Legalise abortion

nozzferrahhtoo · 22-02-2010 10:50AM

fuelinjection wrote: »

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

False, there is one person, the mother, and one foetus which is not a person, but something that will possibly, but not certainly, become one in the future. You are attempting to pander to the desires of an entity which has no such attribute.

nozzferrahhtoo · 22-02-2010 11:08AM

Wicknight wrote: »

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.

An interesting statement and it is a shame it has derailed the topic so much. I actually have not spent as much time thinking about this as I could.

It is worth pointing out that it has little to do with abortion. None of the pro-choice arguments here, that I have read, are based on the fetus being WORTH more than the mother, but that the fetus is not a "person" of worth yet in the first place.

So discussing the relative worth of "people" is a totally tangential subject, but one that I am glad came up as I find it might be worth thinking about on other subjects. I certainly do not expect that whatever conclusions I come to will be based solely on the longevity of one over the other. I have not thought of it yet, but I can already imagine that if we are comparing two “people” then I would err towards the one that has not had its chance in life yet. One has had their turn on the ride, the other is still queuing. However even then there are too many variables that I expect no conclusive black and white stance to be even hinted at, let alone reached. #690 from Chocolate Sauce says it better than me.

However in discussions on abortion the question always comes up in some form of "If we knew the pregnancy would kill the mother but not the child, is it ok to abort then?". There are two answers for ME on this.

The first would be Pre 16 weeks, of course it is ok because as I said so far there is no reason apparent to me not to abort at this time

The second however is what if one has attained the rights I assigned it in my argument. They are both “people” and they both have “rights” including the “right to life”. If the pregnancy will kill the mother then in THIS EXTREME HYPOTHETICAL case I would be ok with abortion. Why? Because in any situation where one person with rights is killing another I believe the latter should have the right to kill in self defence, regardless of whether it is the intent of the former to be killing the latter.

Of course I do not think the mother should be forced to make that choice. If she wants to die to allow the pregnancy to succeed then that is her choice.

The Corinthian · 22-02-2010 11:26AM

Wicknight wrote: »

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)

It is nonetheless one of the principle things that make humans 'special' - without them we would not have reached the dominant position we have.

How are you measuring "smart"?

Capacity for abstract, creative thought. The ability to conceive rights, oddly enough is not a bad example of this.

Again inferior and smart are not concepts I'm using

You may not be using them. but if you place value upon human intellectual ability, then that is what you are doing.

I don't we can make that judgement.

Of course we can make that judgement - they are actually pretty self evident, or (as I already asked) would you like to share with us your recollections of birth?

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

What makes a person a person? Why are humans special? If we decide that it is our intellect - those neural pathways - then realistically they are not there until long after birth. They may be forming on a rudimentary level, and have the potential for maturity, but then again that's more a genetic argument - that they will develop to our level because they are programmed to do so at a cellular level - and that brings us dangerously close to the potential argument that can easily extend that logic to the zygote.

All before we consider if those neural pathways are destroyed through illness or accident - not operating at a lower level as Nozz repeatedly attempts to fudge, but no longer there. Or where they will never form, in the case of the severely mentally handicapped (from birth). We could argue what the should have, but again that goes into the whole genetic potential argument.

It is these conflicts that make such a position untenable, because they then require numerous caveats, otherwise lots of 'people' fail to qualify.

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.

That's a different discussion though. All we are really debating here is how to define a person, not whether all people are 'equal' or all rights in all contexts are 'equal'.

You can still be a person and have your right to life superseded by another's right. There are lots of examples of this in existence that have nothing to do with abortion.

The Corinthian · 22-02-2010 11:27AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If you want to show me evidence for a source of rights other than Human Conciousness please do so. My entire position on abortion is falsifiable if you can find another source of rights in this world other than that part of us.

You have misrepresented what I said. What I was doing in the post you only partially quoted was pointing out that you were confusing Human conciousness with sapience. I was pointing out that you don't seem to know what term to use.

Given you do not seem to be able to tell the difference between those two, I'll assume that your misinterpretation of my post was unintentional.

dvpower · 22-02-2010 06:06PM

metrovelvet wrote: »

Why do the unborn have a different status to the born?

I'd confer different statuses on the unborn depending on the stage of development, I guess broadly in line with when the fetus becomes a person (a subjective measure, I know).

So, I'd give a higher status to an embryo than a fertilised egg, and a higher status to a fetus than an embryo. At some point I'd give a similar status to a fetus as I would to a born person.

fuelinjection · 23-02-2010 11:47AM

Unfortunately after all the semantics on here, it really comes down to one question that you have to ask yourself.

