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

AARRRGH

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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 trees are legally protected from being damaged or destroyed. To me that sounds very close to having rights.

How about I use a different word: protection.

We are protecting those trees, just like many people think we should protect the unborn.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Many trees are poisonous or have other protection systems. This suggests they do care if they are damaged or destroyed.

I await your complete refusal to agree with anything I have said. Only you can be right. Yes.

nozzferrahhtoo

The important words being „sounds very close“. Something that is very close to being X, clearly is not X. You can not be close to being something and be that something at the same time.

Your same comment could be made, for example, about protected historical structures or documents. Do you think structures and documents have “rights” because we protect them from harm, desecrations or destruction? If so then we clearly have a totally different definition of what we mean by rights. If not then I am not sure how you think it of trees and not of structures and documents.

Sure the word protection is probably better, however that still leaves us the same problem. I see no argument for protecting the foetus in the 0-16 week bracket and despite this thread being very long no one else has adumbrated any such reasons, preferring instead to attack my positions rather than espouse their own. At least with your trees you can cite the fact they are an endangered species in order to base _some_ argument for protecting them. The same argument does not work for the foetus, they are far from an endangered species.

As for your last comment, I am not sure how to even start with it. Do you really think that animals and plants develop protective systems because they “care” about their own survival? Honestly? Evolution is a thoughtless, mindless process. It does not develop these structures because it “cares” or “wants” anything. There is no mind behind it, nor is there any evidence on offer that such a mind exists. Trees no more develop protective defenses intentionally than a drop of water on a window pane “intends” to flow downwards to the bottom or gravity "intends" to hold us on the surface of this earth.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

If that is your position, then it is frankly BS. Electroencephalographic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are not unique to humans and as such are no indication of future sapience. Of course in humans, they have the potential to further develop into sapience, but then again a zygote has the same potential.

You propose nothing more than a reworking of the 'potential' argument, based upon your own arbitrary criteria that are in no way special or unique, and thus not deserving. All for a concept of 'conciousness' that you cannot actually define.

It's a ridiculously weak position.

nozzferrahhtoo

The Corinthian wrote: »

If that is your position, then it is frankly BS. Electroencephalographic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres are not unique to humans and as such are no indication of future sapience.

First I had to correct you and tell you my claim is not that “intermittent electroencephalographic bursts in both cerebral hemispheres becomes consciousness”.

Now I have to correct you and point out that I NEVER claimed they were unique either.

What I DID claim is that in a conversation of rights Human Conciousness IS unique and Electroencephalographic bursts are a known pre-requisite of same as without it the other can not exist.

When you intend to reply to what I have actually said instead of what I have not, let me know. Then again who needs an argument when you can just use phrases like "Thats BS".

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Now I have to correct you and point out that I NEVER claimed they were unique either.

I never suggest you did, that's the problem. Unless unique all you are doing is picking a random, subjective criteria.

What I DID claim is that in a conversation of rights Human Conciousness IS unique and Electroencephalographic bursts are a known pre-requisite of same as without it the other can not exist.

Human Conciousness IS unique, but Human Conciousness is not Electroencephalographic bursts - they are only a prerequisite, just like a heart, brain, spinal cord, or even human DNA are. All you have done is pick one of the pre-requites that conveniently coincides with your own agenda.

Additionally this is simply a reworking of the potential argument. You're not even pretending otherwise with your earlier "not at the same level" caveat, which turned out to be false.

Your position simply stated is that once one criteria for future Human Conciousness (not sapience itself) is statistically noted to form, then given it has a potential to form said Human Conciousness, it is considered a person.

You do not assign rights to Human Conciousness, but to one of several criteria for the potential of Human Conciousness, and that is simply subjective rubbish, TBH.

nozzferrahhtoo

The Corinthian wrote: »

Human Conciousness IS unique, but Human Conciousness is not Electroencephalographic bursts

Again I never claimed it was.

What I am claiming is the former can not exist without the latter. That is all.

I am not claiming any more or less than this.

Now if you are aware, however, of any evidence that lends even credence, let alone support, to the fact it is… my entire position would be falsified. So far you have not even tried but as I said why bother when you can just keep saying “That’s BS” or “that’s Rubbish” as if that means you have said something.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again I never claimed it was.

No, but you did claim that rights were derived from Human Conciousness, and here you are deriving them from Electroencephalographic bursts instead.

