Legalise abortion

drkpower · 20-04-2010 08:59AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

Come on Nozz, you can do better than that. The thread is called 'Legalise Abortion'; it is pages long; various aspects of the debate have been covered. We have gone over your theory in detail. I think it is fundamentally unsound (as do many others) - I've told you such in as many ways as I can. You dont accept that - that's cool.

What I am now turning to is the consequences of your theory; what does your theory actually mean. If a foetus post 16 weeks has what it means to be human, doesnt that mean it is equal to you and me; and if it does, what does that mean.

So please, answer the very straightforward questions I raised; if you can't or dont want to, fine, but don't use the old 'off-topic' excuse. I thought you were a little bit more honest than that;).

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

You must know that that is simply incorrect. You advocate right for a foetus post 16 weeks because that entity has what makes us human. That is the core of your theory. Surely if the foetus has the faculty that makes us human, does that not make him equal to you and me? Or am I missing something?

Does the foetus still rank below the mother, even though he has that which makes us human?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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..

Oh come on Nozz; please..... Youu have clearly given this 'issue' a lot of thought. And you seem a clever enough guy (this theory excepted..). Surely you are capable of and should have already considered these moral quandries; particularly where your own theory leads you directly to these quandries. Playing dumb now doesnt wash, Im afraid.

The Corinthian · 20-04-2010 03:06PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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.

No, however it is not that I am ignoring your replies, it is that your replies ignore my question and thus are irrelevant.

The basis for your position is that our rights are derived from our capacity to conceive them. I have repeatedly pointed out that consciousness does not facilitate this, but that it is the product of our creative intellectual facilities that only humans are in possession of and that do not physically develop until long after birth.

Yet you persist in claiming that it is all down to human consciousness - it's not. I have been pointing out to you that you have at best been mixing up your terms for months now.

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.

It's not even operational levels - the creative intellectual ability, even in a basic form, that leads to us to abstract intellectual thought is not physically present in the human mind until long after birth. I even provided links showing that the necessary neurological development simply has not taken place.

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.

Of course it is not present in a 0-16 week old fetus, and I have repeatedly accepted this. However it is not present in a 17+ week old fetus either.

Unless you are only talking about human consciousness, which is no different to most vertebrates. If so, then you need to explain why this is a valid source of rights, in light of your earlier claim that they should be derived from something far more advanced.

nozzferrahhtoo · 22-04-2010 07:31AM

Drk,

The „consequences“ of my theory are irrelevant in the area you are discussing them. My whole argument thus far has been directed solely at abortion by choice. Making abortion available to those who choose to avail of it if and when they want to.

The medical necessity of abortion in OTHER circumstances such as medical intervention is a wholly different area of discussion and is nothing to do with what I have been talking about so far.

Suffice to say however, if you are asking me can I imagine medical scenarios during which the rights of the foetus to live are usurped by the rights of the mother to defend her own life… despite the fact I see them as two equal beings… then yes I can. What those situations are, where the cut off should lie, and what ways to regulate that I honestly do not know however and the best we can do is sit here for post after post with you making up potential scenarios and me ticking some form of “Yes/No/Maybe” boxes.

I would be surprised if you too could not think of such scenarios. Even the most strident pro-life campaigner when pressed will admit to SOME scenarios when they would allow abortion to be performed.

nozzferrahhtoo · 22-04-2010 07:36AM

Corinthian,

Must like ignoring my replies does not mean I have not been replying, saying that you are not ignoring my replies also does not magically mean you have not. I have replied, at length, over many pages to everything you have presented. Nor does your failure to understand them constitute a failure in my arguments such as….

The Corinthian wrote: »

The basis for your position is that our rights are derived from our capacity to conceive them.

No, not just our ability to conceive them, but our possession of a faculty that in and of itself is the sole origin of them. Regardless of the individual operating status of any ONE example of that faculty. In other words it is the human faculty of consciousness that is elevated as a whole in any discussion on rights. Just because you find an individual entity who possess an individual example of that faculty which itself can not conceive of “rights” does not mean that entity is not still in possession of the faculty itself.

