect is a viable metre in the first place.

This is the problem with this discussion. Without an attempt to define what on Earth we are discussing, we really cannot discuss it at all. It could mean far too many different things. Nozz, I believe, avoided defining it so as to remain immune from criticism. He hadn't defined it, not because he had not been given a chance, but because he had no intention of defining it. His purpose was to evangelize the principle behind his position, without asking if it was ultimately a dead end.

Was it not being suggested that once you have "rights" based on the development of your brain you cannot lose them while still alive? Sorry I haven't read all the posts

Loss of the facility does not require brain death though, this is what I am pointing out.

That is fine but it is not my argument, so I can't really comment. Like I said I disagree

How can you disagree if you cannot comment?

Zombrex · 17-01-2010 11:20PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

The Louvre keeps the mona lisa not because she us beautiful, but because she is a davinci. If the artist was unknown or uncertain the painting would probably not be there and would not have the artistic or material value ascribed to it. So certainty does matter.

But we are not talking about art collecting here. We are talking about life and death so before you commit genocide your definitiins should be pretty clear and certain.

I am certain that a fetus that has not yet developed a working nervous and brain does not have the criteria I consider valuable.

The Corinthian · 18-01-2010 07:56AM

Wicknight wrote: »

I am certain that a fetus that has not yet developed a working nervous and brain does not have the criteria I consider valuable.

What is this criteria? To date, neither you nor Nozz have been willing, or able, to define it, making it impossible to question. Are you asking us to accept it on a matter of faith?

metrovelvet · 18-01-2010 10:02AM

Wicknight wrote: »

I am certain that a fetus that has not yet developed a working nervous and brain does not have the criteria I consider valuable.

You are certain in your belief, not in your knowlege.

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-01-2010 01:23PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

So someone who, through an accident, becomes severely mentally handicapped, should not posses these rights?

Never once said this nor do I agree with or espouse it.

Why? Because of what I keep telling you but that you have been ignoring.

They may be handicapped but they still HAVE the faculty which I have elevated in my basic argument. As I said my position appeals to the faculty in and of itself and NOT on the given operational state of one individual example of it.

This imaginary victim of yours still has the faculty, it is just curtailed somewhat. If they lose it ENTIRELY then I would say they no longer have rights. However there is a word for that change in status. Death.

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-01-2010 01:24PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

So I would gather that in Nozzy's book, someone with partial brain damage, whether through accident or whatever would not have the right go life. I hope he makes sure to tell his next of kin in case they are faced with such a choice. Yikes.

Thankfully this is not my position and so I would request you keep YOUR words out of MY mouth as I have more than enough of my own to go on with.

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-01-2010 01:28PM

drkpower wrote: »

He has also said that the key date is when 'the faculty begins to form', and that the issue is not whether the faculty exists, but if the the parts that create the faculty are present. He has also said that the thalamo-cortical complex is the faculty. Of course, the thalamo-cortical complex 'begins to form' at about 6-9 weeks when its constituent parts begin to form. And then he said that the only way you can determine if the faculty is present is through EEG (electrical) activity, when previously he had said that 'function is not important/relevent. But electrical activity only measures function, not the presence of anatomical structires; that is done by cadaver study, amongst other things. So it just isnt clear what his point is. And where he gets 20 weeks (minus 4 weeks) from.

Add to all this the fact that the journals he uses to back up whatever it is he believes, themselves state that this area of science is a 'complex puzzle' or words to that effect. Yet this science is supposedly going to be used to establish the legal status of life, perhaps the most fundamental issue facing humans.....?

Again to help you out. We know where things like beleif and conciousness occour at the level of the brain. Within this thread I even showed peer reviewed science showing how we measure things like belief at the level of the brain.

Everything we know therefore says that without the electric activity we observe starting to form at week 20, no level of consciousness has been attained at all. Not a jot. Therefore I see no reason to assign the entity rights.

As I said my position is entirely falsifiable and if you can indeed show any scientific evidence of human consciousness at the 6-9 weeks that you referred to, I would be forced to instantly change my position. You appear to be entirely unable to do so however.

The Corinthian · 18-01-2010 02:52PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Why? Because of what I keep telling you but that you have been ignoring.

Well, TBH it really comes down to what "the faculty" is. I was lead to believe that is was higher cognitive capacity, unique to our species that came up with the whole idea of rights in the first place. This was originally what you appeared to be discussing. This can be lost - and it is lost, not simply "curtailed somewhat", but gone for good, leaving the person with the I.Q. of a German Sheppard. It's also not present in infants, as it develops much later.