What I am claiming is the former can not exist without the latter. That is all.

Which as I said is only one of many criteria required, subjectively selected by you because of the time-lines involved.

Now if you are aware, however, of any evidence that lends even credence, let alone support, to the fact it is… my entire position would be falsified.

What position? It's nothing more than arbitrary criteria that you originally tried to dress up as something significant. But it's not and that is what falsifies your position and exposes it as drivel.

I'm being pretty clear on this, so I don't know why you are avoiding my points. Would pictures or diagrams make it easier for you to understand?

nozzferrahhtoo

False again, you seem to be with drkpower in the fetish of replying to things I never said.

Again I think X is derived from Y and Y can not exist in the absence of Z.

I am not saying X is therefore derived from Z.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again I think X is derived from Y and Y can not exist in the absence of Z.

I know this is what you are saying, but Z is subjective criteria. You could just as easily pick T, U, V and W, that are also required for Y to exist.

On top of that, you do not actually derive X from Y, but from the future potential of Y - which in turn is based on the aforementioned subjective criteria.

nozzferrahhtoo

There are many other things I could have picked. I pick the one that is not in the “grey area” however.

Look at it this way. Our knowledge of human consciousness is such that we can:

1) Identify periods during which consciousness on any level simply does not appear to be possible.
2) Identify periods when consciousness on any level is clearly present.

There is a grey area in the middle 1.5) where we do not understand the transition between 1 and 2. I can not therefore hold any intellectually honest position in that grey area on abortion. I therefore target my arguments at position 1.

I then look at all the pre-requisites for consciousness that I can find and picked the temporally last one. If these things develop in order A B C D E then why look at A-D when we know that without E you still could not possibly be area 1.5) or 2)? There is nothing subjective in this, it just makes literally no sense to look at the earlier ones.

If someone could identify for me an “F” then I would abandon “E”.

However I am currently ignorant of anything after week 20 that is a pre-requisite for human consciousness on any level which is absent at this point of development. We are in a grey area we simply do not understand, nor have we a single notion what the subjective experience of being such an entity now is. I can quite simply not find any intellectually honest ground on which to stand in support of abortion after 20 weeks of development. I am willing to consider any presented to me however.

Zulu

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There is a grey area in the middle 1.5) where we do not understand the transition between 1 and 2. I can not therefore hold any intellectually honest position in that grey area on abortion. I therefore target my arguments at position 1.

If someone could identify for me an “F” then I would abandon “E”.

Why wouldn't you offer position 1.5 the benifit of doubt - considering not doing so is terminal?
Our current society tends to err that way on other matters (ie: justice).

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

1) Identify periods during which consciousness on any level simply does not appear to be possible.

2) Identify periods when consciousness on any level is clearly present.

But the 'conciousness' you are talking about has nothing to do with your original criteria for humanity, which is our capacity to conceive rights, at twenty, thirty weeks or even at birth, this conciousness is little more than the ability to perceive and react to one's environment and the neural pathways required to develop our capacity to conceive rights simply do not exist. Certainly an infant has a brain, but for that matter so has a goldfish.

If your definition of humanity is based upon our capacity to conceive rights then, they have not until well after birth. What has developed are some of the organs and tissues necessary for this to later develop - but that is the old potential argument again.

Of course, if all you are talking about is our capacity to perceive and react to our environment, then we are probably talking about a point in the first or second trimester, but it has absolutely nothing to do with our capacity to conceive rights.

Now if you accept that it is all about our capacity to perceive and react to our environment, then your position is more coherent, or at least factual, however it is arguable that it is a reasonable cut-off point for humans, and it would still require caveats where that capacity is lost.

There is a grey area in the middle 1.5) where we do not understand the transition between 1 and 2. I can not therefore hold any intellectually honest position in that grey area on abortion. I therefore target my arguments at position 1.

I'd have to agree with Zulu in that it is pretty preposterous to not err on the side of caution where one could potentially be killing a person.

Imagine you are demolishing a building and call for it to be evacuated. You can say that everyone will certainly get out by 20 minutes and it is probable that everyone will get out in 10 minutes - which will you pick? Naturally, all other things being equal, you will err on the side of 20 minutes.

I then look at all the pre-requisites for consciousness that I can find and picked the temporally last one. If these things develop in order A B C D E then why look at A-D when we know that without E you still could not possibly be area 1.5) or 2)? There is nothing subjective in this, it just makes literally no sense to look at the earlier ones.

