Legalise abortion

femalemarxist · 18-02-2010 12:19AM

Zulu wrote: »

And you extend this logic fully? You support rape, sexual assault, sexual inercourse &/or relations with animals, sexaul intercourse &/or relations with persons incapable of consent? You support murder, assault & physical abuse?

These are all our desires. Is this what you mean? or do you only retain that logic solely for abortion?

Well from where I see a fetus does not inhabite 'our world'. All the other acts you cite are crimes by sentient beings against other sentients beings and are therefore subject to laws determined by humans.

femalemarxist · 18-02-2010 12:21AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Some decide its not for them after birth - don't look on the availability of a choice from your own perspective, but from every conceivable perspective, even if you would never choose so.

.

Having a thing growing inside you cannot be compared to have one running around you.

Zulu · 18-02-2010 11:14AM

femalemarxist wrote: »

Well from where I see a fetus does not inhabite 'our world'.

Sure it does, otherwise you'd need a theoretical physicist with a hadron collider to attempt to perform an abortion. Clearly that is not the case, plus we can physically prove the foetus exists in our world. Can you prove it doesn't?

All the other acts you cite are crimes by sentient beings against other sentients beings and are therefore subject to laws determined by humans.

A foetus is a sentient (human) being.

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-02-2010 11:19AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

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.

Corinthian,

Again what you have „pointed out“ in posts like #450 is entirely made up and you have backed it up with nothing but your own opinion.

Again however, just because it has not developed to the standard you posses, does not mean it has not developed. Infants and the handicapped are conscious human beings. However if you want to stand in a room of such people and their carers and try and espouse otherwise then please, please, let me be there to watch.

And since my entire position is based on assigning rights to conscious human beings, I have no need to equivocate on individual examples or levels of consciousness which you seem to feel I do.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Actually he did. Babies (infants) do not posses a consciousness that gives them the ability to conceive rights (Nozz's litmus test).

False this is not my position or my words.

My position is this:

It is human consciousness that gives us rights. Nothing else does.

Therefore I wish to protect human consciousness AS A WHOLE. All examples of it.

Infants and the handicapped are examples of it, even if they are not examples of it operating at a level which you and I have.

And if an entity is devoid entirely of it, then I see no reason not to be allowed abort it. The feotus at 16 weeks does not have this faculty AT ALL.

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-02-2010 11:25AM

Wicknight wrote: »

He needs to either drop his claim that babies have the right to life, or change his litmus test to include babies.

I am not sure how my position as I have espoused it does NOT include babies.

Wiki, maybe you would do better to read MY words to establish what MY position is, and not go by Corinthians misrepresentations of it?

You seem to understand what I am saying when it is me saying it. When you read my position second hand through someone else however, it seems you get misled.

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-02-2010 11:33AM

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Why, because you make an arbitrary statement and then say sorry?

There was nothing arbitrary about it. Something is either X or it is not X. It can not be both X and not X at the same time.

So if something is a POTENTIAL X then by definition it is NOT X. It can not have the potential to become what it already is.

So, as you said, they are POTENTIAL humans. Therefore they are not humans. Why assign human rights to that which you yourself therefore have said are not human?

The crux of any conversation on human rights and abortion is to define exactly what you mean by human in the given context. For me any discussion on human rights an abortion must circle around rights themselves and their origin. No other thing can be more important when discussing rights, than the very source of them.

Since rights come from the faculty of human consciousness, and have no other source apparent to us, I base my entire opinion on abortion around this fact.

At 16 weeks a foetus has not developed human consciousness. From about 20 weeks on it has all the elements of it firing in patterns we do not fully understand. We have no idea if it is conscious at this point or what the subjective experience of it may be.

At 16 weeks however, I see no reason to assign rights to a foetus any more than I see reason to assign them to a table leg or a rock. I honestly can not find, nor has anyone else suggested to me on this now very long thread, a basis on which to assign them. If you are aware of one, then I am agog to hear it, but it will need to be better than the self defeating Potential Argument.

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-02-2010 11:35AM

Zulu wrote: »

The simple crux of this argument/discussion is that people wish to have the option to defend their social lives regardless of the impact this has on other people. Simply put: they want to have option to kill another person because of the inconvenience that person’s life apparently may impose on them.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Lets face it. Most women get abortions because they want to finish a masters, or cheated on their husbands, or some other convenience or another.

I do NOT think this is a safe claim. This may be the reason some seek abortions, and you may be even able to cite some examples of people for whom it was, but it is entirely a false extrapolation to say this about all people.