Of course, if you're talking about something else, then my mistake. But at this stage it is probably time you actually define what "the faculty" is as what has been discussed to date is so vague that even Wicknight does not want to make a stab at it.

So are we actually going to decide what we're discussing or would you prefer to keep it completely abstract and thus beyond criticism?

drkpower · 18-01-2010 05:11PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again to help you out. We know where things like beleif and conciousness occour at the level of the brain. Within this thread I even showed peer reviewed science showing how we measure things like belief at the level of the brain..

No; you showed us a paper that came to a possible conclusion while recognising, in its opening line, that this entire area remained a 'puzzle'. That paper referenced other papers (with seeming approval) which used entirely different methods of determining conciousness. That is not good enough. The simple fact is that the scientific community has come to no conclusions as to when conciousness forms. And that is not good enough when it comes to making this type of decision.

And that is even before we get to your inconsistencies vis-a-vis this faculty (or the elements that create this faculty) functioning, existing or beginning to form. You seem to have flip-flopped between all 3 positions without any real clarification. As I have said, the elements that make up the thalamo-cortical complex 'begin to form' at approx 6-9 weeks, they are perhaps fully formed at 12-ish weeks yet the bit you seem to rely on is when they start to function (you allege at 20 weeks). This despite saying previously that function wasnt relevent, but that the issue was when the parts were there.....!!:D:eek::rolleyes:

Your theory is interesting but it is fundamentally flawed in so many ways. I admire the attempt to resolve these issues in a tidy package but you are barking up the wrong tree with this one.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As I said my position is entirely falsifiable and if you can indeed show any scientific evidence of human consciousness at the 6-9 weeks that you referred to, I would be forced to instantly change my position. You appear to be entirely unable to do so however.

You keep saying this and it is becoming funny. You have to show that you have a factually scientifically sound position before you can call on anyone to falsify it!!:p You havent done that yet. I am not even sure what your position is, given your failure to properly resolve the inconsistencies referred to above.

Zombrex · 18-01-2010 06:17PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

You are certain in your belief, not in your knowlege.

Correct, in matters of ethics knowledge only builds opinion.

nozzferrahhtoo · 21-01-2010 10:43AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, TBH it really comes down to what "the faculty" is. This can be lost -

I have already told you what this faculty is. It is the faculty of human consciousness. You do know what consciousness is right?

I understand at least some of what your issue is. You look around and think that apes are conscious, or dolphins are conscious. You wonder therefore how we can equivocate between the two and why one gets “rights” and the other does not.

I find the answer simple. Human consciousness, as opposed to all the other animals consciousness, is the only faculty of consciousness that to our knowledge has a concept of rights that others do not.

Therefore it is human consciousness itself that is elevated in this discussion.

You talk of people losing is. If they LOSE it this is called “Death” and at this point rights no longer exist for that entity. That is important as you keep using the word lost. If it is entirely and wholly and completely lost then this patient is not handicapped. This patient is dead.

However I think when you refer to mental damage etc you are not talking about losing it, but talking about examples of where it is curtailed.

Irrelevant. It is Human consciousness that I have elevated in this discussion. These people still have that faculty. It is curtailed, it is damaged, and if the entire species entered the same state the whole notion of rights would likely be lost.

But it is still Human Consciousness they have. Human consciousness as a whole is what creates rights, assigns and defines them. It is therefore TO human consciousness I feel we assign them. Human consciousness as a whole. This is the point I have been trying to hammer home since the start.

So your infant, your coma patient or your mentally handicapped person are entirely contained within my base position and as I said before my position can not be a caveat to itself. All of these entities contain the faculty, they are just not operating on the level that yours and mine are. Just like yours and mine are not operating on the level of humans that are more advanced than either of us.

nozzferrahhtoo · 21-01-2010 10:53AM

drkpower wrote: »

No; you showed us a paper that came to a possible conclusion

Errr yes. I have linked to more than one paper in this thread. Just because you find a paper I linked to showing X does not mean I did not also link to a paper showing Y. Please get your facts straight before you tell me what I have or have not done.