Again, this depends upon your definition of consciousness. If you are talking about our capacity to conceive rights, then no - this happens much later (the necessary pathways are a prerequisite that form after birth) and the criteria you have picked is no more critical than a heartbeat and you are simply picking the criteria on the basis that is suits your agenda.

If you are talking about our capacity to perceive and react to our environment, then you would be correct, but I would question this as a valid measure of humanity.

nozzferrahhtoo

Zulu wrote: »

Why wouldn't you offer position 1.5 the benifit of doubt - considering not doing so is terminal?
Our current society tends to err that way on other matters (ie: justice).

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'd have to agree with Zulu in that it is pretty preposterous to not err on the side of caution where one could potentially be killing a person

Corinthian I also agree totally with Zulu here. This is a point where I have agreed several times but it may have been missed in the rush to disagree with everything I say.

I DO offer 1.5) the benefit of the doubt. That is why as soon as all the pre-requisites for human consciousness are present in the foetus, I stop arguing for legalising abortion choice.

I have read a LOT about what pre-requisites are required for the existence of human consciousness. I therefore target my argument on abortion at point 1) where we can be sure the foetus is not a conscious entity.

As soon as we enter 1.5) the grey area, I give consciousness the benefit of the doubt as you suggest and no longer suggest abortion as a viable option.

So I say again, my ENTIRE argument is based on learning all I can about 2) and then using that knowledge to identify 1).

If an entity lies in area 1) then I see no reason to assign it “rights” and therefore I consequently see no argument for being against offering the choice of abortion at this point.

As Corinthian says, as soon as we enter into the "grey area" where we "could potentially be killing a person" my argument shuts down entirely and I no longer argue for legal abortion.

I find this grey area starts scientifically at around 20 weeks of development.

There is NO such grey area at 0-16 as the pre-requisites we know MUST be present in order for consciousness and the "person" to be present simply are not there, have never been there and are clearly not operational.

If someone were to present me arguments to show consciousness could be potentially present in a feotus at 0-16 weeks, and hence we are in the 1.5) grey area after all then my entire argument would have to return to the drawing board.

However no one has presented any arguments or science to even lend credence to this idea, let alone suggest it is possible, so I can only proceed based on the data I have.

drkpower

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As soon as we enter 1.5) the grey area, I give consciousness the benefit of the doubt as you suggest and no longer suggest abortion as a viable option.

Good point insofar as it goes.

But the problem is that you are using bad/incomplete science to err in favour of one side (in favour of protecting the foetus), which of course leads to adverse effects for the other side. That other side being the mother.

To examine this (and to widen the scope of this argument), I am going to presume for the moment that the natural consequence of your 'faculty' argument is that the foetus with the faculty is equal in all respects to you and me, and is therefore equal in all respects to its mother (in the sense that it has equal rights to life/bodily integrity etc...)? Is that correct?

So where a conflict arises between mother and foetus, whether it be at 17 or 39 weeks, if both foetus and mother are as equal as you & me, presumably the solution is not to intervene in favour of the mother, under any circumstances?

Perhaps I will wait & see what your answer is, but on the face of it, it appears you have a black & white attitude to this problem, albeit you have drawn the black and white lines at different points to the average pro-lifer (and have used grey areas of science to so do......;)). This B&W response to this most complex problem is incredibly naive and counter-productive. If the decades of dealing with this issue have thought us anything, it is that the issue will not respond to a B&W solution, however that solution has been arrived at.

The Corinthian

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I DO offer 1.5) the benefit of the doubt. That is why as soon as all the pre-requisites for human consciousness are present in the foetus, I stop arguing for legalising abortion choice.

Are we talking about basic consciousness or that faculty, sapience, that allows us to conceive the concept of rights and from which you see as the source of rights? This was, after all, your original philosophical basis for when a human is a human.

If the latter, then all the pre-requisites are not physically present until well after birth.

If you mean basic consciousness, like a goldfish, then sure, but you will need to explain again the basis for your choosing this as a measure of humanity.

Please do not ignore this point again, as you repeatedly are doing.

nozzferrahhtoo

Drkpower,

As long as our evidence and data is not 100% complete we will have to err on the side of caution for one side or the other. This is the area of rights and morality, there is inevitably a subjective element therein. I am not aware of any moral conclusion that is perfect, this is just the best I can do.