Some people, for one random example out of an endless list, merely do not want to have the child because they can not provide the life for a child they think they want to provide a child. Some people wish to wait until they can give the child the best possible chance in life.

However maybe one of you has actual stats to back this stuff up. Something better than metro offering personal anecdote of women personally known.

The Corinthian · 18-02-2010 11:49AM

femalemarxist wrote: »

Well from where I see a fetus does not inhabite 'our world'. All the other acts you cite are crimes by sentient beings against other sentients beings and are therefore subject to laws determined by humans.

Yey! Let's go out and shoot someone with advanced Parkinson's! Soylent Green for everyone!

femalemarxist wrote: »

Having a thing growing inside you cannot be compared to have one running around you.

Really? Tell that to all the mothers who choose to put their children up for adoption after birth.

Zulu wrote: »

A foetus is a sentient (human) being.

Biologically, strictly speaking, I think they're only sentient - capable of feeling pain/pleasure - at about 26 to 30 weeks.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

False this is not my position or my words.

My position is this:

It is human consciousness that gives us rights. Nothing else does.

Therefore I wish to protect human consciousness AS A WHOLE. All examples of it.

Infants and the handicapped are examples of it, even if they are not examples of it operating at a level which you and I have.

And if an entity is devoid entirely of it, then I see no reason not to be allowed abort it. The feotus at 16 weeks does not have this faculty AT ALL.

We know what your position is, the problem is that it is, for lack of a better term, crap.

You have previously defined the conciousness (more correctly sapience) you are measuring as the facility to conceive rights. When it is pointed out to you that there are many cases, such as infants or the mentally handicapped, who don't have this you come out with this "operating at a level which you and I have" rubbish.

I've already pointed (and linked to articles) out that it is physically not there in many of those cases, either it has not physically formed or it has been removed - operating level has nothing to do with it, at least no more than with a zygote. In short, they do not have this faculty AT ALL.

Even if they did somehow have it at a 'lower level', they still cannot intellectually conceive rights, which is ultimately your litmus test. It makes absolutely no sense to state a criteria, then inexplicetly make exceptions to it, which is ultimetely what you have done. The only possible justification for such exception is that they have the potential for such a facility, but on that basis so has a zygote.

Why do you insist on defending your stance with such meaningless hyperbole when it is obvious that your position is just plain ridiculous?

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-02-2010 11:51AM

The Corinthian wrote: »

just as much as Nozz's earlier arguments that a person is defined by their ability to conceive rights, as it would not cover infants.

Again this is not my position. I am starting to think you are not even trying to understand what I am saying.

I am not saying a PERSON is defined by it’s ability to conceive rights. I am saying that the human faculty of consciousness itself is defined in a discussion on rights by its ability to be the sole source of conceiving rights that we know of.

Therefore the human faculty of consciousness is elevated out of my control over anything else in this discussion and my position therefore is to protect that faculty in ALL its forms.

A fetus at 16 weeks does NOT have this faculty. Therefore I see no reason to a) be against legalising abortion at this time or b) assign rights to it at this time.

Misrepresenting what I am saying over and over does not make me wrong. I infact also disagree with the strawman position of me which you have built.

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-02-2010 11:59AM

Wicknight wrote: »

Given that life never stops time-line definitions seem to be a requirement. Otherwise we should be locking up people who destroy sperm.

Agreed. In fact I would go one step further in the thought experiment on life never stopping. If the egg is alive and the sperm is alive, and then later the zygote is alive, have 2 lives not become 1 here? Technically we had two lives, now we have one, so something has died, not come alive at the moment of conception.

I find this an interesting thought experiment for those who, thankfully not on this thread, espouse the view that life “starts” at the moment of conception. Conception is technically a moment of death for one of the gametes.

However none of them can ever tell me what exactly it is that starts at this time that was not there before, except some vauge references to “potential”.

This is why appealing merely to “Life” or “human life” is not enough, we need to find a point in that line where it makes sense to assign rights. And once something has those “rights” then killing it is murder.

I, however, have not been shown any good basis for assigning it rights before the 16 week mark. Not one.

fuelinjection · 18-02-2010 12:01PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Some people, for one random example out of an endless list, merely do not want to have the child because they can not provide the life for a child they think they want to provide a child. Some people wish to wait until they can give the child the best possible chance in life.

That is why we have adoptions for hundreds, if not thousands of years.
Carrying a baby for 9 months and then after you deliver it - walking away from it is not murder, and there are plenty of possible parents who for biological reasons are unable to have a child of their own.

