The Abortion Thread

[TheAnimus]

Okay, correction to that sentence - they do not have the intrinsic, independent potential to do so. Talking about how the human organic process comes into being does not affect the status of it once it is in process.

Ok, so removing the Zygote from the host environment is fine then, so long as one doesn't kill it....

[Phage]

- they do not have the intrinsic, independent potential to do so. .

Yes, yes they do. They exactly the same potential as any other cell. One needs a womb only, the other needs a technician and a womb. Are you looking the how natural the process is again ?

Talking about how the human organic process comes into being does not affect the status of it once it is in process.

OK - confused now. If both cells can be stimulated into a creating an entire organism, and the process is unimportant, what is the differentiating factor ?

all of this talk of potential is irrelevant to the main point that the origin of the human development process does not matter. It is the living biological process itself with which we are concerned.

What does this mean ? How does this help you define whether a cell is a human ?

No, gametes are the cellular building blocks of a human being. In my eyes a somatic cell is a human being.

Pardon - every cell in my bidy is a human being ? That's an unusual conclusion to say the least.

As I have said before, the defining characteristic of a human being is the unique biological organism

If we are all unique from each other, what are the similarities that define human ? Not thought, not pain, not laughter not genes...what ?

...which goes through various stage in the process of its life as a cellular being.

Errrm...Not getting that at all.

...Cells which drop or are cut off a human being are not a human being in themselves they are simply a part of that human being. I do believe it is quite possible to list and describe all the component parts of what make up a human being at each and every stage of existence, and their function, but hopefully you don't expect me to do that because I have neither the time nor the ability to do so without research.

Oh no, I agree that would be silly. But I fundamentally disagree with your assertion that a human being can be defined by such a.......list. In fact I am horrified by it.
I would like to quote post #7 by Lucio that put it far more eloquently. "Trying to logically determine when a foetus becomes a human is akin to trying to determine when a gathering of grains of sand become a beach. "

[aidanjt]

No. I'm saying the opposite, as you managed to catch on a bit later. Re-read it and you'll see.

No, what you're saying is doublespeak.

It is you would be saying that every single time you attempt to state that emotions or personality is anything other than the firing of physical matter. The point of this being that you are arguing humanity is personality as though it is something special that comes to the human being, it isn't.

See, doublespeak, with a great big whopping dollop of strawman. Nowhere did I say human personality is special, in fact, I said *exactly* the opposite, again.

And the same applies for any animal with a brain.

See?

Personality is just one repercussion of the processing and growth of a physical organism.

It's the personality which gives the person being, the rest of the organism is just a big chunk of bone and cells. A brain dead patient can be kept nurtured and oxygenated to stop it decomposing, but that doesn't make it a living, breathing person. And if we're going to measure 'humanity', and 'right to life' by the standard of a 'processing, and growing physical organism', then you have to grant that to everything from microbes to livestock.

It is the physical organism itself that is pertinent and real, not the differing perceptions that come from it.

The brain is a real tangible physical organism, it's the part which is not only able to perceive, but it is also the part where your memories reside, where you feel pain, exercise wisdom, sound judgement, intelligence, sentience, plan, feel, love, hate, etc., etc.. The entity I'm writing this text to is all contained up there behind your eyes.

The perception of pain cannot be a measure of humanity because there are human beings with congenital analgesia who cannot and never have felt any pain. Are they less developed than a house fly?

More strawmen. Nowhere did I say pain was a measure of a person.

[TheAnimus]

Ah good old 4chan

[TheAnimus]

I mean look at how silly those religious people are, that one Weaver fellow, I mean, honestly what kind of person believes that photoscape is a tool worth recommending....

[melon]

I don't follow all of your points but if you're saying that what's rubbish is the idea that all parents are responsible for wrongdoing because their children have experienced pain, then I agree. That was the point I was trying to make.

All parents assume responsibility for potential to create anything and any possibility when having sex on a physical level, but there are other factors faiths THAT would argue there are far more significant factors that super-seed that too ,that being karma etc and how that soul / spirit chooses to incarnate in the form they do.

Parents are choosen or play hosts to factors they are unaware of then, but how much of that raw spirit is influenced by those parents genetics , traits is something else.

Genetic history obviously points towards parents perhaps being the cause / carriers of things , but if its freemarket of choice any way, then i suppose any one could be born with it , the question is why ?

m

[TeePee]

Here's one for you:



IVF must be a horrible concept for christian obsessives. Typically 5-6 eggs are fertilised in the hope that one will implant in the womb. While very, very rarely all will implant, and a women will have sextuplets, usually most if not all will fail to implant. That's 5 or more babies being killed! Doctors must be burned!

