nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Legalise abortion

SLUSK

Abortions should be legalised in Ireland. In the long run it will help bring crime down because potential criminals will not be born. It is a well known fact that poor people commit more crimes, they also have more kids out of wedlock and so on. If these women can have abortions instead it would be good for all of us.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

dvpower

Zulu wrote: »

Well, I wouldn't put much weight behind any poll on abortion tbh.

Tell me about it. Remember those referenda? What a confused mess.

Zombrex

The Corinthian wrote: »

Abortion being argued through emotional rather than rational argument?

Who's have thought :eek:

Seriously, I think you get emotional claptrap on both sides. Nature of the beast.

True, but that argument in particular seems quite bizarre. Arguing that the fetus has all the rights of a human being and should be protected completely unless it was conceived during a rape? How does that make it have less rights than you or I? Can you kill you 5 year old if they were conceived during a rape?

Zombrex

metrovelvet wrote: »

It doesnt make any sense. The only woman I know of whom got pregnant by a rape was one who kept the child. Everyone I know who had abortions wanted to finish a degree. The other reasons were, wasnt sure if it was her husbandsthe second abortion, same woman firdt abortion was to finish a masters, and the others fell into 1. wanted to finish a degree 2. Not sure if the husbands 3. wanted to be a star 3. planned on leaving the husband - baby gets in the way of get away plans. Another woman I know had a late second term abortion to finish her HS diploma - wrote an essay about it and got into Yale, god bless the affirmative action years, and then had another abortion at Yale.

But the reasons the mother wants an abortion are irrelevant, be it because she was raped and would hate the sight of her child or because she wants to finish her degree. What does any of that have to do with the definition of the fetus as a being with rights or not?

Are people seriously saying the fetus has rights unless you have an acceptable reason to abort it?

The attitude reflected in the poll is going back to the nonsense of "responsibility", if you had sex you got to pay for it by having a baby, unless you didn't want to then you don't.

It is one step up from the horror movie doctrine that if you have sex in the film the serial killer is going to get you, because after all their must be consequences for sex!

The Corinthian

Wicknight wrote: »

True, but that argument in particular seems quite bizarre. Arguing that the fetus has all the rights of a human being and should be protected completely unless it was conceived during a rape? How does that make it have less rights than you or I? Can you kill you 5 year old if they were conceived during a rape?

Logically it makes absolutely no sense, but then again a lot of the arguments that are used by both the pro and anti abortion camps don't make a Hell of a lot of sense.

But that's because they're not supposed to make you think, they're supposed to make you feel so you don't think.

metrovelvet

Wicknight wrote: »

But the reasons the mother wants an abortion are irrelevant, be it because she was raped and would hate the sight of her child or because she wants to finish her degree. What does any of that have to do with the definition of the fetus as a being with rights or not?

Are people seriously saying the fetus has rights unless you have an acceptable reason to abort it?

The attitude reflected in the poll is going back to the nonsense of "responsibility", if you had sex you got to pay for it by having a baby, unless you didn't want to then you don't.

It is one step up from the horror movie doctrine that if you have sex in the film the serial killer is going to get you, because after all their must be consequences for sex!

No. There are people who say the feotus has no rights and there are people who say the feotus does have rights.

Then there are people who are empathatic to the woman in circumstances where bringing the child into the world is traumatic and their empathy overrides their belief in the rights of the feotus.

Then there are people who are empathetic to the sufferring and death of the foetus and this overrides any belief in the rights of the mother.

Then there are people who believe that a woman's right over the sovreignty over her body supercedes all rights of the feotus, so it makes no difference what the circumstance of the conception is or of the forthcoming birth and upbringing.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

Then there are people who are empathatic to the woman in circumstances where bringing the child into the world is traumatic and their empathy overrides their belief in the rights of the feotus.

The problem with this is that it often does not mesh with the reasoning for allowing abortion that is often given.

The most common pro-choice position given is that up to a certain point in development, a foetus is not a person but simply a biological extension of the woman's body. If so, then it really is irrelevant whether an abortion is carried out because of rape or because they want to finish their PhD.

The only possible logical argument that would mesh with this is the one that would allow abortion in cases of the mother's life or health being significantly endangered, and pregnancy through rape results in a (real) threat of suicide.

Of course then, you have to ask if the threat of suicide is a valid threat against the mother's life or health, which is where suitably emotive cases are handy.

metrovelvet

The Corinthian wrote: »

The problem with this is that it often does not mesh with the reasoning for allowing abortion that is often given.

The most common pro-choice position given is that up to a certain point in development, a foetus is not a person but simply a biological extension of the woman's body. If so, then it really is irrelevant whether an abortion is carried out because of rape or because they want to finish their PhD.

.