Abortion is selfish and self-centred. Chopping up a baby into bloody parts and throwing it into the bin. There is no moral justification at all. And I assume you do not support the death penalty.

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-02-2010 12:07PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

We know what your position is, the problem is that it is, for lack of a better term, crap.

I always wonder why I bother with arguments, evidence, data, links to scientific papers and so on when I can just call something „crap“ and hope it becomes so. Well done.

The Corinthian wrote: »

You have previously defined the conciousness (more correctly sapience) you are measuring as the facility to conceive rights. When it is pointed out to you that there are many cases, such as infants or the mentally handicapped, who don't have this you come out with this "operating at a level which you and I have" rubbish.

Again, it is the faculty of human consciousness that gives us rights. Therefore I protect that faculty AS A WHOLE. Not individual examples of it.

Infants HAVE this faculty. Just because the infant can not itself conceive of the “rights” does not mean it is not in possession of the faculty that in fact does.

So once again, in short bullet points:

1) Rights come from only one source that we know of, human consciousness.
2) Therefore this faculty is above all the most important thing to protect in a conversation about rights.
3) Therefore I protect it in ALL its forms
4) A Feotus has not got this faculty therefore I see no reason to assign it rights.
5) An infant does, therefore I do see a reason to assign it rights.

Zulu · 18-02-2010 12:08PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I do NOT think this is a safe claim.... it is entirely a false extrapolation to say this about all people.

No one said this about ALL people. That would be a particularly naïve comment to make. However, it is true for the vase majority. If you do not wish to acknowledge that - that's fine.

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-02-2010 12:11PM

fuelinjection wrote: »

That is why we have adoptions for hundreds, if not thousands of years.

Yes and I fully support the parents right to make that choice TOO. However I am yet to hear anyone ever make the argument that just because someone has option A that they should therefore by automatically precluded option B????

fuelinjection wrote: »

there are plenty of possible parents who for biological reasons are unable to have a child of their own.

Excuse me but one person’s inability to perform X in no way puts the onus on another person to perform X. Just because someone else can not have a child, does not mean other women are some how forced to become incubators on their behalf. They are not cattle for farming.

nozzferrahhtoo · 18-02-2010 12:12PM

Zulu wrote: »

No one said this about ALL people. That would be a particularly naïve comment to make. However, it is true for the vase majority. If you do not wish to acknowledge that - that's fine.

I can not acknowledge something you have provided literally no evidence to support. I acknowledge that this is your opinion on the majority. That is as far as I have the capability to go. What you base that opinion on, or whether that opinion reflects the reality or not, are entirely conclusions not available to me at this time.

The Corinthian · 18-02-2010 12:22PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not saying a PERSON is defined by it’s ability to conceive rights. I am saying that the human faculty of consciousness itself is defined in a discussion on rights by its ability to be the sole source of conceiving rights that we know of.

Consciousness is the ability to perceive subjectively the world around you. Cats do that. So do fish.

Consciousness is not the source of rights.

If you want to judge someone by:

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes. That part of us which comes up with this notion of rights in the first place.

Then that would be sapience and that's a little bit more than a nervous system and some grey cells. We don't actually develop that until long after birth.

Neurologically, infants don't have the pathways for this. Damage, thought illness of accident can destroy this too. Hell, the Bell Curve being what it is, some perfectly healthy people technically don't qualify either.

It's not there in those examples I've given. Saying that it is not operating on the same level is just disingenuous. Sure, in infants it's not operating on the same level it will be in a few years, but then again you can say the same at any stage of human development.

It looks like you want to pick a date when the first prenatal neurological pathways begin to form and then, ignoring species, claim that this is what makes them human. There's nothing special about those first pathways, and to argue that they will become special is just ridiculous given that you are happy to ignore the 'potential' defence prior to that point.

It's as if you've picked a particular date in pregnancy and are trying to invent a milestone that makes it important to our definition of humanity, when in reality, it's not actually all that important.

fuelinjection · 18-02-2010 12:56PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes and I fully support the parents right to make that choice TOO. However I am yet to hear anyone ever make the argument that just because someone has option A that they should therefore by automatically precluded option B????

Option A means that you live and love and improve the world we live in. Option B means you are put into a furnace and lose your future. There is no parole or time off for good behaviour. It is not not an option that you as a child have. Or that a depressed mother later in life when she grows up can change.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Excuse me but one person’s inability to perform X in no way puts the onus on another person to perform X. Just because someone else can not have a child, does not mean other women are some how forced to become incubators on their behalf. They are not cattle for farming.

