The Abortion Thread

[Phage]

I saw a documentary that also showed cetacaens 'caressing' and 'tickling' their calves and each other with infra-sound. It was quite moving.
I've also seen an octpus try and push a diver away from it's eggs that it will starve to protect, and elephants grieving over the corpse of a family member.

Evidence suggests to me that consciousness and emotions are on a continous spectrum with many of the animal kingdom deomstrating emotions that we can easily emptahise with. Hell, we've seen problem solving and tool use from primates, cetacaens, orvids and cephalpods. We're not even unique in that. We're just better at it.

There's is only unique human trait that I can think of. Laughter.

[Galant]

Okay, so let me clarify - Phage - you're arguing for abortion and to make that argument you're pleading ignorance?

The Animus - you're also arguing for abortion and to do so you're arguing that humans have no right to life? You do realise that means that the women you mentioned earlier also aren't special and have no rights - yes?

[Phage]

You asked me to expand on my position which I did. Please don't put words in my mouth, or over-simplify the argument. At no stage did I say that I/we/you are ignorant. This appears to me, to be the reaction of someone who doesn't wish to engage with what I'm saying.

Your argument has no logical basis, or indeed structure. You have failed to define your terms or basic assumptions. You have, however, given yourself away by stating that the combination of germ cells give rise to something greater than the sum of it's parts. Some divine spark I assume.

[shaithis]

There's is only unique human trait that I can think of. Laughter.

Other apes also laugh.

[TheAnimus]

The Animus - you're also arguing for abortion and to do so you're arguing that humans have no right to life? You do realise that means that the women you mentioned earlier also aren't special and have no rights - yes?

Not at all, only the definition of what makes that human, that the idea of human life is a sliding scale.

Any of the points I make, about chimps say demonstrating the values you described as human, you just gloss over.

The fact we ignore certain peoples suffering, shows how little value we truly place on lifes, and how it is entirely relative. How unjust and unfair this situation is.

The thing is I don't claim to have a moral authority in such manners, I don't claim there is a simple solution, so I offer the choice, the choice to those who are effected.

[Galant]

I don't think that there is any possible definition for humanity.

I don't know when that point is

I did not put those words in your mouth - you did. I attempted to summarise and clarify. You and now Animus,

The thing is I don't claim to have a moral authority in such manners

are both appealing to ignorance, in the name of humility, and basically saying, "Who are we to say anything - we don't know - so we'll let people do what they want."

That's no argument for anything. That is a stepping back from argument. I'm beginning to wonder if it's because you don't have any.

You see, whilst you might feel it's humble to plead ignorance and therefore liberty in the matter, the human race has already engaged these issues, explored them and written declarations of human rights, written constitutions, and upon what wisdom they can muster, formed societies based upon principles of justice and value.

Not everyone can simply step back and disengage. Some people are responsible.

I have offered a definition of humanity. I believe homo sapiens is good, accurate, scientific description point to a specific organism. The only glossing going on is all this talk about monkeys and other animals.

You are arguing as though human rights have not been declared and or at least that they should be revoked. As far as I can tell it's just intellectual running around because you are unable to engage the issue. Humans have rights. I think it's quite clear to most people what a human being is. As to the question of where does life begin - since that's the key question - I have argued that if life is purely biological then when that organism is functioning then it is alive and so life begins at conception - everything else is a question of capacity. If therefore human life is protected by legal rights, unborn babies, who are human lives, are also protected.

Feel free to carry on talking about laughing monkeys if you like. The point is utterly irrelevant. If you have a problem with humans having rights as distinct to other animals then that's another question. Feel free to take it to the UN or whatever international body you feel appropriate. If you are unable to find any real distinction between Homo Sapiens and any other living organism read a book. You'll find all sorts of information about genus and species.

Humans are a distinctly identifiable organism. The question here is where does life begin - I believe a natural understanding of human existence leads us to the view that humans are 'alive' from the get go.

[TeePee]

Humanity and human being are different things.

Humanity is the essence of what is human. It is a spiritual and intellectual construct which is distinct from a biological organism. Thoughts, feelings, emotions, and so on. None of these things are possessed by a single-celled organism, no matter what the genetic code.

Would you force a non-viable child to fully develop it's perception of pain so that it can experience it fully, and nothing else for it's entire four hours after birth?

That would be inhuman.

[Galant]

It is a spiritual and intellectual construct which is distinct from a biological organism. Thoughts, feelings, emotions, and so on. None of these things are possessed by a single-celled organism, no matter what the genetic code.