I am forced by my initial premise to err on the side of protecting the foetus, the initial premise being that this faculty from which rights arise is in any discussion of rights the thing we have to protect most. If there is any doubt that the faculty is there then I am with Zulu and Corinthian in suggesting it is probably best to err on the side of caution, which I do.

I take some relief from the statistics I discovered AFTER I reached my conclusion on abortion however. It seems that while erring on the side of caution of the foetus I was actually also erring on the side of what the majority of mothers actually want. This somewhat allayed the genuine fears I had to which you refer to above.

Those statistics are examples in the essay which started this long thread going with the zeal it has. I will refer to them again here:

www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

61.3% of abortions happen before 9 weeks in this example. Around 88% happen before 12 weeks. Of the remaining 12%, 58% of those claim to wish they had had it earlier.

So although the argument that I am not erring on the side of the mother appears valid and I am glad you raised it, it appears I am actually erring on the side of 94% of the mothers who have actually had abortions.

nozzferrahhtoo

The Corinthian wrote: »

Please do not ignore this point again, as you repeatedly are doing.

You ignoring my replies does not equate to me ignoring what you have raised. Saying someone has not replied when they have does not suddenly mean they have been ignoring you. This victim mentality will not get you far.

The faculty of human consciousness itself is present in late term foetus and new borns. It may not be operating on the level you specify but it is present and it operates.

My position, as I have said multiple times, is to protect a human consciousness as a whole in all its forms, not individual types or examples of operational levels of it.

And the whole basis of my position, which you have not even attempted to negate as yet, is that this faculty is not present in ANY form in a 0-16 weeks feotus, let alone in a reduced operational form with which you are so obsessed.

drkpower

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Drkpower,

As long as our evidence and data is not 100% complete we will have to err on the side of caution for one side or the other. This is the area of rights and morality, there is inevitably a subjective element therein. I am not aware of any moral conclusion that is perfect, this is just the best I can do.

I am forced by my initial premise to err on the side of protecting the foetus, the initial premise being that this faculty from which rights arise is in any discussion of rights the thing we have to protect most. .

Ok; so once you have determined that the foetus must be protected because it has the faculty that creates rights, presumably then it is completely equal with the mother?

And where a conflict arises between mother and foetus (threat to maternal health, low risk threat to life) presumably you advocate the law preventing any intervention that will kill the foetus?

nozzferrahhtoo

drkpower wrote: »

And where a conflict arises between mother and foetus (threat to maternal health, low risk threat to life) presumably you advocate the law preventing any intervention that will kill the foetus?

Drkpower,

Actually no, I would not. I would advocate a law that protects the life of the foetus where possible.

You are right to bring this up however. So far my whole position has been about abortion “choice”. That is, abortion in situations where it is being performed solely because the mother chooses to. You know by now my pro-choice position on that regard.

What you are asking about is different to that; it is abortion in situations involving more than just mere choice.

I am a believer in self defence too. If one person is threatening the survival of another, regardless of whether the threat is intentional or not, then the threatened party has a right to self defence. As in all self defence, the path of least repercussions is always preferable.

If the life of the mother is being threatened by the foetus then of course I would therefore give her the right to self defence in her choice to protect herself. If abortion is the only such path open then of course I would support her choice to have one at any stage. However if some form of premature birth is an option then of course I would advocate that.

drkpower

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Drkpower,

Actually no, I would not. I would advocate a law that protects the life of the foetus where possible.

You are right to bring this up however. So far my whole position has been about abortion “choice”. That is, abortion in situations where it is being performed solely because the mother chooses to. You know by now my pro-choice position on that regard.

What you are asking about is different to that; it is abortion in situations involving more than just mere choice.

I am a believer in self defence too. If one person is threatening the survival of another, regardless of whether the threat is intentional or not, then the threatened party has a right to self defence. As in all self defence, the path of least repercussions is always preferable.

If the life of the mother is being threatened by the foetus then of course I would therefore give her the right to self defence in her choice to protect herself. If abortion is the only such path open then of course I would support her choice to have one at any stage. However if some form of premature birth is an option then of course I would advocate that.

What about a risk to health, not to life? What if the woman's right to health, to live life free of disability is threatened? What do you advocate then?

What if a woman has a very low risk to life? It seems from the above that you would advocate abortion, given the woman's right to life is being threatened. If that is the case, I am somewhat puzzled. Your entire theory is that what makes us human is the ability to create rights. And that, therefore, you must protect any entity that has that faculty. And that a 16+ weeks foetus has that faculty......