Again, I DID link to papers showing how we measure thinks like consciousness and belief and opinions at the level of the brain. For your convenience I will give you the title again here and you can find in the thread where I linked to it:
“Functional Neuroimaging of Belief, Disbelief, and Uncertainty” Sameer A. Sheth, MD, PhD, Sam Harris, Mark S. Cohen, PhD

We know what parts of the brain give consciousness, belief, ideas, opinions and imagination. We know what parts give language. All this is known to us. The inner workings of them may remain a puzzle to us, but this does not mean we have no idea what areas of the brain provide them or what activity in the brain is associated with them.

And again, since the foetus up to the 20 weeks development has not started to develop these areas, there is no reason to consider it a conscious entity and therefore in my opinion no reason to assign it rights. We may not be entirely sure of exactly when consciousness forms, but as I pointed out time and time again we are damn sure of periods when it certainly has NOT formed.

I repeat my analogy from before. Most people do not know what Gravity is. They do not know where it comes from, what causes it, what it is or anything. One user on this thread even thought it comes from the spinning of the earth and, although entirely wrong, was convinced anyone who didn't "know" is seriously off center.

This does not mean that every single person on the planet would not be DAMN SURE if gravity was absent. You do not need to know what it is, what causes it, where it comes from, where it starts or where it ends to identify very simply when it is not there.

And that quite simply is all my position requires. A point when we can be sure it is not there. I have identified one.

metrovelvet · 23-01-2010 08:43PM

But isnt the whole concept of rights a western faculty? I dont see many africans, middle easterns, or asians generating it. Isnt't it a product of the european enlightenment?

The Corinthian · 24-01-2010 10:06AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have already told you what this faculty is. It is the faculty of human consciousness. You do know what consciousness is right?

I do know what consciousness is, my problem is that you have repeatedly changed the definition throughout this discussion.

I find the answer simple. Human consciousness, as opposed to all the other animals consciousness, is the only faculty of consciousness that to our knowledge has a concept of rights that others do not.

Yet infants do not posses this level of consciousness when born. Neither does it develop in those unfortunate enough to be born with severe mental disabilities.

You talk of people losing is. If they LOSE it this is called “Death” and at this point rights no longer exist for that entity. That is important as you keep using the word lost. If it is entirely and wholly and completely lost then this patient is not handicapped. This patient is dead.

That's untrue and you really should know it. It is more than possible to lose that conciousness and still be alive, still move around, still eat, still sleep. You do not need to die to lose your "faculty of consciousness that to our knowledge has a concept of rights that others do not".

Irrelevant. It is Human consciousness that I have elevated in this discussion. These people still have that faculty. It is curtailed, it is damaged, and if the entire species entered the same state the whole notion of rights would likely be lost.

But it is still Human Consciousness they have. Human consciousness as a whole is what creates rights, assigns and defines them. It is therefore TO human consciousness I feel we assign them. Human consciousness as a whole. This is the point I have been trying to hammer home since the start.

Except they don't have it. You can call it damaged or curtailed, but ultimately it's not there and that is what defines them as people in your eyes. Those born without it don't even lose it, they never developed it in the first place.

To argue otherwise is to get into the same territory of logic that rights should be extended because they should have the faculty, they used to have this faculty, they have the potential to have this faculty. Yet you rule out foetuses because they have not physically developed this yet, but keep those severely mentally handicapped because because they have not physically developed this yet - but should have.

All of these entities contain the faculty, they are just not operating on the level that yours and mine are.

Utter, utter rubbish. None of these contain the faculty. In some cases it has not yet developed, in others it never will develop and in the third case it has been lost - removed, gone.

Indeed, even the notion that we should make any exception for someone who's faculty is "not working to the same level" is a caveat in itself. If we define humanity based upon conciousness, then without it you are not human. Full stop.

Instead you rely upon semantics to try and still include those who should not qualify by your definition while still omitting others who probably should be included by the same logic of your caveat - after all, even if physically undeveloped, it is in the process of developing in a week-old foetus and is simply "not working to the same level" as us. You could counter and say that it is physically not there, but that is the case with many of the groups that you would make exceptions for.

metrovelvet · 24-01-2010 10:13AM

He 's trying to say (I think) that it's not the faculty of conciousness, consciencd, sentience or whatever the mot du jour is that qualifies one's right to life but the capacity to generate the faculty. So the capacity to generate the faculty remains, even if the faculty itself is gone, like a dead battery.

The Corinthian · 24-01-2010 10:52AM

metrovelvet wrote: »

He 's trying to say (I think) that it's not the faculty of conciousness, consciencd, sentience or whatever the mot du jour is that qualifies one's right to life but the capacity to generate the faculty. So the capacity to generate the faculty remains, even if the faculty itself is gone, like a dead battery.

