Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Abortion debate thread

1…2122242627…59

Comments

  • #692
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    doctoremma wrote: »
    I don't know about you but I am, biologically speaking, immensely different to the single cell I once was. Heck, I'm probably biologically different to the collection of cells I was last week.

    I was radically different to the way I was as a newborn, but that point doesn't 1) detract from the fact that I am the same life as I was then which is why I'm referred to as being the same entity, 2) give you or anyone else the right to advocate for death in that situation.

    I've not heard a single decent argument from the pro-choice lobby on boards.ie as to why abortion is morally justified given the reality of human life from conception to death.


  • #693
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    philologos wrote: »
    I was radically different to the way I was as a newborn, but that point doesn't 1) detract from the fact that I am the same life as I was then
    As defined by which criteria?


  • #694
    JimiTime
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,418 ✭✭✭JimiTime


    doctoremma wrote: »
    As defined by which criteria?

    I wont speak for Phil, but what comes to mind for me is the following:

    That you are the same unique human being from conception. Same in what way? In laymans terms, that I, Jimitime, existed from the moment I was conceived up until now. That fusion, created ME in all my uniqueness, and my life and existence can be traced back to that singular event. Now, I may have been unaware for many months, but I was still in existance, and indeed a living human being progressing on the ladder of life. If someone had decided to kill this unaware foetus, zygote, whatever, they would have killed ME.


  • #695
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    JimiTime wrote: »
    That you are the same unique human being from conception.
    Well, for me, this doesn't seem to be the case. You are not the same being, certainly not biologically, and certainly not genetically. I don't even think there's compelling evidence that you are currently the person you could have or would have been, not from conception, not from birth, not in adulthood.

    Now, I appreciate this might appear to be spectacularly missing your point but I think I DO get it. What I don't get is the "mechanism", the "process", the "framework" by which "me" is defined. I believe it's more than genetics or biology. I don't think biology defines "me".

    ETA: I have thought back on ^^^ and would just like to clarify: I don't think biology has defined "me" but that doesn't mean I think that "me" is something supernatural, something spiritual. "Me" is expressed by biology but not defined by biology.
    JimiTime wrote: »
    In laymans terms, that I, Jimitime, existed from the moment I was conceived up until now. That fusion, created ME in all my uniqueness, and my life and existence can be traced back to that singular event. Now, I may have been unaware for many months, but I was still in existance, and indeed a living human being progressing on the ladder of life. If someone had decided to kill this unaware foetus, zygote, whatever, they would have killed ME.
    I agree that your physical life and existence can be traced back to conception. However, as above, I don't think "you" can be traced back to conception.


  • #696
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    So Emma to recap. You're saying that you're not the same biological organism as was formed in the womb?

    It doesn't sound like a very logical argument.


  • Advertisement
  • #697
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,107 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    philologos wrote: »
    So Emma to recap. You're saying that you're not the same biological organism as was formed in the womb?

    It doesn't sound like a very logical argument.
    doctoremma wrote: »
    I agree that your physical life and existence can be traced back to conception. However, as above, I don't think "you" can be traced back to conception.

    :confused:

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #698
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    philologos wrote: »
    So Emma to recap. You're saying that you're not the same biological organism as was formed in the womb?

    It doesn't sound like a very logical argument.

    I am the same organism. I am not the same being.


  • #699
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    doctoremma wrote: »

    I am the same organism. I am not the same being.

    Same biological entity, same human life as far as I can tell. Hardly a robust enough argument to deny the right to life to an unborn child.


  • #700
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,107 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    philologos wrote: »
    Same biological entity, same human life as far as I can tell. Hardly a robust enough argument to deny the right to life to an unborn child.

    You're the same person you were at 6 months of age?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #701
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    philologos wrote: »
    Same biological entity, same human life as far as I can tell. Hardly a robust enough argument to deny the right to life to an unborn child.
    No. You're changing your word usage.

    An "organism" is not the same as a "life". Your recent set of posts are predicated on a "person" being the same "life", the same "being" from conception to death. I don't think this true. But I do think it true that a "person" is the same "organism" from conception to death.


  • Advertisement
  • #702
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    koth wrote: »

    You're the same person you were at 6 months of age?

    I'm the same life. Elements of my personality obviously differ but I am the same entity yes.

    By the by this argument could also be used to permit infanticide. Most pro-choice arguments could.


  • #703
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,107 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    philologos wrote: »
    I'm the same life. Elements of my personality obviously differ but I am the same entity yes.
    You don't want to be honest, fair enough, but it's obvious that you (or anyone else for that matter) is not the same person they were as an infant/child/teenager/twenty-something etc.
    By the by this argument could also be used to permit infanticide. Most pro-choice arguments could.
    Why not go all the way and claim that pro-choice could be used to permit murdering teenagers? :rolleyes:

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #704
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    doctoremma wrote: »
    No. You're changing your word usage.