I'm sorry, what? Aren't you an atheist? What on earth does the word 'spiritual' mean? Surely all the emotions and feelings are simply a product of bio-chemistry and hormones? There must be a natural explanation for those things without having to look to the super-natural, no? - TeePee, I'm shocked!


As for the second part -

Would you force a non-viable child to fully develop it's perception of pain so that it can experience it fully, and nothing else for it's entire four hours after birth? That would be inhuman.

There is far too much assumption tied up in that suggestion. There are numerous examples of people who were told that such and such was going to happen, medically speaking, and then it did not happen. You're basing a certain action - which in the contention of those arguing for the fully humanity of the unborn runs contrary to the basic right to life - upon an uncertain possibility.

I can't go into details, but I am personally aware of the suffering and dying of newborns. It's a painful thing. Nevertheless, I believe that life and the right to it is a priceless thing and that we must preserve and honour it.

[Phage]

I did not put those words in your mouth - you did. I attempted to summarise and clarify. You and now Animus, are both appealing to ignorance, in the name of humility, and basically saying, "Who are we to say anything - we don't know - so we'll let people do what they want."

Please re-read. Neither of thus said that at all. You appear to be projecting.

That's no argument for anything. That is a stepping back from argument. I'm beginning to wonder if it's because you don't have any.

Please re-read and lay off the implied abuse.

You see, whilst you might feel it's humble to plead ignorance and therefore liberty in the matter, the human race has already engaged these issues, explored them and written declarations of human rights, written constitutions, and upon what wisdom they can muster, formed societies based upon principles of justice and value.

No really ? Who knew ?
Please be pointing out the constitutional points of abortion.

Not everyone can simply step back and disengage. Some people are responsible.

Such as yourself ? That's a remarkably patronising attitude.

I have offered a definition of humanity. I believe homo sapiens is good, accurate, scientific description point to a specific organism.

How do you feel about people with Down's syndrome ? Like I said, you're veering close to Eugenics. Genes do not define us.

The only glossing going on is all this talk about monkeys and other animals.

Glossing ? I thought it was pertinent.

You are arguing as though human rights have not been declared and or at least that they should be revoked.

Not at all. They are completely separate issue to defining what is human.

As far as I can tell it's just intellectual running around because you are unable to engage the issue. Humans have rights. I think it's quite clear to most people what a human being is.

I'm proud of applying my intellect to a very important issue.

As to the question of where does life begin - since that's the key question - I have argued that if life is purely biological then when that organism is functioning then it is alive and so life begins at conception - everything else is a question of capacity. If therefore human life is protected by legal rights, unborn babies, who are human lives, are also protected.

Agreed. But when does an organism 'begin to function' as you put it ? I put it as thought, yours appears to be from a single gamete.

If you have a problem with humans having rights as distinct to other animals then that's another question. Feel free to take it to the UN or whatever international body you feel appropriate. If you are unable to find any real distinction between Homo Sapiens and any other living organism read a book. You'll find all sorts of information about genus and species.

Actually I can find thousands. But again you seem to be missing the point. It's their similarities which are important. Please lay off the implied abuse.

Humans are a distinctly identifiable organism.

Not if you look more deeply.

The question here is where does life begin - I believe a natural understanding of human existence leads us to the view that humans are 'alive' from the get go.

It's your belief that changes your perceptions. I'm sure it is perfectly clear to you. It is actually far more complicated.

[Phage]

Other apes also laugh.

Excellent. I love that.

[tiggerai]

I don't think there will ever be an answer to this one. There are many reasons why someone would want to abort a child and there should not be a single answer to the questions raised above.

Heck - even the human body will abort for developmental reasons.

On the "illness and viability" issue - many babies are aborted because they would not live long, or would live such a terrible existence that it simply wouldn't be fair to keep them to term. The emotional strain of either way would also be immense on the mother, father and wider family in either situation.

Humans by nature are independent beings, is it against a human beings "right" not to have that by forcing them to live with issues that are beyond a "reasonable" existence?

I am (as a womans perspective) pro-choice and as a choice usually has a number of factors.

[TeePee]

I'm sorry, what? Aren't you an atheist? What on earth does the word 'spiritual' mean? Surely all the emotions and feelings are simply a product of bio-chemistry and hormones? There must be a natural explanation for those things without having to look to the super-natural, no? - TeePee, I'm shocked!

spir·it·u·al
   [spir-i-choo-uhl]
adjective
1.
of, pertaining to, or consisting of spirit;

spir·it
   [spir-it]
noun
1.
the principle of conscious life;

Spiritual does not require supernatural.

Obviously, belief in the supernatural does not require a belief in any gods, so there would be no conflict with atheism there. Don't let your fingers type before you think about it.