I see what he is trying to say, but he has to tie himself up in semantics to avoid the flaws in such logic.

For example, how do you want to define that "capacity to generate the faculty"? That the physical organ that once, or could, generate this faculty is there but not working? There are cases of brain damage where it is not physically there. Or perhaps that "capacity to generate the faculty" is developing, in the case of infants, and not yet at the same level as the rest of us? Then we end up in the 'potential' argument that could easily be applied to a foetus. After all, it's not quite there yet. It may be more developed than in a foetus, but the bottom line is that it is still a potential, not an actual.

All of which is ultimately a caveat. Remember, he has defined humanity through the possession of that "faculty of consciousness that to our knowledge has a concept of rights that others do not". To ascribe humanity to any other group that does not have this faculty is going against this definition - an exception to the rule, a caveat.

metrovelvet · 24-01-2010 11:25AM

I have a few problems with the whole argument.

1. For lack of anything better at present I'll stick with my battery analogy. Once a battery is dead it really is no longer a battery but a piece of metal.

2. Why is it the thing which produces the faculty of being able to ascribe rights which defines us as human? Why not use another unique quality like imagination or the ability to do algebra? It seems pretty random to me, especially since many people on this jplanet do not ascribe rights to anything.

3. If you are not a human life until you have this thing which gives you the faculty to ascribe rights then what are you? Is there a new species I haven't heard about yet?

Nevyn · 24-01-2010 11:55PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V52JQ4Z3rjs

After I had been there for a little while, patients in the practice began to ask me if I was going to do abortions like my father did. And I was horrified, because the only thing worse than a woman that was request an abortion, was the physician that would do the abortion. So I was outraged, why would these people, that my dad had provided quality health care for over an extended period of time, say that he was a scumbag type physician? Well, so, I started going back through the charts, see who had...what chart looked like somebody might have had an abortion. So I began to ask some of these women, and I found out there were more than one or two. Here's what happened - in 1945, 46, or 47, a young woman who my dad had already delivered two babies came to him pregnant again right away, and she said something to the effect of, "I can't take it, can you help me?" And those are the two common denominators, that is the way you ask for an abortion from your regular doctor before abortion was legal. At least then, that's my impression. That was the common denominator, "I can't take it, can you help me?" My dad said, "No, big families.., by the time the baby gets here everything will be alright." She went out, had a non-healthcare provider abortion, came back 10 days to 2 weeks later and died. Now, I have had the unique experience of delivering 2 and 3 babies for Tiller Family Practice patients, second and third generation babies. I know what that neat relationship is between the physician and the woman for whom he delivers 2 or 3 babies. I've had that relationship, it's a neat relationship. Having had that relationship, I can understand how upset my father was. I do not know whether he did a hundred abortions or 200 abortions or 300 abortions, I think it may have been something like 200 over a period of about 20 years, but I don't know for sure. I'm a woman-educated physician. I don't know how many abortions he did, but the women in my father's practice for whom he did abortions educated me and taught me that abortion is not about babies, it's not about families, it's about women's hopes and dreams, potential the rest of their lives - abortion is a matter of survival for women.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5TugO8Zl3o

It's not what's out there that makes a difference, it's what's in here. It is what you want to do if you have an understanding that this is a matter of survival for women and you are interested in helping women survive, then this is for you. It is not for you, if it is not an inner calling, it just isn't. It doesn't work that way. It's not the technical component, it's not the intellectual stimulation, abortion services are a heart issue. It's a heart issue, and if you have a willing heart to help women in catastrophic situations, you can be an abortion provider. You can qualify and have a satisfactory life. There are probably more physicians who get shot working in an emergency room than are abortion clinics. There are all sorts of dangers - postal workers, firemen, police officers. Everything has a risk to it. I would prefer, personally, to have a challenging, stimulating, emotionally and spritiually-rewarding career that is short, rather than have a long one that is filled with ho-hum, mundane mediocrity, feeling as if you don't make any difference to people. You will make a difference in women's lives... if making a significant difference in women's lives is important to you, having a career as an abortion provider will be an emotionally gratifying and tremendously stimulating occupation for you. If it's sort of something you select intellectually, it'll turn to salt in your mouth really quick and you'll be gone.