I dont think this is the most common pro choice position. I think this is the most common reaction to pro life arguments that you might see on boards. But the pro choice argument, spear headed by Roe V Wade and what followed supports a woman's right to privacy and the sovreignty of her body, the foetus, baby, whatever classification floats your boat doesn't come into the pro choice position at large. When Roe V Wade came in there was no time limit on when you can get an abortion, and technically and legally in the US, there is no time limit, but finding an OB who will perform one 8 months into the gestation is a different story.

The three month time limit is a bit misleading because in fact, it doesn't actually exist legally in the US. It is unconsititutional.

The partial birth abortion ban, imo, was a means for the details of how abortions are performed to be discussed more publically and therefore more exposed, although that criminalises method, not stage of development and I think has been revoked by Obama, but I am open to correction here.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/11/0080278

nozzferrahhtoo

The Corinthian wrote: »

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 am perfectly happy with the one I choose to use. It has been you telling me to use another one.

However I honestly do not care if you use the term “wuppdittilybunk” for it. It is still clear what I am talking about. Human Consciousness is the source of the concept of rights and we know what aspects and activities of the human brain are connected with its existence.

Therefore is these aspects and activities have not formed yet, then I see no reason to consider that a human person has formed yet.

nozzferrahhtoo

Zulu wrote: »

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.

Then why does it change for a sperm? A zygote? A plant? A tree? Cattle? A cancerous growth? A virus?

nozzferrahhtoo

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.

Calling something a label does not make it that label.

I knew a guy who built his own car from the ground up. From the first day when he bought the first part of what would be the frame, he referred to it as “the car”.

Clearly it was not a car. It was a elongated reinforced piece of metal with no immediately apparent function.

Yet he called it a car. Why? Not because it actually was a car, but because he had chosen to conceptualise it as such.

nozzferrahhtoo

The Corinthian wrote: »

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?

I would insert my answer here as the same one I have been giving all the time.

Yes many animals do have such things.

However the human example is to our knowledge the only one that has come up with the notions of rights, higher purpose, ethics, morality etc.

Therefore in any discussion on rights, morality etc it is the human one that is elevated by default to a position of extreme if not paramount importance in that discussion. It is the human example we protect with our creation, assignment and enforcement of rights.

It is therefore not a leap to suggest it is TO that part of us we assign them, and an entity devoid of such pathways has no claim to rights. We do not assign rights to DNA, limbs, bones, ligaments etc.

Therefore since a fetus at 16 weeks has not developed this aspect I see no claim for assigning it rights.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

However I honestly do not care if you use the term “wuppdittilybunk” for it. It is still clear what I am talking about. Human Consciousness is the source of the concept of rights and we know what aspects and activities of the human brain are connected with its existence.

Except Human Consciousness is not the source of the concept of rights - consciousness, human or otherwise is simply our awareness of ourselves and our environment and that alone cannot be the source of an abstract concept such as morality or rights.

For that you need sapience, which includes the capacity for abstract judgement which is the ability to go beyond our awareness of ourselves and our environment.

Of course, you could call it "wuppdittilybunk" if you wanted, but then you'd frankly be talking about something that you have invented yourself, and that is hardly a good metre to measure humanity, is it?

So ultimately you are either ignorant or what consciousness actually is or are just using words that sound clever in the hope no one notices you're talking rubbish.

And I'm afraid the emperor's willy is swinging in the wind on this one.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

However the human example is to our knowledge the only one that has come up with the notions of rights, higher purpose, ethics, morality etc.

But that's not consciousness, but another faculty - sapience - that does not develop until after birth and arguably only reaches maturity in adulthood. As I even pointed out we even have a term for this; "the age of reason".

Ultimately you're basing your litmus test upon a false assumption, that whatever it is called is formed at 16 weeks or so in the womb. It's not and neurologically the pathways have not even formed yet. To get around this you fudge the issue by suggesting that it is simply "not operating at the same level" as an adult - which would probably be true of a child as young as six months old, but prior to that it's not. It's not physically there and even the pathways have not formed.

It is therefore not a leap to suggest it is TO that part of us we assign them, and an entity devoid of such pathways has no claim to rights. We do not assign rights to DNA, limbs, bones, ligaments etc.

Actually that is untrue. Throughout history we have assigned rights on whatever we wanted to assign them to.

DNA, that is where someone is genetically a Homo sapien, is one of the more popular criteria that we currently use and have used, however we've used race, wealth, gender, age, religion and a myriad of other criteria in our history.

And you are ascribing them to "wuppdittilybunk".

nozzferrahhtoo

I see no reason to separate the two in the context of the point I am making. They are both entirely connected to the same areas of the brain and the same activity therein.

If those parts and activities in the brain have not even formed yet, then a human person deserving of rights has also not formed yet. That is enough to carry my point regardless of whether you want to call it consciousness, sapience or “wuppdittilybunk”.