But then you dont treat it equally. Or not even remotely close to equally? If a foetus creates a very small risk to the mother, why do you allow the mother to destroy that foetus? Is there any example/precedent in law/morals/ethics where someone, faced with a remote chance of death, is entitled to murder another to obviate that risk?

nozzferrahhtoo

Same thing drk, I respect the person’s right to self defence. If someone, intentionally or otherwise, was perpetrating an act that could leave you dead or crippled in some way I fully support your right to execute a reasonable response.

If the ONLY reasonable response open to you will result in the death of the other party then so be it.

If the risk to life is low then that is another story. Any appeal to right to self defence must be taken in the context of the threat involved. We have moved away from the topic of abortion now and have gone into the realm of “self defence” and what it entails and what is to be considered reasonable self defence in any given situation. It is an interesting discussion to have but it is nothing to do with abortion, and it is certainly nothing to do with “abortion by choice only” which was up until the last couple of posts what my entire position was being directed at.

It is a fantasy situation you build however since as far as I know as EVERY pregnancy is a “low risk” to the life of the mother so your appeal to “low risk” is so vague as to be meaningless in this context. Examples please. Point of reference for comparison please.

Not a single pregnancy is not a low risk to the mother. A woman can die at ANY time during a pregnancy or a birth and at very short, if any, notice at times. Things can go wrong with no warning, things can rupture, things can just break down. Pregnancy is a very risky time and long before the advent of modern medicine a huge proportion of deaths in our species have been attributed to two big killers. Problems in childbirth and problems with our teeth.

What I am talking about above is when there is a genuine, known, above and beyond the norm risk to the mother being caused by the pregnancy when the life of the mother is at a genuine predicted risk.

What you appear to be trying to do is to get a highly generalised reply from me on a highly generalised question and then show that you can imagine fantasy scenarios that somehow put a hole in that. It’s a common tactic/approach but bear in mind that if you get a general high level statement of anyone’s position on any topic you will find it easy to do this.

Get more specific rather than attack generalisations and you might find I can answer you better. However this vague waving of the hands reference to “Low risk threat to life” is simply unanswerable for me at this time as I have simply no idea to what you refer.

drkpower

'dead or crippled in some way'.......? What does that mean, Nozz? Do you mean quadraplegic? Or does crippled refer to a brain injury? Or what about a psychiatric injury after pregnancy? In this side of the debate, it seems, you are also fond of a lack of clarity... (lets see if some specifics might help - see below)

Im confused Nozz; the thing that makes us human is the faculty of conciousness and you have come to a determination that it exists at a certain point of time. And at that point in time, you feel that a foetus deserves protection, because it has that which makes us human. But then, when we put this into practice, it seems that this foetus is not worth protecting much at all, because even if it causes a risk to its mother's health (not even to its life), you advocate the killing of that foetus?

Can you explain how the faculty of conciousness somehow changes the status of a foetus from nothing to human, yet in the same breath, you advocate the killing of that human when they might affect maternal health or might have a tiny risk to maternal life?

Lets put a few practical examples on it. The first is the danger to health example (there are many more but lets see how you get on with this one): Mother has a history of post-natal depression. She is 17 weeks pregnant. It is estimated that the mother has a 40% chance of developing post-natal depression if she carries to term and delivers. The chance is 0% if she aborts now. Do you advocate that she is entitled to an abortion?

The second is the low risk to life example (there are many more but lets see how you get on with this one): Mother is 26 weeks pregnant. Develops early stages of pre-eclampsia/eclampsia. She is on treatment but it is estimated that she has a 1% chance of the eclampsia worsening rapidly, and causing her death before a termination can be effected and her life saved. She wants a termination. Is she entitled to one?

And, yes, while these hypotheticals are not necessarily common, they are real medical situations (which have happened before and will happen again).

nozzferrahhtoo

Drk,

I am not about to list every single possible ailment that can result from pregnancy and birth and categorise them for you by degrees of seriousness and likelihood of some for intervention under the banner of self defense for the mother.

As I said you have me giving a VERY generalised answer to a VERY generalised question and then attacking an answer that is too general with examples that are too specific.

However it seems from your first example that you do not quite get where I am coming from, so I can at least improve my own approach and attempt to clarify further.