As for the second part -


There is far too much assumption tied up in that suggestion. There are numerous examples of people who were told that such and such was going to happen, medically speaking, and then it did not happen. You're basing a certain action - which in the contention of those arguing for the fully humanity of the unborn runs contrary to the basic right to life - upon an uncertain possibility.

I can't go into details, but I am personally aware of the suffering and dying of newborns. It's a painful thing. Nevertheless, I believe that life and the right to it is a priceless thing and that we must preserve and honour it.

Speaking of humanity, I think you are showing a lack of it. Your desire to inflict unnecessary pain on those unborn human babies shows a lack of humanity on your part. I hope that anyone making this horrific choice shows more human compassion and values human life more than you do.

[TheAnimus]

You and now Animus, are both appealing to ignorance, in the name of humility, and basically saying, "Who are we to say anything - we don't know - so we'll let people do what they want."

Quite the contrary, I know how little about biology we understand, as such I think the line in the sand varies depending on the circumstance.

What about rape victims, what about conditions where the host may well die, what about cases in which the mother has just been careless.

They are not the same circumstance and don't have the same awnsers.

All I know is that any organisation which advocates sticking the penis up the arse of your wife, rather than using a physical barrier contraception clearly, does not understand the spectrum of sexual pleasure from a female point of view very well (some woman find anal sex genuinely pleasurable, some do not), no its message, you can take the back passage for fun, achieve male orgasm, you can use the rhythm method, but not a condom. Irrational, contradictory and oh killing people.

You say we should bow to that?! Ignore medical advice, understanding of the development of feutous for the up the arse brigade?!

No I'm not saying I have any specific answers, but I have helped a friend through an abortion after she was assaulted. Anyone who tried to deny her full and proper medical attention I would have done everything in my power to stop. So that is how I personally sit, I have previously held someones hand through much of the process, but I would never advocate someone having one without understanding their circumstances.

You appear to just say "its ok, my faith gives me all the answers", but your answers lead to such biggotary, such de-classification of humans, that I would fight it, ultimately to the death if needed.

Before this debate I thought you where just ignorant, I now believe you force your views on people, often at their weakest. I can't describe how disappointing it is to find someone who is obviously at the very least moderately learned holding such ideals.

[billythewiz]

The only idea that is being forced on anyone is the idea that humans have a right to life. I don't know if you like or agree with that idea, but that is the idea written into law and upheld by many people, atheist, theist and agnostic alike. If you have a problem with this notion of the basic human right to life then there isn't even anything to talk about, except perhaps that it is a plain contradiction to declare that humans do not have a basic right to life and then talk about a woman's (or anyone else's) right to life and freedom. You can't have it both ways. Either all humans have the same right to life, or none do. Anything in between becomes grounds for gross injustice and things like genocide, ethnic cleansing, or killing based on whatever distinction you favour.

I'm going to attempt to have it both ways. I don't believe that all people have the same right to life. Our modern society gives us luxury that much of what im about to write is moot. I believe that old people and children have less 'right to life' than adults of child bearing age. I think young children have less right than older ones. I believe that fit, healthy people have greater right than the sick or disabled. I believe that a developing foetus acquires more rights, the more it develops and that a 4 cell embryo has no rights what so ever.

[TheAnimus]

Also if you believe, and I mean truely, honestly believe that human life is sacred, how can you spend any resources on anything non essential when so many people are dieing for want of access to clean water and other such simple things.

The Animus - you're also arguing for abortion and to do so you're arguing that humans have no right to life? You do realise that means that the women you mentioned earlier also aren't special and have no rights - yes?

I'd also like to know your awnser to that.

I'm pointaintly aware how much money I've frittered away, I earn quite a lot, so what I could only describe as "pissing away in a manner which makes the world worse*" enough for about 5,320 African orphan months. Oh and that was just last year. I have a database I can join on for these things if your interested.

As such regardless of my nobal actions, I can not claim human life sacred thanks to my in-action and re-direction of resources.

*Leaded fuel is a prime example!

[Galant]

the principle of conscious life;

Spiritual does not require supernatural.

Your argument falls short. The question isn't whether we have a mind or will or emotions - obviously those are part of human existence. The question is where do those things reside or originate. If they reside or originate somehow outside or apart from the physical body then you have the supernatural. If however, as I have been arguing, they reside within the body and are to be explained as the interaction of the various parts of your biology - as a naturalist argues - then it all comes back down to biology, life processes. For the naturalist there is no mind apart from the body, it is simply a product of biology. However, I stand willing to be corrected. I would appreciate it if you would please describe to me where the human consciousness resides and what it is.