The foetus at a certain point, the coma patient, the infant, they all HAVE the faculty of which I speak, despite the fact it is not currently operating at the level yours and mine are.

Now if you could understand that ONE aspect of my entire argument, you will find all the rest of my arguments which you also fail to understand will likely suddenly fall into place.

drkpower · 22-04-2010 07:50AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Drk,

The „consequences“ of my theory are irrelevant in the area you are discussing them. My whole argument thus far has been directed solely at abortion by choice. Making abortion available to those who choose to avail of it if and when they want to.

The medical necessity of abortion in OTHER circumstances such as medical intervention is a wholly different area of discussion and is nothing to do with what I have been talking about so far.

'The consequences of your theory are irrelevent in the area you are discussing them.....'..

Im afraid that is nonsense and your reluctance (actually refusal...) to deal with the consequences of your theory is puzzling.

Your theory establishes (sic) that a foetus post-16 weeks is 'equal'; the suggestion that the natural and probable consequences of that 'discovery' are irrelevent to how you deal with other conflicts of rights (between foetus and mother) is a nonsesne. The suggestion that you can look at 0-16 weeks/abortion by choice as a seperate issue to abortion in all circumstances is a medical, ethical and legal nonsense. They are all part of the same debate.

I'm afraid if you are unwilling to actually discuss this issue in the round, in an honest manner, there isnt much point. Best of luck with the theory though;).

nozzferrahhtoo · 22-04-2010 08:24AM

You can sit there and call everything left right and centre „nonsense“ until the cows come home. Calling things nonsense does not magically make them acquire that attribute. We can all sit here and just call things each other says nonsense all we like, it adds nothing, so I would request you raise your game. I can just as easily say it of anything you say to me, just like you so willingly bandy it about as an easy to use club for anything I say. Some decorum please.

As I said, despite the fact that after my cut off I consider them EQUAL beings, I am very willing to concede that we can all easily come up with scenarios in our minds where at some point the rights of one are usurped by the rights of the other to live, thrive and survive.

My inability and unwillingness to be drawn into fitting my opinion on where that cut off should exist into a sentence you could fit into a fortune cookie for your convenience in no way impacts negatively anything I have espoused to date, despite the fact you wish to tout that as some kind of one up point scoring in some competition only you are a participant in.

I just would not be intellectually dishonest enough to reduce my position on one of the biggest moral conundrums of our time into a handy sound bite that you are able to hammer on with specific examples the sound bite does not appear to cater to.

Unless you want to throw out „Abortion should not be allowed under any circumstances ever“ I simply am not aware of a single catch all solution to the questions you are asking me. Maybe you can adumbrate yours so I can see clearer where you are coming from on the matter?

The Corinthian · 22-04-2010 09:11AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Must like ignoring my replies does not mean I have not been replying, saying that you are not ignoring my replies also does not magically mean you have not. I have replied, at length, over many pages to everything you have presented. Nor does your failure to understand them constitute a failure in my arguments such as….

Please desist from using condescending dismissal as a means to avoid counterargument. It is intellectually dishonest.

No, not just our ability to conceive them, but our possession of a faculty that in and of itself is the sole origin of them.

Which, as I have repeatedly pointed out, we are not in possession of until long after birth.

The foetus at a certain point, the coma patient, the infant, they all HAVE the faculty of which I speak, despite the fact it is not currently operating at the level yours and mine are.

No, they have consciousness, much like any animal, but that faculty from which the ability to conceive abstract concepts such as rights has not physically formed yet.

drkpower · 23-04-2010 08:50AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You can sit there and call everything left right and centre „nonsense“ until the cows come home. Calling things nonsense does not magically make them acquire that attribute. We can all sit here and just call things each other says nonsense all we like, it adds nothing, so I would request you raise your game. I can just as easily say it of anything you say to me, just like you so willingly bandy it about as an easy to use club for anything I say. Some decorum please.

As I said, despite the fact that after my cut off I consider them EQUAL beings, I am very willing to concede that we can all easily come up with scenarios in our minds where at some point the rights of one are usurped by the rights of the other to live, thrive and survive.