Would you liquidise your own baby to suit your lifestyle/diet/fashion/appearance/trend/bodyshape ?
Yes or No ?

dvpower · 23-02-2010 11:59AM

fuelinjection wrote: »

Would you liquidise your own baby to suit your lifestyle/diet/fashion/appearance/trend/bodyshape/health/continued existence ?

Missed a few.

Zulu · 23-02-2010 12:05PM

dvpower wrote: »

I'd confer different statuses on the unborn depending on the stage of development, I guess broadly in line with when the fetus becomes a person (a subjective measure, I know).

The concept of rights being given at dirrerent stages isn't a problem for me (or for most of society) - we do this currently (the right to vote for example), however, the right to LIFE is sacrosanct at all stages - regardless of development stage.

An adult has the right to life; an adolescent has the right to life; a child has the right to life; a baby has the right to life; a premature baby has the right to life. I don't see any good reason why this should now changes for a foetus.

And the concept that it changes because "a foetus isn't a person" is pretty much farcical; you wouldn't tell a woman who has just miscarried "don't worry, it wasn't a person".

Zombrex · 23-02-2010 12:42PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

It is nonetheless one of the principle things that make humans 'special' - without them we would not have reached the dominant position we have.

I don't think it is a particularly important one. The only way to measure evolution is as a measurement of adaption. An amoeba may be better adapted to its environment than a human, but that to me is irrelevant.

The Corinthian wrote: »

You may not be using them. but if you place value upon human intellectual ability, then that is what you are doing.

I'm not putting value upon human intellectual ability.

We have sort of gone down a tangent of this idea that we are evolutionary smart than other animals and that is why we are important. That is not my position.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Of course we can make that judgement - they are actually pretty self evident, or (as I already asked) would you like to share with us your recollections of birth?

Why do you think you must be able to remember something in order to say that it did or didn't have an effect on you?

Whether you can remember it or not when you were a new born your neural network was expanding and developing and this was shaping your personality.

The Corinthian wrote: »

What makes a person a person? Why are humans special? If we decide that it is our intellect - those neural pathways - then realistically they are not there

Hold on a minute.

Why are you equating "our intellect" with "those neural pathways".?

Our intellect, our smarts, are only some of those neural pathways, and only some of the purpose of the brain.

The brain is not blank at birth. Yes it still has a lot of growing to do, and learning to do, but at birth you already have developed billions of neural pathways, some of which have a significant effect on who you are.

Nor are these neural pathways missing in handicapped people. As anyone who has cared for a handicapped person will tell you they are not all the same, and they have different personalities and traits just like everyone else.

So there are a lot of strawmen being thrown around here, though I don't think on purpose. We need to scale back as I think we have gone down two different rabbit holes.

fuelinjection · 23-02-2010 12:51PM

dvpower wrote: »

Missed a few.

So all abortions around the world are to save the lives of the mothers who somehow knows in advance that they will will die in childbirth.

Come back when you have read a few books and/or lived a few years, I cannot argue with ignorance.

dvpower · 23-02-2010 01:06PM

fuelinjection wrote: »

So all abortions around the world are to save the lives of the mothers who somehow knows in advance that they will will die in childbirth.

Not at all. Many abortions are carried out for the selfish reasons that you outlined.

fuelinjection wrote: »

Come back when you have read a few books and/or lived a few years, I cannot argue with ignorance.

fuelinjection · 23-02-2010 01:09PM

dvpower wrote: »

Not at all. Many abortions are carried out for the selfish reasons that you outlined.

I just posted your own words... stop acting like I am putting words in your mouth. Why not defend what you said, instead of attacking me with the

comments.

dvpower · 23-02-2010 01:18PM

Zulu wrote: »

The concept of rights being given at dirrerent stages isn't a problem for me (or for most of society) - we do this currently (the right to vote for example), however, the right to LIFE is sacrosanct at all stages - regardless of development stage.

An adult has the right to life; an adolescent has the right to life; a child has the right to life; a baby has the right to life; a premature baby has the right to life. I don't see any good reason why this should now changes for a foetus.

And the concept that it changes because "a foetus isn't a person" is pretty much farcical; you wouldn't tell a woman who has just miscarried "don't worry, it wasn't a person".

These distinctions are made in many socities that allow abortion. Indeed, these types of distinctions are made in socities that allow embryonic stem cell research or IVF treatment and argueably for societies that allow the morning after pill. I think many people would draw a big distinction between a fertilised egg and a near term child.