The first specific example you gave me is of something that a) MIGHT develop, but we do not know if it will and b) Can be treated after the birth if it does. So in the case of this specific example NO I would not advocate abortion.

The situations I AM advocating it for, again generalised, are ones where the damage that will be caused is irreparable, serious and not treatable after the event. Death would be an example. Becoming in some way physically disabled would be another.

Depression is a treatable condition after the cause, and as such is not what I am talking about here.

drkpower

Nozz, first, you have entirely avoided the following:

the thing that makes us human is the faculty of conciousness and you have come to a determination that it exists at a certain point of time. And at that point in time, you feel that a foetus deserves protection, because it has that which makes us human. But then, when we put this into practice, it seems that this foetus is not worth protecting much at all, because even if it causes a risk to its mother's health (not even to its life), you advocate the killing of that foetus? .

Second, the reason why I chose a couple of examples is to try and get you to be a little bit more specific about how you see the rights of a foetus balancing angainst its mother. The reason why that is important is because you have developed a (very poor;)) theory that states that a foetus (after X weeks) has the faculty that creates rights and this is the key factor in why we value humans and why we confer rights upon such humans. But then, it rapidly becomes clear that this foetus, which has this valuable faculty, can still be killed merely because it poses a threat to its mother's health or a very low risk to its mother's life.

So, it seems that despite arguing that this 'faculty' is the key to the conferral of rights, and is so important for the purpose of one discussion (whether a foetus has rights), it rapidly loses its importance when it comes to another discussion (the extent of those rights).

Its another illustration of making up your mind first, and then creating the argument to suit it afterwards. If your view is that the 'faculty' was really so important, was really the source of human rights, then you would have to conclude that a foetus with the faculty, and its mother, are equal. And then you would need to treat them equally. That would mean that, for instance, if pre-eclampsia posed a 60% risk to the mother, you could not advocate killing one to save the other; you would simply leave nature take its course. That is the logical consequence of your 'faculty' argument. But i have absoilutely no doubt that your view on this hypothetical is that a termination is permitted. Why? Because your views on this subject came first, and then you created your theory afterwards in an attempt to support those views. That is entirely transparent.

So, simply put, if a foetus (post 16 weeks) has that which makes us human, and that upon which we confer rights, why does it not have completely equal rights to its mother?

drkpower

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The first specific example you gave me is of something that a) MIGHT develop, but we do not know if it will and b) Can be treated after the birth if it does. So in the case of this specific example NO I would not advocate abortion..

Just to deal with these briefly.

Re a): Medicine is all about things that MIGHT develop. If you wait for them to develop (rather than treating earlier) your possibility of succesfully treating is severely compromised. So again, if there is a 1% risk of death from pre-eclampsia, do you advocate a termination (of a foetus whiuch has the faculty that makes us human) or do you advocate forcing the woman to wait until her condition becomes so severe that her chance of a succesful treatment is extremely low?

Re b): Post-natal depression may be treated after birth. That treatment is not always succesful. So the mother may be left with life-long depression. Is that an irreparable, serious and not treatable condition that warrants termination (of a foetus whiuch has the faculty that makes us human)?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The situations I AM advocating it for, again generalised, are ones where the damage that will be caused is irreparable, serious and not treatable after the event. Death would be an example. Becoming in some way physically disabled would be another.

Depression is a treatable condition after the cause, and as such is not what I am talking about here.

This is your problem. You generalise. You talk about disease like the human body is a car. This is treatable; this is not. You want clean solutions (like your faculty theory) rather than dealing with the reality.

That is not how things work. Some conditions respond to treatment; others dont. You dont know in advance. Post-natal depression can be life-long/can pre-dispose to lifelong depression. Post-natal depression can be treated succesfully. Pre-eclampsia can be treated succesfully. Sometimes it MIGHT get worse; when it gets worse, sometimes you can intervene before the mother dies/sustains a serious lifelong injury - sometimes, you cant.

nozzferrahhtoo

For someone who goes around sites telling me:

I have realised (about a month too late ) that I wont convince you of (or you wont admit) the error of your ways so I wont continue to try.

You did not stay away from trying long.

And as I said on that site to your false accusations that I “avoid” things:

Also this is not the first time you have asked why there are questions I avoid answering. I explain again, if I think you do not understand where I am coming from on a point X, and I think that you need to understand X before I answer question Y, then I will refrain from answering question Y until such time as you understand X, as any attempt to answer would be utterly pointless.