In other words: If the things required for consciousness have not developed yet, then the things required for sapience have not either. And vice versa.

The basic point: If an object does not have certain parts or activities then it does not contain that part of the human which is the source of rights, ethics, morality etc.

Examples of objects devoid of these things: Table legs. Rocks. Cars. Walls. The foetus at 16 weeks development.

If however you can find anything in a 16 week developed feotus to suggest it HAS got either of these things, by whatever term you wish to use to describe it, I would be agog to hear it as it would negate my position entirely.

The Corinthian wrote: »

DNA, that is where someone is genetically a Homo sapien, is one of the more popular criteria that we currently use and have used, however we've used race, wealth, gender, age, religion and a myriad of other criteria in our history.

I do not disagree with any of that, but it is not what I said either. You are mixing up what we assign rights TO and what criteria we assign them BY.

The analogy I used before is that of a membership card to a club. You assign the rights and privileges of that club to the person, not the membership card. It is however the membership card you use as the criteria for determining who has what rights.

Similarly DNA, gender, age, religion etc are not what we assign the rights TO, which is what I am saying, they are the criteria which we decide BY.

So as I said I totally agree with what you said here, but it is replying to something I am not actually saying.

metrovelvet

No offence intended, but your repeated use of dangling prepositions is making your writing a little confusing.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I see no reason to separate the two in the context of the point I am making. They are both entirely connected to the same areas of the brain and the same activity therein.

Indeed, let's not let those pesky facts and details get in the way...

If those parts and activities in the brain have not even formed yet, then a human person deserving of rights has also not formed yet. That is enough to carry my point regardless of whether you want to call it consciousness, sapience or “wuppdittilybunk”.

Yet, as I pointed out one's "wuppdittilybunk" does not form until after birth. Care to address that?

Examples of objects devoid of these things: Table legs. Rocks. Cars. Walls. The foetus at 16 weeks development.

Why are you limiting your comparisons to inanimate things? Does it help to objectify the foetus at 16 weeks development?

nozzferrahhtoo

False. These things do form before birth. They may not have reached a level of operation to YOUR liking, but that is irrelevant to me as I base my opinion on abortion on whether the faculty is wholly absent… or not.

As I said many time now, if you can find any indication that the faculty has formed and is operating on ANY level in a 16 week old foetus then I will change my position drastically, until then I see it as being on the same level as rocks, trees, walls, limbs, or DNA. We do not assign rights to these things and there is no reason we should. Similarly I see no argument being offered here for assigning them to 16 week old blobs of cells either.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

False. These things do form before birth.

Evidence please. Credible preferably.

As I said many time now, if you can find any indication that the faculty has formed and is operating on ANY level in a 16 week old foetus then I will change my position drastically, until then I see it as being on the same level as rocks, trees, walls, limbs, or DNA.

You have yet to show evidence that it has formed after 16 weeks - just because the foetus has some brain cells does not mean it has it any more than a goldfish, after all.

nozzferrahhtoo

Already provided evidence. You just ignored it, despite me giving it numerous times.

I have quoted in this threads evidence showing not just where in the brain things like Consciousness lie but how we are even now starting to measure things like opinion, belief, ideas and knowledge at the level of the brain.

I also quoted a lot of back up for the claim that aspects of the brain that are linked to consciousness are entirely absent in the foetus at 16 weeks, including some of them which only start to fire at 20 weeks and do not become stable until 27.

Asking me again and again to present the same evidence for the same claims, does not somehow magically make it that I never presented them.

As I said before, my position is entirely falsifiable if you can present a single scrap of a shred of evidence to lend any credence to the idea that such faculties exist in even semi operational form in the foetus at 16 weeks. This is something you have failed to do and have instead hidden behind irrelevant equivocation of English terms.

If however you find any such evidence please come back and present it as I would be agog to hear it. Quite simply agog.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Already provided evidence. You just ignored it, despite me giving it numerous times.

Nope. Where? Linky please.

Zulu

It's the "credible" part of the evidence that you're lacking.

metrovelvet

Zulu wrote: »

It's the "credible" part of the evidence that you're lacking.

Doesn't it have to qualify as credible before it can even be considered evidence, and poor choice of a word whomever picked it first, indicates a crime.

nozzferrahhtoo

Read the thread and follow all the links I have posted therein so far. It is very easy to do with the search this thread option above. I have no obligation to post the same links over and over just to have them ignored and demands for links thrown back in my face.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Read the thread and follow all the links I have posted therein so far. It is very easy to do with the search this thread option above. I have no obligation to post the same links over and over just to have them ignored and demands for links thrown back in my face.

Did that and could not find anything that would remotely support your position. If I have missed something, please do tell, but otherwise I am putting into question that you have done anything of the sort.