Now, I accept that you might feel that we shouldn't draw these distinctions (or at least we shouldn't apply or withdraw a right to life based on them), but the fact remains that we do make these distinctions, widely.

dvpower · 23-02-2010 01:21PM

fuelinjection wrote: »

I just posted your own words... stop acting like I am putting words in your mouth. Why not defend what you said, instead of attacking me with the comments.

is a 'confused' emoticon. I put it there, not to attack you, but to demonstrate my confusion.

After your last post, I need some more

Now, what exactly was it that I said that you want me to defend?

The Corinthian · 23-02-2010 01:42PM

fuelinjection wrote: »

Would you liquidise your own baby to suit your lifestyle/diet/fashion/appearance/trend/bodyshape ?

Dreadful rubbish. A foetus or even zygote may well be a person (I would contend that as objectively as we can be it is) but that does not make it a baby.

I absolutely hate this infantile need to humanize (i.e. "baby") or dehumanize (i.e. "ball of cells"). Either is designed to sway, pro or against, the sort of people who gos "awe" whenever they see a picture of cute kittens.

The Corinthian · 23-02-2010 01:54PM

Wicknight wrote: »

I don't think it is a particularly important one. The only way to measure evolution is as a measurement of adaption. An amoeba may be better adapted to its environment than a human, but that to me is irrelevant.

Opposable thumbs have lead to toolmaking, which in turn has lead to our ability to adapt to pretty much any environment. Without them we'd be doing back-flips in Sea World. So I'd have to disagree with you there.

We have sort of gone down a tangent of this idea that we are evolutionary smart than other animals and that is why we are important. That is not my position.

What is it then?

Whether you can remember it or not when you were a new born your neural network was expanding and developing and this was shaping your personality.

But it's not there yet. You've returned to the potential argument.

The brain is not blank at birth. Yes it still has a lot of growing to do, and learning to do, but at birth you already have developed billions of neural pathways, some of which have a significant effect on who you are.

Again, that is potential, not actual. The actual is really not all that different to a chimp, or lower.

Nor are these neural pathways missing in handicapped people. As anyone who has cared for a handicapped person will tell you they are not all the same, and they have different personalities and traits just like everyone else.

In many they are.

So there are a lot of strawmen being thrown around here, though I don't think on purpose. We need to scale back as I think we have gone down two different rabbit holes.

Not really, although perhaps better defining what is meant is important. When I say intellect, I refer to those neural pathways that create sapience in humans.

They allow us the ability to think in abstract and by extension have allowed us the ability to devise concepts such as rights.

If this is the case, then babies, many mentally handicapped and others do not have these pathways. They are incapable of such abstract thought.

They are by such a definition of what is human, not.

fuelinjection · 23-02-2010 01:58PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Dreadful rubbish. A foetus or even zygote may well be a person (I would contend that as objectively as we can be it is) but that does not make it a baby.

I absolutely hate this infantile need to humanize (i.e. "baby") or dehumanize (i.e. "ball of cells"). Either is designed to sway, pro or against, the sort of people who gos "awe" whenever they see a picture of cute kittens.

Dreadful ?
Rubbish ?
Impressive arguments I have to say, I am actually kneeling as I write this.

A baby is the product of a man and a woman that relies on them for heat, food and safety, this is the same inside the womb as outside of it. If you prefer you see a "baby" as something out of an advert for nappies then that is your sword to bear.

The Corinthian · 23-02-2010 02:11PM

fuelinjection wrote: »

Dreadful ?
Rubbish ?
Impressive arguments I have to say, I am actually kneeling as I write this.

The first two words of my post do not constitute an argument, even if they constitute the measure of an attention span.

A baby is the product of a man and a woman that relies on them for heat, food and safety, this is the same inside the womb as outside of it. If you prefer you see a "baby" as something out of an advert for nappies then that is your sword to bear.

No, I have contended that a human being or person is the sexual product of a man and a woman. A 'baby' is the post-natal stage of human development, also known as an infant, that ends at around 12 months. Read a dictionary.

Using the term baby is factually incorrect and designed to manipulate emotions of one's audience in the same way as someone dismissing it as a ball of cells would.

I have little respect for either.

Zombrex · 23-02-2010 02:15PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

Opposable thumbs have lead to toolmaking, which in turn has lead to our ability to adapt to pretty much any environment.

Adaption in an evolutionary sense is measured by the likelihood your average human is going to have children before they die. Humans are not particularly special in this regard, there are plenty of "better evolved" species out there.

How technologically advanced we are is really irrelevant to evolution. We were the most technologically advanced species when millions of us were dying of the plague.