    An "organism" is not the same as a "life". Your recent set of posts are predicated on a "person" being the same "life", the same "being" from conception to death. I don't think this true. But I do think it true that a "person" is the same "organism" from conception to death.

    The foetus and embryo are biologically alice and biologically human. What else am I to conclude other than that they are human life?


  • #705
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    koth wrote: »
    You don't want to be honest, fair enough, but it's obvious that you (or anyone else for that matter) is not the same person they were as an infant/child/teenager/twenty-something etc.

    Why not go all the way and claim that pro-choice could be used to permit murdering teenagers? :rolleyes:

    That particular argument could. I'm not the same person I was when I was 17, therefore...

    Those conclusions can be drawn justifiably unless you put some tangible meat on the bones.

    Pointing out the logical flaws in your argument is being honest and fair.


  • #706
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,107 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    philologos wrote: »
    That particular argument could. I'm not the same person I was when I was 17, therefore...

    Those conclusions can be drawn justifiably unless you put some tangible meat on the bones.

    Pointing out the logical flaws in your argument is being honest and fair.
    It's not an arugument I've ever made, and I've never seen anyone else make it either.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #707
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    koth wrote: »
    It's not an arugument I've ever made, and I've never seen anyone else make it either.

    You've presented the were you the same person as you were X point ago argument on this thread for sure.

    I'm just telling you that the same argument can be made irrespective of where I put X on the spectrum.

    But yes I was still a younger philologos at that time. I was the same entity at that time. Things have happened since so that my personality has evidently changed. But biologically and for all intents and purposes I'm the same life and the same organism.


  • #708
    Morbert
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,457 ✭✭✭Morbert


    philologos wrote: »
    Your first point essentially was about people denying biological truth.

    No. My first point (again) was about people rejecting your scientism. Everyone agrees, more or less, with the biological details. We all agree with what the biochemical structure of a zygote is. We disagree with what moral principles you can derive from that biochemical structure. I do not hinge any moral principle on biological facts. If it turned out my friends or family weren't human as defined by specific DNA criteria, it would not make any difference to the rights they should be afforded.
    The second was essentially about people who deem it to be irrelevant even if true.

    By the by, yes ethics should have some bearing on truth and reality. The base problem seems to be accepting moral subjectivism whereas I and a lot of others would hold to morality being objective.

    I can't ever agree with a position that seems to advocate killing as a choice and one that is so baseless as to use either of the two arguments you provided. Hardly convincing stuff on the basis of reality.

    That is not the problem. Moral absolutism and pro-choice are not mutually exclusive. An absolutist pro-choice advocate would say it is absolutely immoral to force the mother to subject her body to the pregnancy against her wishes.


  • #709
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Morbert wrote: »

    No. My first point (again) was about people rejecting your scientism. Everyone agrees, more or less, with the biological details. We all agree with what the biochemical structure of a zygote is. We disagree with what moral principles you can derive from that biochemical structure. I do not hinge any moral principle on biological facts. If it turned out my friends or family weren't human as defined by specific DNA criteria, it would not make any difference to the rights they should be afforded.

    I don't think its justified to ignore what is factual and apparent in our moral consideration. That's exactly why the pro-choice perspective is deeply lacking in my estimation.
    That is not the problem. Moral absolutism and pro-choice are not mutually exclusive. An absolutist pro-choice advocate would say it is absolutely immoral to force the mother to subject her body to the pregnancy against her wishes.

    From Obliq's point of view it is from the subjectivist view of morality that's why it is relevant.


  • #710
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    philologos wrote: »
    But yes I was still a younger philologos at that time. I was the same entity at that time. Things have happened since so that my personality has evidently changed. But biologically and for all intents and purposes I'm the same life and the same organism.

    'Biologically' is not necessarily followed by 'to all intents and purposes'.

    By the by, I'm finding the apparent switch in general world view interesting - the religious pro-lifers clinging to biological materialism and the irreligious pro-choicers asserting immaterial properties...:)


  • #711
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,107 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    philologos wrote: »
    You've presented the were you the same person as you were X point ago argument on this thread for sure.

    I'm just telling you that the same argument can be made irrespective of where I put X on the spectrum.

    But yes I was still a younger philologos at that time. I was the same entity at that time. Things have happened since so that my personality has evidently changed. But biologically and for all intents and purposes I'm the same life and the same organism.