Bare in mind that your position is dubious to begin with anyway, as it is simply a repackaging of the 'potential' argument; often used by pro-Life advocates. Incidentally, I have repeatedly pointed this out to you and you have conveniently ignored it.

AARRRGH

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I see it as being on the same level as rocks, trees, walls, limbs, or DNA. We do not assign rights to these things and there is no reason we should. Similarly I see no argument being offered here for assigning them to 16 week old blobs of cells either.

I think you'll find, in certain circumstances, some of the items you have listed DO have rights, e.g. protected trees.

So using your own logic, if we are decent enough to protect the rights of objects which lack faculty, it doesn't require a huge amount of generosity to protect the rights of a growing child.

nozzferrahhtoo

Again my position is clear. I will even use the words of someone on another site who disagrees with me to explain it again.

1) Rights are something that come from us and only us. We are aware of no other source for them.
2) The conscious mind is the source we have found for this. There is no sign of it coming from limbs, bones, blood, DNA etc.
3) Given that rights and the conscious mind are inextricably linked, I can see no basis for applying “rights” to object that’s are devoid of both.
4) I then provided scientific links showing that we can identify some characteristics that are a necessary pre-requisite of consciousness.
5) I then provided scientific links showing that these pre-requisites are entirely absent in a foetus between 0 and 16 weeks.

nozzferrahhtoo

Actually no, I do not see the trees as having rights. We might call them “protected trees” but it is not the trees we are actually assigning the rights to, it is us. We are protecting our own rights to have those trees in our world and not eradicated by extinction.

The species of trees themselves as a whole to our knowledge have no, nor are capable of, any notion of rights nor do they care if they were to go extinct or not.

However your example is a good one to support my claims that rights come from and only exist within us and our human minds. Were humans to go extinct tomorrow trees would not long have this "right" you say they are assigned. Clearly the "rights" are something that lie with and within only us and are not a trait the trees have in and of themselves. That is a fact that is deserving of a lot of unpacking.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

4) I then provided scientific links showing that we can identify some characteristics that are a necessary pre-requisite of consciousness.
5) I then provided scientific links showing that these pre-requisites are entirely absent in a foetus between 0 and 16 weeks.

No you haven't.

nozzferrahhtoo

Maybe if you say that enough, it might become true. However if you want to ignore every link I provided and not even comment on them or their content, but keep saying over and over they just are not there, I see no reason nor path by which to continue conversation. Go back, find the links, and tell me what it wrong with them.

Or falsify my position and show me even a scrap of evidence that lends any credence, let alone support, to the notion that human consciousness is possibly present in a feotus at 0-16 weeks development.

For example:

K.J.S. Anand, a researcher of newborns, and P.R. Hickey, published in NEJM say "intermittent electroencephalographic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.

If you have ANY science at all to support the notion that consciousness can possibly exist in a human fetus in the total absence of electroencephalographic activity in the cerebral hemispheres you will instantly annihilate everything I have been espousing here.

Awww what, cant do it huh? Shame.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Maybe if you say that enough, it might become true.

Or maybe if you say you supplied links to support your views enough times people might believe you?

However if you want to ignore every link I provided and not even comment on them or their content, but keep saying over and over they just are not there, I see no reason nor path by which to continue conversation. Go back, find the links, and tell me what it wrong with them.

Because we've been dancing so long in this thread that I have become accustomed to your modus operandi. I debunk the content of a link, only for you to then say, "it wasn't that one", or otherwise obfuscate matters. You did this originally with your supposed definition of humanity, changing your criteria and then when caught on this claiming this change was part of a 'process'.

For example:

K.J.S. Anand, a researcher of newborns, and P.R. Hickey, published in NEJM say "intermittent electroencephalographic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are first seen at 20 weeks gestation; they become sustained at 22 weeks and bilaterally synchronous at 26 to 27 weeks.

When did "intermittent electroencephalographic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres" become conciousness/sentience/sapience?

Electrical activity in the brain does not imply this at any level. Certainly, the potential for it to form is there, but neural pathways continue forming long after birth and until they form they are not there.

If you have ANY science at all to support the notion that consciousness can possibly exist in a human fetus in the total absence of electroencephalographic activity in the cerebral hemispheres you will instantly annihilate everything I have been espousing here.

Awww what, cant do it huh? Shame.

Actually, I have repeatedly been doing the opposite - pointing out that even after birth that "notion that consciousness" (which you still cannot seem to properly define) is not there.

That kinda makes your position a little untenable, unless you accept infanticide as acceptable.

nozzferrahhtoo

My claim is not that “intermittent electroencephalographic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres becomes consciousness”. My claim is that consciousness does not exist without it, nor I notice can you supply even a simple bit of science to suggest it does. Shame, but not unexpected. Let me know if that changes any time soon though. It would falsify my entire position.