Dr George Tiller was killed on May 31, 2009, during services at the Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita. He was gunned down for his compassion and service to women.

Zombrex · 27-01-2010 02:00AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Or perhaps that "capacity to generate the faculty" is developing, in the case of infants, and not yet at the same level as the rest of us? Then we end up in the 'potential' argument that could easily be applied to a foetus. After all, it's not quite there yet.

How do you know "it" is not quite there yet?

The developing infant problem seems to be some what of a straw man as I've never heard anyone arguing a similar position to mine claim that the valuable essence of the human mind, as difficult as it is to define properly, is something that does not exist in a human baby.

The Corinthian wrote: »

It may be more developed than in a foetus, but the bottom line is that it is still a potential, not an actual.

Based on what criteria?

It seems you have jumped over everyone else, defined what we are all talking about, and then determined an infinite baby doesn't possess "it" yet?

The Corinthian · 29-01-2010 11:22AM

Wicknight wrote: »

The developing infant problem seems to be some what of a straw man as I've never heard anyone arguing a similar position to mine claim that the valuable essence of the human mind, as difficult as it is to define properly, is something that does not exist in a human baby.

Hardly a rebuttal, let alone a straw man.

Had you considered the possibility that the reason you never heard anyone arguing a similar position to yours claim this is because those who argue such a position would not raise it simply because it would put the position into question?

Based on what criteria?

Based on Nozz's:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I find the answer simple. Human consciousness, as opposed to all the other animals consciousness, is the only faculty of consciousness that to our knowledge has a concept of rights that others do not.

Therefore it is human consciousness itself that is elevated in this discussion.

All animals have a level of consciousness. Yet, for Nozz and presumably you, what sets human consciousness apart is that our consciousness gives us the ability to conceive rights.

Infants do not have the ability to conceive rights. Their brains are still developing, long after birth and take years before they reach the cognitive and intellectual capacity to conceive rights. That this is the case should not be a surprise to anyone - after all we traditionally even have a term for when it does finally surface; the Age of Reason.

You can then argue that it has simply not yet formed (physically the neural pathways have not been built), but that brings you into the 'potential' argument that could also encompass all levels of development, including foetal. Or you could lower the cognitive criteria, but then you lose what differentiates humans from other species.

nozzferrahhtoo · 04-02-2010 10:44AM

Corinthian,

Again you are equivocating over “levels” of consciousness within the realm of human consciousness. You are free to do that ad nausea, but my position is based on human consciousness as a whole from start to finish. Therefore these internal equivocations based on infants and the handicapped are entirely irrelevant to the position I am espousing here.

Infants and the damaged HAVE this faculty, it is just not operating on the same level as ours. Nor is ours operating on the same level as some people on this planet who are beyond either of us.

Again…

1) The notion of rights comes from one source, the human faculty of consciousness.
2) Therefore this faculty is for me elevated in importance above all other elements in a discussion on human rights.
3) That we can find individual examples of this faculty that can not, will not or may not be individually capable of coming up with, or understanding, or appreciating this notion of rights is irrelevant. Theirs is still AN example of THE faculty as a whole which we have previously elevated.

Therefore again, I do not, nor have I need to, equivocate over individual examples of this faculty with the basic position I hold.

The Corinthian · 04-02-2010 04:19PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again you are equivocating over “levels” of consciousness within the realm of human consciousness. You are free to do that ad nausea, but my position is based on human consciousness as a whole from start to finish. Therefore these internal equivocations based on infants and the handicapped are entirely irrelevant to the position I am espousing here.

I have emboldened the only relevant phrase in all that hyperbole, and even that is ultimately meaningless. Human consciousness as a whole what from start to finish? What is this BS?

Infants and the damaged HAVE this faculty, it is just not operating on the same level as ours. Nor is ours operating on the same level as some people on this planet who are beyond either of us.

Actually no. I've already pointed out that physically and neurologically it can literally not have developed in infants/mentally handicapped or be destroyed in the senile/damaged - in both cases it is not present - they do not HAVE this faculty.

Zombrex · 06-02-2010 06:52PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Hardly a rebuttal, let alone a straw man.

Had you considered the possibility that the reason you never heard anyone arguing a similar position to yours claim this is because those who argue such a position would not raise it simply because it would put the position into question?

But it can't put their position into question unless they define the valuable part of humanity as the thing a baby doesn't have?

Which would be a bit silly if they consider babies valuable.

Legalise abortion

Comments