Walking away from a baby because you did not plan it is fine with me, an accidental pregnancy does not mean a life of slavery for either, but there are two people to think of as soon as it happens not just one selfish mother.

Zulu · 18-02-2010 01:23PM

fuelinjection wrote: »

but there are two people to think of as soon as it happens not just one selfish mother.

...well 3 really.

Zombrex · 18-02-2010 02:46PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

There's nothing special about those first pathways, and to argue that they will become special is just ridiculous given that you are happy to ignore the 'potential' defence prior to that point.

Well that is obviously where we disagree. I would say they are the only thing that is special about a human.

The neurological pathways define everything from memory to personality, and that starts developing in the womb. It is what it is to be "you"

Saying cats and dogs have neurological pathways as well is some what disingenous as they have rather different ones.

The sign advertising low cost telephone calls outside my window is made from canvas wood and paint as is the Mona Lisa, but I wouldn't call that the same thing

The Corinthian · 18-02-2010 03:25PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Well that is obviously where we disagree. I would say they are the only thing that is special about a human.

I would have added opposable thumbs to the list, TBH. The inability to make tools kinda screwed the dolphins.

Saying cats and dogs have neurological pathways as well is some what disingenous as they have rather different ones.

At that point no. Actually, I suspect cats and dogs would have better neurological pathways than new-born child. At least they have long-term memory.

Those first brain cells may become something special, but they're not yet. All that is special about them is the genetic instructions that will cause them to become the human mind, long after birth.

But given we are ignoring the genetic potentiality, then no. A few neural pathways in a sixteen-week-old do not make for sapience. They make for an organism intellectually below a goldfish. If fails the litmus test unless you accept potential as a criteria, and if you do that then you realistically have to accept potential prior to those first brain cells forming.

Either you measure someone by a standard or you don't. Making excuses for some because they do not but will have the standard, or they used to have it or even playing word games and claiming that they meet the standard, but not to our level, is just about shoring up a flaky hypothesis with caveats.

Zombrex · 18-02-2010 03:32PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

I would have added opposable thumbs to the list, TBH. The inability to make tools kinda screwed the dolphins.

I don't think someone without thumbs would be considered of no value :P

The Corinthian wrote: »

At that point no. Actually, I suspect cats and dogs would have better neurological pathways than new-born child. At least they have long-term memory.

I'm not sure how you are defining "better". Better in what context?

I should point out I don't think the actual neurons are valuable, it is the data they store and how they store it. Your personality is valuable, not the actual neurons that store it.

Getting into sci-fi territory again, if you could transfer your consciousness out of your brain it is that information pattern that is valuable, not the brain cells themselves. If it was then put into a computer the computer would inherit the value by proxy of hosting your personality.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Those first brain cells may become something special, but they're not yet.

They have started storying information through the process of forming neurological pathways.

That makes them special because what they are storying is special.

The Corinthian wrote: »

A few neural pathways in a sixteen-week-old do not make for sapience.

Having read over nozzferrahhtoo, posts as he asked me to, I think sapience is a bit of a straw man.

I do not, and as far as I can tell neither does nozzferrahhtoo, consider the ability to conceive of one's own rights as a requirement for a mind to be consider valuable.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Either you measure someone by a standard or you don't.

True, but I prefer to measure by my own standard :pac:

The Corinthian · 18-02-2010 03:47PM

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't think someone without thumbs would be considered of no value :P

Opposable thumbs have been just as instrumental as our brains in our evolutionary ascendency.

I'm not sure how you are defining "better". Better in what context?

Smarter.

Getting into sci-fi territory again, if you could transfer your consciousness out of your brain it is that information pattern that is valuable, not the brain cells themselves. If it was then put into a computer the computer would inherit the value by proxy of hosting your personality.

You're just pissed 'cos Caprica wasn't on last Friday.

They have started storying information through the process of forming neurological pathways.

On a level inferior to most vertebrates. Even the storing is not great until long term memory develops after birth - or would you like to share with us your recollections of birth?

Having read over nozzferrahhtoo, posts as he asked me to, I think sapience is a bit of a straw man.

I do not, and as far as I can tell neither does nozzferrahhtoo, consider the ability to conceive of one's own rights as a requirement for a mind to be consider valuable.

No, apparently then only the ability to grow a neuron, even though it actually does not make the subject any more special than a lung-worm.

Zombrex · 18-02-2010 04:02PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Opposable thumbs have been just as instrumental as our brains in our evolutionary ascendency.