    I've been through this with you before and the biology aspect has no bearing on my stance on abortion. It's a question of when the person begins. That's what I was attempting to discuss with you but you seem to divert back to biology each time.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Advertisement
  • #712
    J C
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Morbert wrote: »
    Firstly, that is a complete straw man. The metric of humanity is never going to be as precise as other, more scientific metrics, but it most certainly isn't simply based on brain function alone, as you imply. If that were the case, then even the act of sleeping would rob you of those rights.
    It's the pro-abortion people who use the argument that an unborn child's brain function is less than a born child's consciousness, to justify killing unborn children ... and I was pointing out how spurious and dangerous such an argument is. You have also pointed out a further weakness in this whole 'consciousness' argument for early abortion ... whereby somebody sleeping could be killed if a temporary state of lowered consciousness, becomes a reason to allow the killing of somebody.
    Morbert wrote: »
    Secondly, it is no more dangerous (and I would argue far less dangerous) than the notion that rights can be defined by genetic features.
    I agree with you that the argument that you can abort a child on the basis of genetic tests is indeed quite obnoxious ... and has echoes of the eugenics movement that castrated people with special needs in America ... and killed them outright in Nazi Germany.

    ... it sounds like the pro-abortionists on this thread are rapidly running out of arguments!!!!

    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    I note that you have put 'reality' in inverted commas ... as you appear to think that other people have a 'reality' that is different to philologos. <snip>

    Morbert
    That is a ridiculous inference.
    Its a correct inference ... and you did say that "the second camp (of pro-abortionists) agrees with your (philologos) "reality" that a foetus is a human life, or at the very least, finds it irrelevant."
    The obvious inference is that everyone can define their own 'reality' ... and even use these self-defined 'realities' to kill other people and justify such killing to themselves and others.

    Morbert wrote: »
    This is at least a start at attempting to engage the pro-choice position. Note, however, that your analogy falls apart when considering cases of rape.
    All analogies are necessarily limited.
    Rape certainly is a hard case ... but aborting following rape is analagous to killing a burglers child, because he burgled your house.
    Justice should certainly be swift and severe upon the rapist ... but punishing an innocent party to the crime isn't morally defensible ...
    being pregnant after rape is one of the hardest of the hardest possible situations that a woman can find herself in ... and frankly, as a man, I can't even begin to imagine how a woman could cope with such a situation.


  • #713
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    koth wrote: »

    I've been through this with you before and the biology aspect has no bearing on my stance on abortion. It's a question of when the person begins. That's what I was attempting to discuss with you but you seem to divert back to biology each time.

    I go back to reality to show you that it is in favour of the pro-life position. The reason I find the pro-choice position very weak is because it doesn't line up with truth.

    I find your argument unconvincing no matter how many times you trot it out it is very weak.

    There's no 'switch of worldview' either. I do the exact same thing with Jesus. Look to the eyewitness accounts and determine if this corresponds to reality or not.


  • #714
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,107 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    philologos wrote: »
    I go back to reality to show you that it is in favour of the pro-life position. The reason I find the pro-choice position very weak is because it doesn't line up with truth.
    That's wonderful but I was attempting to exam my own perspective on abortion with you as you're anti-abortion. I understand your opinion on the beginning of life and thought (incorrectly) you might be open to a discussion on abortion from a different angle.
    I find your argument unconvincing no matter how many tines you trot it out it is very weak.
    Well I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm just looking to investigate the subject with people who are on the other side of the fence.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #715
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    koth wrote: »
    That's wonderful but I was attempting to exam my own perspective on abortion with you as you're anti-abortion. I understand your opinion on the beginning of life and thought (incorrectly) you might be open to a discussion on abortion from a different angle.

    Abortion is one (and only one) of a number of categories which fall under bioethics. Bioethics by its nature concerns biology. I don't think this discussion can go anywhere meaningful without solid reference to it.
    Well I'm not trying to convince anyone. I'm just looking to investigate the subject with people who are on the other side of the fence.

    Surely you to some extent or another would want us to share your view? I'd say quite honestly that long for as many people as possible to oppose abortion by choice because I believe it is hugely destructive.


  • #716
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,107 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    philologos wrote: »
    Abortion is one (and only one) of a number of categories which fall under bioethics. Bioethics by its nature concerns biology. I don't think this discussion can go anywhere meaningful without solid reference to it.
    I just googled bioethics and it actually attempts to address the reasons I have for supporting abortion at the early stages of the pregnancy. It's interesting stuff, something that we could have discussed if you had been willing. But at least I can go read the articles to better understand why you don't agree with my POV on abortion.

    Surely you to some extent or another would want us to share your view? I'd say quite honestly that long for as many people as possible to oppose abortion by choice because I believe it is hugely destructive.
    Probably in so much as that if someone who doesn't share your beliefs needs an abortion, then she might be able to avail of one.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #717
    philologos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 22,479 ✭✭✭✭philologos


    Bioethics is the category of discussion. I never said there was no pro-choice contribution. Its like saying we are discussing theology when we discuss the Bible.