But I guess it is easy to go around saying “You are avoiding it” and “Very poor” rather than actually make a point, as if calling something “Very Poor” suddenly and magically causes it to acquire that characteristic, which would of course make your life a lot easier. But any of us can go around calling what the other person says “very poor” and I could say the exact same about your last two posts above. Thankfully only one of us reduced ourselves to this level of decorum in this.

As I said, as soon as the foetus is assigned rights such as “right to life” then I view that right as entirely equal to that of the mother. If a situation arises where the life of one is threatening the life of the other I advocate doing whatever is necessary to protect the victim in this from the attacker. If a solution to this is possible without harming the life of the attacker, then that is the solution I advocate.

If it becomes “rapidly becomes clear that this foetus, which has this valuable faculty, can still be killed merely because it poses a threat to its mother's health or a very low risk to its mother's life” then it is only clear to you therefore, because this is not the position I espouse, but rather one you have invented yourself and then assumed came from me.

drkpower

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As I said, as soon as the foetus is assigned rights such as “right to life” then I view that right as entirely equal to that of the mother. If a situation arises where the life of one is threatening the life of the other I advocate doing whatever is necessary to protect the victim in this from the attacker. If a solution to this is possible without harming the life of the attacker, then that is the solution I advocate.

2 points: First, you refer above to where the life of one is threatening the life of the other. Earlier you also said that you advocated killing the foetus where it threatened the 'health' of its mother. Have you changed your mind or is that an innocent ommission? In any case, how can you square the equal rights you attach to the foetus with your willingness to kill it when it 'threatens' the health of the mother?

Second, there is no 'attacker', Nozz. That simply betrays a misunderstanding of medicine and physiology. There are only two victims; both victims of biochemical processes occurring in the mother and the foetus.

If you are to use the language and morality of 'attacker' and 'victim' and if you believe that a foetus and a mother are absolutely equal, do you advocate termination (after 24-28 weeks preganancy) of the mother (or perhaps just incarceration) if it 'attacks' the foetus by engaging in drug abuse/other behaviour known to affect the foetus? If not, why not?

nozzferrahhtoo

Drk,

What do I mean by health... Again as I said it was a general answer to a general question. However I since clarified what I mean by this, maybe you just missed it. I clarified that I was talking about things like death or permanent untreatable conditions such as some form of disability etc etc.

You must understand Drk that this has shifted very suddenly from a conversation that I was solely making about when abortion should be available by CHOICE to one about when abortion should be considered medically to be the only option available after that period of choice.

We could both come up with examples all day of different ailments and outcomes each possible pregnancy complication can cause and what my position is on each one. I am sure if we added both of our minds together we only know a fraction of what those complications could be too. However we could be here forever and it has nothing to do with the original conversation we were having.

You are right that this is a difficult conversation to have, and there is no general answer we can give to it easily. If the life of the mother is being threatened then I would advocate whatever it takes GENERALLY to protect her. However I have no idea where to draw the line on this. If you say to me “The woman is 25 weeks pregnant and there is a 95% chance this pregnancy will kill her” then of course I am going to say “Let her abort”. If you say “… and there is a 1% chance the pregnancy is going to kill her” then I will not. Where that line is to be drawn 10%, 40%, 60&… I honestly hold up my hands and say I do not know.

But if a condition cuased by this can be addressed without termination I would always advocate that course of action. Sure, as you said, depression is not always treatable, but it can be and so we have to try and choose that course of action. Allow both to live and then treat the consequences after. Just because we MIGHT fail at this, does not negate the onus to attempt.

However death is clearly not treatable, and in cases where the mother is going to die, she should have the option of self defence offered to her. If termination of the pregnancy is the only such option, then so be it.

However not knowing what my opinion is on THAT % cut off in no way impacts what, and how, I have been espousing on abortion purely by choice up until now, which is why I am making a big deal of highlighting so often this change of topic. I am not complaining about the change of topic, but I think it important to highlight this is two different things here.

I will concede however that “attacker” is not the best word. I could not think of a better one at the time and still can not. I am merely trying to portray the difference between one life endangering another where the former would otherwise be just fine if the latter were removed from the equation. I am therefore talking about finding a way to protect one from the harm of the other, while always advocating whatever course of action can be attempted without threatening the life of either.