True but I don't consider "evolutionary ascendancy" to be important (or in fact a particularly accurate way of looking at evolution, but that is going slightly off topic)

The Corinthian wrote: »

Smarter.

How are you measuring "smart"?

The Corinthian wrote: »

You're just pissed 'cos Caprica wasn't on last Friday.

True :P

The Corinthian wrote: »

On a level inferior to most vertebrates.

Again inferior and smart are not concepts I'm using

The Corinthian wrote: »

Even the storing is not great until long term memory develops after birth - or would you like to share with us your recollections of birth?

I don't we can make that judgement. We know that some personality traits are dependent on genetics which means they start altering the neurological patterns from the get go.

During development in the womb approx 250,000 neurological pathways are constructed ever minute. It is a bit difficult to say that these ones over here are important and these ones over here aren't, in terms of who you are, in defining your personality.

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, apparently then only the ability to grow a neuron, even though it actually does not make the subject any more special than a lung-worm.

The ability to grow a neuron is not valuable. If it was I would be arguing that the zygote is valuable.

It is not the ability to grow a neuron, or even the neuron itself that is important. It is the neurological pathways. These are what make me me and you you

Think of it this way. You have a couple of million printing press letters. Each one is not particularly valuable, in fact the whole million isn't particularly valuable. They are just metal and wood, and you could replace one pretty easily.

Now imagine that you, as a great writer (we are being very hypothetical here :pac:) arrange those letters to form the most beautiful story ever written.

Now, given that this story only exists in the arrangement of the individual printing press letters on the printing slabs, you have turned these some what unimportant pieces of wood and metal into something of immense value.

If it was destroyed, and you didn't have the ability to copy it or reproduce it, something truly important would be lost.

And this can also be argued that it is valuable from the very first arrangement of letters forming the very first sentence, since the next sentence depends on the first sentence and the third on the second etc.

It is hard to say when the arrangement of letters becomes art, so airing on the side of caution is advisable. As soon as you start arranging letters destruction of those loses something.

I don't think that a 5 month old fetus has as much value as a 30 year old man (personally, and this goes some what against common human instant, if I had to save either an infant or a 30 year old I would save the 30 year old) but it has enough value that it should not be destroyed.

metrovelvet · 18-02-2010 08:39PM

On what grounds would you save a 30 year old over an infant?

You seem to ascribe value to human life, not intrinsically or equally, but on what worth you think it is. So, a thirty year old is more valuable than an infant. Well i believe humans intrinsic value is about 3 US dollars, and you being a man probably weigh more than I do, so your intrinsic value might be higher. But where would you stand with stephen hawkings? Lets say you were his mother and you found out when you were pregnant yo're child was disabled? But then lets say there was some machine that told you he was a science genius too? What would his worth be? Is that how you judge the people around you too?

Zombrex · 19-02-2010 11:06AM

metrovelvet wrote: »

On what grounds would you save a 30 year old over an infant?

On the grounds that the infant hasn't a clue what is happening to him.

metrovelvet wrote: »

You seem to ascribe value to human life, not intrinsically or equally, but on what worth you think it is.

As opposed to what?

If you choose the infant to save and let the 30 year old die have you not done exactly the same thing?

metrovelvet wrote: »

But where would you stand with stephen hawkings? Lets say you were his mother and you found out when you were pregnant yo're child was disabled? But then lets say there was some machine that told you he was a science genius too? What would his worth be?

His worth wouldn't be anything given that he doesn't exist yet

I could have sex tonight with my girlfriend and produce a child. Except I'm not going to, thereby denying that child existence. Do you consider that a crime?

Zulu · 19-02-2010 11:46AM

Wicknight wrote: »

On the grounds that the infant hasn't a clue what is happening to him.

Your logic is seriously flawed; you could kill a 30 year old without them having a clue as to what was happening.

metrovelvet · 19-02-2010 11:57AM

WK. I hope you are taking the piss.

Zombrex · 19-02-2010 12:41PM

Zulu wrote: »

Your logic is seriously flawed; you could kill a 30 year old without them having a clue as to what was happening.

Er, I'm not killing a 30 year old. Read the hypothetical again. :rolleyes:

Zombrex · 19-02-2010 12:42PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

WK. I hope you are taking the piss.

You didn't answer my question.

If did the opposite to me and you saved the infant over the 30 year old are you not deciding that the infant's life is more valuable than the 30 year olds?

Zulu · 19-02-2010 01:25PM

It appears you've missed my point. Perhaps reread and consider before clicking the ":rolleyes:".

Legalise abortion

Comments