Anyway, my point is that some concept of an evolutionary slide rule is irrelevant to me.

The Corinthian wrote: »

What is it then?

My position is that you are the neural network of your brain.

This defines your personality, your consciousness, your memories etc. This holds whether you are a 4 week old fetus just started developing it, or a 90 year old man about to die.

Intellectual ability is a component of this, but it is not the only important one, or even the most important one.

The thing that makes the neural network of a human special over the neural network of an ant is the way the brain structures this neural network to produce these effects.

I don't think this is unique to humans and I do believe rights should extend to other animals. I think chimps and other primates should be protected as they share the characteristics of humans in terms of awareness.

The Corinthian wrote: »

But it's not there yet. You've returned to the potential argument.

I'm pretty sure it is there yet. I'm rejecting your idea, if this is actually your idea, that the neural network does not form till after birth. I don't believe that is true.

The Corinthian wrote: »

In many they are.

I would be interested to see which types are. I've no probably with someone terminating someone who is so handicapped they are effectively brain dead, so long as this can be accurately assessed.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not really, although perhaps better defining what is meant is important. When I say intellect, I refer to those neural pathways that create sapience in humans.

But when I say neural pathways I am not simply referring to the specific ones that create sapience in humans.

I've no probably with the idea that they don't appear till long after birth.

Zombrex · 23-02-2010 02:17PM

fuelinjection wrote: »

Unfortunately after all the semantics on here, it really comes down to one question that you have to ask yourself.

Would you liquidise your own baby to suit your lifestyle/diet/fashion/appearance/trend/bodyshape ?
Yes or No ?

Yes, if my "baby" didn't have a brain.

What would you do, stuff it and mount it on the mantle piece?

Zulu · 23-02-2010 03:40PM

dvpower wrote: »

These distinctions are made in many socities that allow abortion.

Ah yes, but, as you know (?), we currently are not one of these societies.

metrovelvet · 23-02-2010 04:33PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

The first two words of my post do not constitute an argument, even if they constitute the measure of an attention span.

No, I have contended that a human being or person is the sexual product of a man and a woman. A 'baby' is the post-natal stage of human development, also known as an infant, that ends at around 12 months. Read a dictionary.

Using the term baby is factually incorrect and designed to manipulate emotions of one's audience in the same way as someone dismissing it as a ball of cells would.

I have little respect for either.

Plenty of expecting parents refer to it as the "baby" as do women who have miscarried,"I lost the baby." I dont think it is an attempt to manipulate. They call it a baby, because it is a baby.

Zulu · 23-02-2010 04:49PM

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, I have contended that a human being or person is the sexual product of a man and a woman. A 'baby' is the post-natal stage of human development, also known as an infant, that ends at around 12 months. Read a dictionary.

In fairness The Corinthian, according to the dictionary, it's accurate to refer to a foetus as a baby.

dvpower · 23-02-2010 04:52PM

Zulu wrote: »

Ah yes, but, as you know (?), we currently are not one of these societies.

I'm aware that it isn't legal. In fact, that is the subject of this thread.

Of course, we do allow it, so long as it doesn't take place here. In 1992, we made a speciific ammendment to the constitution to allow it (elsewhere).

drkpower · 24-02-2010 10:00PM

Zulu wrote: »

The concept of rights being given at dirrerent stages isn't a problem for me (or for most of society) - we do this currently (the right to vote for example), however, the right to LIFE is sacrosanct at all stages - regardless of development stage.

An adult has the right to life; an adolescent has the right to life; a child has the right to life; a baby has the right to life; a premature baby has the right to life. I don't see any good reason why this should now changes for a foetus.

The right to life is NOT sacrosant at all stages. The right to life is subject to the rights of others and the common good. There are many examples, the most obvious one being self-defence.

Zulu wrote: »

Ah yes, but, as you know (?), we currently are not one of these societies I]that allow abortion[/I. .

We do allow abortions; they happen all the time, in certain circumstances. And our laws actually allow for abortion in many many other circumstances, however the precise nature of those circumstances are not yet fully clear. This means that doctors, understandably, are unwilling to take the risk of performing an abortion where there is any doubt as to whether they would be criminally liable in so doing.

Zulu · 25-02-2010 10:06AM

drkpower wrote: »

The right to life is NOT sacrosant at all stages. The right to life is subject to the rights of others and the common good. There are many examples, the most obvious one being self-defence.