    I'm interested in you presenting your own point of view, but so far I don't think much is convincing.


  • #718
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 52,107 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    Cool. I'll try and give a good explanation of my thoughts on it later today. Then you can show the holes in it :)

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • #719
    MrPudding
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,779 ✭✭✭MrPudding


    J C wrote: »
    It's the pro-abortion people who use the argument that an unborn child's brain function is less than a born child's consciousness, to justify killing unborn children ... and I was pointing out how spurious and dangerous such an argument is. You have also pointed out a further weakness in this whole 'consciousness' argument for early abortion ... whereby somebody sleeping could be killed if a temporary state of lowered consciousness, becomes a reason to allow the killing of somebody. ?
    It is only dangerous if you are an idiot who is prone to reducing everything to reductio ad absurdium. Seriously JC, you need to try joining the grown ups.

    Just because something is allowed in a particular set of circumstances does not mean it is be allowed in a weakly analogous set of circumstances. We are already allowed to turn off life support for brain dead patients, but I am yet to hear of any sleeping people being killed because there state of consciousness is lowered. Grow up.

    J C wrote: »
    I agree with you that the argument that you can abort a child on the basis of genetic tests is indeed quite obnoxious ... and has echoes of the eugenics movement that castrated people with special needs in America ... and killed them outright in Nazi Germany.

    ... it sounds like the pro-abortionists on this thread are rapidly running out of arguments!!!!
    For what it is worth, I will point out once more that very few, if any, of the people on this thread are pro-abortion. I don’t expect that will have any particular effect as accuracy and rational discussion don’t appear to be something the pro-life crowd are interested in.

    The pro-choice people aren’t running out of arguments, we have plenty, that fact that you ignore or dismiss them do not mean we don’t have any.
    J C wrote: »
    All analogies are necessarily limited.
    Rape certainly is a hard case ... but aborting following rape is analagous to killing a burglers child, because he burgled your house. .
    Some are more limited than others. For example, this one is terrible. Perhaps if the burglar’s child was surgically grated to the victim of the burglary and would remain there for 9 months you might have something approaching an accurate analogy. What you are actually advocating in you analogy is a simple punishing the child for the sins of the rather, which is more of a religious thing really.

    When a woman has an abortion after a rape she is not punishing the child for her being raped. You will argue that this is the case, but it simply isn’t. It may appear that the child is being punished, but that is not the intention of the act. It is most unfortunate that it is the result, but it is not the reason. Just because your god has a hard on for punished children for the sins of the father does not mean all people do.
    J C wrote: »
    Justice should certainly be swift and severe upon the rapist ... but punishing an innocent party to the crime isn't morally defensible ...
    Exactly. That is why we tend to leave that kind of thing to your god and his followers.

    J C wrote: »
    being pregnant after rape is one of the hardest of the hardest possible situations that a woman can find herself in ... and frankly, as a man, I can't even begin to imagine how a woman could cope with such a situation
    So as a man you can’t imagine how a woman would cope with that situation, but you are quite happy to dictate how she will have to cope with it. Got it.

    MrP


  • #720
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    MrPudding wrote: »
    When a woman has an abortion after a rape she is not punishing the child for her being raped. You will argue that this is the case, but it simply isn’t. It may appear that the child is being punished, but that is not the intention of the act.
    Wait. If a medical procedure is performed, one which will restore the health of the women (in this case, mental health), and it unintentionally causes the death of a fetus...

    ...well, we don't have to call that abortion, do we?


  • Advertisement
  • #721
    doctoremma
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,870 ✭✭✭doctoremma


    This morning, a little thought experiment came to me. While I have don't recall having heard of the below scenario before, there is little original in this world, so if I am subconsciously plagiarising, I will give due credit as appropriate. Feel free to point out gaping holes (except the unreality of the scenario), as it's a first attempt at formulating...The aim is determine the "vehicle", the "biological container" of personhood.

    Let's consider two women, Jane and Sarah. Both have families, jobs, friends, lives. The world they inhabit is far in the future, where brain transplants into both human bodies and artificial hosts (computer systems, robots) are possible.

    1. Let's imagine that Jane and Sarah swap brains. Which body does the person "Jane" inhabit? Do we refer to that body as Jane's body? Which of those two bodies should (and should want to) tuck Jane's children into bed at night? If you were Jane's friend, who do you now wish to share drinks with?

    Is there anything that was previously attributed to Jane, in terms of her personhood, that remains with her original body and would warrant protection as part of Jane's personhood?

    2. Let's imagine that Jane's brain is transplanted into a computer system or robot. Is that system now "Jane"? Would that system be afforded the label of "personhood"? If you permanently switched off the system, would that constitute murder?


Advertisement