My inability and unwillingness to be drawn into fitting my opinion on where that cut off should exist into a sentence you could fit into a fortune cookie for your convenience in no way impacts negatively anything I have espoused to date, despite the fact you wish to tout that as some kind of one up point scoring in some competition only you are a participant in.

I just would not be intellectually dishonest enough to reduce my position on one of the biggest moral conundrums of our time into a handy sound bite that you are able to hammer on with specific examples the sound bite does not appear to cater to.

Unless you want to throw out „Abortion should not be allowed under any circumstances ever“ I simply am not aware of a single catch all solution to the questions you are asking me. Maybe you can adumbrate yours so I can see clearer where you are coming from on the matter?

What a load of nonsense.

You are the one who views a foetus > 16 weeks equal to its mother; either have the balls to consider the natural consequences of that position or get off the stage. At least the rabid pro-lifer takes a position and defends it. Your cowardice is nauseating.

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-04-2010 07:19AM

Corinthian, for weeks now your entire approach to argument with me is to deride me, condescend me, claim I am ignoring things I replied to and then to call me the intellectually dishonest one. When you want to get back on topic do so, I am not about to engage in who can do the biggest ad hominem with you. Saying people ignore you does not mean they have. Ignoring replies does not mean they were never made. There is page after page after page of replies from me to you now, so if you want to say those replies do not exist, then enjoy yourself.

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-04-2010 07:23AM

drkpower wrote: »

What a load of nonsense.

Again, I am not sure why I engage in argument, quotations of science papers, and studies when it would just be so much easier to go “that’s nonsense” and run away. Who needs to sum up the full wealth of your experience, wisdom, study and education when you can just drop your hand into a random bag of throw away comments and pick one out like this. I could not do it better myself especially not if I was you.

You are the one who views a foetus > 16 weeks equal to its mother;

Yes and as I said I am also of the view that when you take two equals, regardless of whether it is mother and feotus, man and wife, brother and sister, or you and I... there will always be scenarios we can dream up where the rights of one will necessarily usurp the rights of the other. I am still not sure where your problem is with that declaration.

Your cowardice is nauseating.

Insults demean only the insulter, never the insulted. Ever. It simply is not big, or clever. You let no one down but yourself acting in this fashion. If you want to enter into a slagging match, I am sure there is a playground near you where past experience tells me there are many people operating at this level. You will not get it from me however so have some decorum here please.

The Corinthian · 26-04-2010 07:28AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Corinthian, for weeks now your entire approach to argument with me is to deride me, condescend me, claim I am ignoring things I replied to and then to call me the intellectually dishonest one.

No, for months my approach has been to hold you accountable to the very definitions that you have proposed as the basis of your position.

I have repeatedly pointed out that consciousness alone does not satisfy your (original) criteria, and you have never responded to this. There are only so many times I can repeatedly ask you to respond and you can blankly ignore me before I have to suspect that it is intentional.

When you want to get back on topic do so, I am not about to engage in who can do the biggest ad hominem with you. Saying people ignore you does not mean they have. Ignoring replies does not mean they were never made. There is page after page after page of replies from me to you now, so if you want to say those replies do not exist, then enjoy yourself.

Were they replies to the points I made and not the points you preferred I'd made I would take you more seriously.

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-04-2010 09:24AM

Again, there are pages of responses replying to the points you brought up. Read them or ignore them at will. But as I said ignoring them does not mean they were never made.

The Corinthian · 26-04-2010 09:27AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Again, there are pages of responses replying to the points you brought up. Read them or ignore them at will. But as I said ignoring them does not mean they were never made.

I have ignored nothing. Your responses have repeatedly been to questions never asked.

Again; I have repeatedly pointed out that consciousness alone does not satisfy your (original) criteria, and you have never responded to this. There are only so many times I can repeatedly ask you to respond and you can blankly ignore me before I have to suspect that it is intentional.

I defy you to point to a single response from you that answers the above.

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-04-2010 09:37AM

Yet again I do not claim consciousness alone is enough. I said that HUMAN conciousness is the only source of morality and rights we are aware of therefore I protect HUMAN conciousness in all its forms.