Firstly, there is no right to "self-defence" that I'm aware of. (Can you provide evidence of one please?) I understand that there are legalities that protect the individual, and permit an individual to react, in defence, with force. Excessive force isn't legal, so it's a determination. In fact, as I understand it, legally you are encouraged not to react, but to flee.

drkpower wrote:

Secondly I really don't see what you are confused about, seeing as you addressed that very point in your previous post:

drkpower wrote:

I'm aware that it isn't legal. In fact, that is the subject of this thread.

You seemed to understand my point on the "23-02-2010 @ 15:52". Whats up with that?

dvpower · 25-02-2010 11:42AM

Zulu wrote: »

In fact, as I understand it, legally you are encouraged not to react, but to flee.

A pregnant woman fleeing her unborn child? I think there's a name for that.

Zulu wrote: »

Secondly I really don't see what you are confused about, seeing as you addressed that very point in your previous post:

Originally Posted by drkpower dvpower
I'm aware that it isn't legal. In fact, that is the subject of this thread.

You seemed to understand my point on the "23-02-2010 @ 15:52". Whats up with that?

You're mixing up your posters.

But I think drkpower is correct. The legal position is unclear.
As I understand it, the constitutional protection for the life of the unborn is conditional ...

40.3.3 wrote:

The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.

... and we lack legislation to clarify this.

Zulu · 25-02-2010 12:18PM

dvpower wrote: »

A pregnant woman fleeing her unborn child? I think there's a name for that.

Sorry: drkpower was talking about self defence.
How could a pregnant woman flee her unborn child? (retorical) And how could that be self defence?? (retorical) Nonsense.

You're mixing up your posters.

Indeed I am - apologies, your names are very similar!

The Corinthian · 25-02-2010 05:49PM

Wicknight wrote: »

My position is that you are the neural network of your brain.

This defines your personality, your consciousness, your memories etc. This holds whether you are a 4 week old fetus just started developing it, or a 90 year old man about to die.

Intellectual ability is a component of this, but it is not the only important one, or even the most important one.

I see.

The thing that makes the neural network of a human special over the neural network of an ant is the way the brain structures this neural network to produce these effects.

In a fully developed and undamaged human.

I don't think this is unique to humans and I do believe rights should extend to other animals. I think chimps and other primates should be protected as they share the characteristics of humans in terms of awareness.

Understood.

I'm pretty sure it is there yet. I'm rejecting your idea, if this is actually your idea, that the neural network does not form till after birth. I don't believe that is true.

"At birth, the human brain is in a remarkably unfinished state. Most of its 100 billion neurons are not yet connected in networks. Forming and reinforcing these connections are the key tasks of early brain development. Connections among neurons are formed as the growing child experiences the surrounding world and forms attachments to parents, family members and other caregivers.

In the first decade of life, a child’s brain forms trillions of connections or synapses. Axons hook up with dendrites, and chemicals called neurotransmitters facilitate the passage of impulses across the resulting synapses. Each individual neuron may be connected to as many as 15,000 other neurons, forming a network of neural pathways that is immensely complex. This elaborate network is sometimes referred to as the brain’s “wiring” or “circuitry.” If they are not used repeatedly, or often enough, they are eliminated. In this way, experience plays a crucial role in “wiring” a young child’s brain."

Source: Shore, R. (1997). Rethinking the Brain: New Insights into Early Development. New York, NY: Families and Work Institute, pp. 16-17

But when I say neural pathways I am not simply referring to the specific ones that create sapience in humans.

Ah, well - I see your point. However, then I really do no see how humans are in any way special as pretty much all vertebrates have such neural pathways. What is your cut off point?

metrovelvet wrote: »

Plenty of expecting parents refer to it as the "baby" as do women who have miscarried,"I lost the baby." I dont think it is an attempt to manipulate. They call it a baby, because it is a baby.

Just because you call or feel something so, does not make it actually so.

drkpower · 25-02-2010 09:54PM

Zulu wrote: »

Firstly, there is no right to "self-defence" that I'm aware of. (Can you provide evidence of one please?) I understand that there are legalities that protect the individual, and permit an individual to react, in defence, with force. Excessive force isn't legal, so it's a determination. In fact, as I understand it, legally you are encouraged not to react, but to flee.

You misunderstand.

Self-defence is an example of a situation where the right to life (of a perpetrator) conflicts with the rights of another individual, be it that individual's own right to life, or their right to health, privacy, bodily integrity etc...

While there may be restrictions on the exercise of one's rights (to bodily integrity etc) in self-defence, such as the obligation to 'flee' where it is reasonable to do so, the fundamental point is that, in some circumstances, a person's right to bodily integrity 'trumps' another's right to life.

Therefore, the right to life is neither absolute nor sacrosant.

Legalise abortion

Comments