I chose to go with victim/attacker on this, but feel free to use whatever labels you want for it. Once we both know what I mean by this, I honestly do not care if you label them Apple/Banana.

drkpower

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I will concede however that “attacker” is not the best word. I could not think of a better one at the time and still can not. I am merely trying to portray the difference between one life endangering another where the former would otherwise be just fine if the latter were removed from the equation. I am therefore talking about finding a way to protect one from the harm of the other, while always advocating whatever course of action can be attempted without threatening the life of either.

I chose to go with victim/attacker on this, but feel free to use whatever labels you want for it. Once we both know what I mean by this, I honestly do not care if you label them Apple/Banana.

Ok; we now have the use of 'one endangering the other'.

So the first question is this (which I already asked); if this is the key test, and if a foetus and a mother are absolutely equal, would you advocate termination or incarceration of the mother if she conciously engages in behaviour that endangers the foetus (ie. by engaging in drug abuse etc)? If not, why not?

Secondly, if 'one endangering the other' is the test, what about endometrial cancer during pregnancy. Women with endometrial cancer will dramatically reduce the chances of succesful treatment if they delay it until delivery (for illustrative purposes, lets say the chances of death goes from 10% - with termination and treatment - to 70% - with delivery and treatment). Do you advocate the termination of the foetus (which is an inevitable consequence of treatment for the mother) in order to give the mother a better chance of survival? Remeber, this is not a case of the foetus endangering the mother. And neither party is certain to die if treatment is delayed. So surely, as they are absolutely equal, you would just leave them both to their own devices, yes?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You are right that this is a difficult conversation to have, and there is no general answer we can give to it easily. If the life of the mother is being threatened then I would advocate whatever it takes GENERALLY to protect her. However I have no idea where to draw the line on this. If you say to me “The woman is 25 weeks pregnant and there is a 95% chance this pregnancy will kill her” then of course I am going to say “Let her abort”. If you say “… and there is a 1% chance the pregnancy is going to kill her” then I will not. Where that line is to be drawn 10%, 40%, 60&… I honestly hold up my hands and say I do not know. .

Yes, it is difficult. But this is my point; for you, it should be easy. You have used your theory to prove that the foetus (after X weeks) and mother are absolutely equal. That has some fairly obvious practical consequences. But you are now running away from these consequences. Why? Because it is patently obvious you do not accept them!!!:D You created a theory to suit your ends, but you didnt actually think about the consequences of your theory.

Nozz, I admire you for seeking answers, seeking a theory that can objectively come up with answers to the cess-pit of a moral quandry that is the abortion debate. But you will not find one. Im only pointing to a few of the problems that your theory leads you to. I could point to a million more medico-lego-ethical problems but Im tired now;).

But seriously, answer the two Q's above; and do it honestly - and then see what way you should answer them if you really do believe that a foetus and a mother are absolutely equal.

nozzferrahhtoo

Drk,

We are going wildly off topic here. We have gone from abortion by choice, to the necessity of abortion in certain medical conditions, to whether or not I want to incarcerate people who endanger the foetus in totally abortion unrelated scenarios such as drug abuse. I am sorry, but this has drifted so far down a tangent that I am entirely uninterested in it any more. I do not do tangents.

Suffice to say however that incarceration is not the only way to protect or deal with drug addicts, but if you want to learn more on this issue, please find a thread about drug addiction and someone who is not a complete lay man on drug addiction and its treatment as I am.

And as for your question about endometrial cancer you will find this is already answered. But you chose to only read PART of what I said which was about one endangering the other. Please re-read your own question and then re-read what I wrote here: “where the former would otherwise be just fine if the latter were removed from the equation.“.

I reject your claim that you ended your post with however that it “should be easy”. This is entirely fantasy.This is one of the biggest moral issues of our time. There is absolutely no grounds upon which to say it “should be easy”. It _should_ be very difficult from what I can see.

Especially rememerbing that what I am actually here talking about and advocating is abortion by choice in the period BEFORE I see any reason to assign the foetus rights which is wholly and entirely unrelated to the moral choices regarding if/when to use abortion as a medical course of action in the 1000s of possible scenarios that we can dream up that can occour AFTER this period.

It is, as I said, not what I here to discuss and it is, as I said, a subject I honestly do not yet know precisely where I come down on. However not knowing where I come down in a situation where there are two equal humans of two equal rights has nothing what so ever to do with one human and one barely differentiated blob of cells with as much capability of human consciousness as a table leg.