The Corinthian · 26-04-2010 09:55AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yet again I do not claim consciousness alone is enough. I said that HUMAN conciousness is the only source of morality and rights we are aware of therefore I protect HUMAN conciousness in all its forms.

Except, consciousness - human or otherwise - is not the only source of morality. It is not even a source of morality, let alone the only one. And it is this that I have repeatedly challenged you on, since last year.

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-04-2010 10:09AM

If you are aware of another source feel free to demonstrate it. However I am not. Unless you want to go back to equivocating on English terms like Sentience and consciousness, but this is useless to me as they are both inextricably linked to the same elements in our brain which... woopys... are wholly absent in a fetus from 0-16 weeks which means again I have to ask you, and again you will likely not answer.... what basis is there for an argument to support assigning rights to a fetus between 0-16 weeks that we do not assign to, say, trees, cows or table legs.

The Corinthian · 26-04-2010 10:26AM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

If you are aware of another source feel free to demonstrate it. However I am not. Unless you want to go back to equivocating on English terms like Sentience and consciousness, but this is useless to me as they are both inextricably linked to the same elements in our brain which... woopys... are wholly absent in a fetus from 0-16 weeks which means again I have to ask you, and again you will likely not answer.... what basis is there for an argument to support assigning rights to a fetus between 0-16 weeks that we do not assign to, say, trees, cows or table legs.

What differentiates humans from other animals, or even now-extinct primates, is not consciousness. All animals have consciousness. There is nothing special about it.

What differentiates humans from other animals is sapience, our capacity for abstract thought, without which we could not have come up with higher notions such as rights. A brain alone does not grant us that, otherwise any animal with a brain would be like us.

Our sapience is a product of neural pathways, which are simply not formed until long after birth. To put it bluntly, infants are no different intellectually to puppies, and it takes literally years for us to develop the pathways necessary for abstract thought, let alone mature abstract thought.

Let me underline, that is is not a question of this this facility not being mature, but that it physically has not formed yet. What has formed is a brain, with the potential to develop neurologically to this mature state, nothing more.

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-04-2010 01:53PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I have to ask you, and again you will likely not answer.... what basis is there for an argument to support assigning rights to a fetus between 0-16 weeks that we do not assign to, say, trees, cows or table legs.

See? I told you you would not answer my question. And you are the one going around accusing ME of ignoring what YOU have been saying? Lovely. The only difference being when you claim it, it has not been true.

The Corinthian · 26-04-2010 02:14PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

See? I told you you would not answer my question. And you are the one going around accusing ME of ignoring what YOU have been saying? Lovely. The only difference being when you claim it, it has not been true.

But that is a straw man - There is no need, by your logic, to assign rights to the fetus at 0 - 16 weeks. The problem is (by your criteria) those rights should not be assigned until long after birth. I am simply pointing out that you are wrong to assign them at 16+ weeks. I have repeatedly pointed this out to you.

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-04-2010 02:19PM

I honestly do not care i fit is a straw man or not. You are here accusing me of ignoring things you say when I in fact did not, and there is page after page of me answering you.

As a test in return I asked you something, and blatantly predicted it would be YOU infact ignoring MY points.

And you did.

This is just the kind of person you are. You falsely accuse others of doing what you do yourself and post #827 - #829 are a blatant demonstration of this fact.

I want no more to do with you.

evolutionqy7 · 26-04-2010 02:20PM

i think it should be made legal...its not up to you or any one else to judge what's right for a girl or a couple...

should have the freedom of choice

The Corinthian · 26-04-2010 02:35PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I honestly do not care i fit is a straw man or not. You are here accusing me of ignoring things you say when I in fact did not, and there is page after page of me answering you.

There is page after page of you answering questions I didn't ask. And still you have not answered!

As a test in return I asked you something, and blatantly predicted it would be YOU infact ignoring MY points.

It is frankly laughable that you still have not responded to my point, decided to change the discussion with a 'test' and then cry that you're being ignored because I won't let you change the subject.

I want no more to do with you.

Diddums. I suppose it exonerates you from responding to my point which regrettably raises a rather uncomfortable flaw in your position.

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-04-2010 02:37PM

evolutionqy7 wrote: »

i think it should be made legal...its not up to you or any one else to judge what's right for a girl or a couple...

should have the freedom of choice

I agree to an extent, but you have to taper that argument strongly too. For example one could say “I think murder is ok. It is not up to you or me to decide what is right for the person who committed it. They should have freedom of choice.”

So although your argument is agreeable, it needs to be extended greatly in order to clear up exactly what you mean as it is very much open to straw man or misinterpretation which you do not want.

We do have to protect the rights of others I feel, infant and adult alike. The issue is that up to a certain point in the foetal development process I see literally no basis for assuming the foetus HAS rights to be protected in the first place and so their protection or comparison to those of the mother are entirely irrelevant.

evolutionqy7 · 26-04-2010 03:00PM

yeah but i mean what's the point of raising a child that isnt wanted...like me now if my gf got pregnant i wouldn't want it...and the anger would be taken out on him/her instead of being brought up in a welcoming family. A child that would be brought up in a non loving family is more likely to follow the path of criminal instead of a respected citizen. We would kill a bug without even thinking or cut a tree....They are alive too...Why isnt it against the law to harm nature then? im not a nature freak just making a point...

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-04-2010 03:12PM

evolutionqy7 wrote: »

yeah but i mean what's the point of raising a child that isnt wanted...like me now if my gf got pregnant i wouldn't want it...and the anger would be taken out on him/her instead of being brought up in a welcoming family. A child that would be brought up in a non loving family is more likely to follow the path of criminal instead of a respected citizen. We would kill a bug without even thinking or cut a tree....They are alive too...Why isnt it against the law to harm nature then? im not a nature freak just making a point...

Again I respect your position on this but it is a little dangerous as it could be twisted easily. What if I have a 5 year old that I do not “want” any more? Can I just murder it with impunity as it would be better off that way rather than being brought up in a family where it is not wanted?

The issue should be that either the foetus has rights, or it does not. If at a certain point it does not then there is no issue with terminating it.

I, for one, can not see a single reason to assign rights to the foetus up until the age of 16 weeks. That is why I support abortion up until this time.

Exon · 26-04-2010 03:17PM

Legalising things to stop crime is backwards.

nozzferrahhtoo · 26-04-2010 03:26PM

Exon wrote: »

Legalising things to stop crime is backwards.

This I would wholly agree with. In all my argument for the pro-choice position I have never once reduced myself to the argument, for example, of “We may as well make it legal, sure if we do not they will either go to England or do the job themselves with a coat hanger”

This is just a type of argument I would never make.

Zulu · 26-04-2010 03:39PM

evolutionqy7 wrote: »

i think it should be made legal...its not up to you or any one else to judge what's right for a girl or a couple...

should have the freedom of choice

And if my girl wanted to kill you, it's her chioce right? So no problem there... :rolleyes:

The Corinthian · 26-04-2010 03:42PM

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

This I would wholly agree with. In all my argument for the pro-choice position I have never once reduced myself to the argument, for example, of “We may as well make it legal, sure if we do not they will either go to England or do the job themselves with a coat hanger”

This is just a type of argument I would never make.

No, but you have based your 16-week threshold on the basis of a false position - that human rights are derived from our capacity to conceive them and this capacity exists after 16-weeks. End then you refuse to address this when it is challenged.

In that context, you are not far removed from making up the rules as you go along, as you have supposedly rejected.

evolutionqy7 · 26-04-2010 04:24PM

Zulu wrote: »

And if my girl wanted to kill you, it's her chioce right? So no problem there... :rolleyes:

why do ye always change the structure of a my sentence

i just think it should be made legal... i dont see how using condoms and contraception is any different to having an abortion after a few weeks of getting pregnant?

unplanned pregnancy destroys peoples lives. it can happen to any one...
im a student and if my gf got pregnant got pregnant it would destroy my studies and social life. why not have the choice of waiting till its the right time?

Legalise abortion

Comments