[melon]

Here's one for you:



IVF must be a horrible concept for christian obsessives. Typically 5-6 eggs are fertilised in the hope that one will implant in the womb. While very, very rarely all will implant, and a women will have sextuplets, usually most if not all will fail to implant. That's 5 or more babies being killed! Doctors must be burned!

rape itself could be karma related ...

m

[TheAnimus]

rape itself could be karma related ...

m

WTF!?

I hope no one you care about is ever raped.

[melon]

WTF!?

I hope no one you care about is ever raped.

Im not using it as excuse for peoples actions as something set in stone- i dont think karma is as simple as that - if it was then what would the point in us even being here ?

It would mean all this is predetermined and our choices were just an illussion of the ego instead ( which in many ways it ironically is )

m

[peterb]

Closing the thread for review

[peterb]

I am amazed that the contributors to this thread, on an incredibly emotive and complex sdubject, can only see it in terms of black and white and, perish the thought, ever concede that the opposing view might have some merit worth considering, at least in part if not in entirety.

And the delicious irony that (as far as I know) all the participants are male, discussing something is predominantly affects females.

I have reviewed the thread, and have left it intact - even the oversize images that add little to the thread apart from giving some gratuitous internet publicity to a few other extremists.

I am re-opening the thread (more in hope than expectation ) that the discussion will continue in a rather more open minded way than it has so far.

[billythewiz]

As regards your comments in this particular thread I'll be honest and say I was honestly left speechless.

Sounds like I'm provoking some thought.

Do you realise that if you continue to follow the logic of removing the equal right to life amongst all human beings you also remove the right to freedom, and free speech,

Yes I accept that a 24 week old foetus also doesn't have the right to freedom or free speech. It soon will have though (in a week).

and you also open the door to the justification of killing any human being for almost any reason?

No I don't, that's a classic straw man argument. It's also moot, as unfortunately that door is already firmly wide open. Take for example Rawanda, a mostly catholic country which even before the genocide boasted more churches per head of population than any other country in Africa. Those catholics managed to butcher 800,000 other catholics and rape an estimate 500,000. We know that was caused by ethnic tensions. I'd like to at least hear some rational explanation as to why my suggestion (that a foetus increases in value with age), would lead to .... anything. I want considerable evidence if you're suggesting it leads straight to post natal murder.

who is it who gets to decide what's valuable and what's not?

I'd use democracy to set the guidelines (as we do now) and use the NHS to make judgements on individual cases (as we do now).

Depending upon the notion of value anyone can be removed from society. Population too big? Kill a few thousand off.

That's just a straw man argument. I trust the British people would never advocate genocide or mass euthanasia !

Overall standards of education and knowledge slipping? Kill the less intelligent people. Does the human race seem to be getting too weak or have too many imperfections in the population? Kill off the weak people.

So now I'm being accused of suggesting Eugenics ? More straw man I'm afraid.

If this all sounds too far fetched or unrealistic you only need to turn to the East where little baby girls were, and still are, regularly killed because they were little girls.

Eugenics is clearly despicable, but you don't have to go as far as China. In the last century the USA forcibly sterilised over 64,000 people, mostly poor, blacks. They were still doing it in the 1970s. This is a country where 90% believe in god and 40% believe the genesis creation story as a literal truth. It's difficult to know if those facts are correlated.

Their perceived value to that society was far less than that of little boys. Are you really okay with that? That is exactly where your logic would lead if you are happy to dispense with equal human rights.

Be careful of that straw man. Of course I would not be happy with selection on social or religious whim, but let me reflect the question back to you with a little thought experiment. Imagine if we were suddenly plagued with a global pandemic virus that resulted in 90% of female foetuses miscarrying at 20 weeks and so 95% of all births were male. There was the suggestion to abolish abortions but it was rejected by a strong pro-choice lobby. There is now the revised suggestion to abolish abortions for female foetuses. This is being opposed by a group that demands all life (girls and boys) be treated equal. Do you support them on the grounds that not to will lead to Eugenics and arbitrary euthanasia ? Or do you accept that rare foetuses are more valuable than common ones ?

Human rights as an equal standard exist in order to ensure fairness and good treatment of all people. Without them injustice and murder would rein and has already done so.

I agree, but only once the foetus is old enough to have earned those human rights. Human cells don't have human rights just for being human.


I presented a thought out, logical argument (I wonder if anyone else would care to comment on it). Your only response was a repeated straw man argument that it would lead to Eugenics, arbitrary murder, genocide and the loss of human rights and free speech. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

[TheAnimus]

http://www.salon.com/2011/05/26/abortion_saved_my_life/ any thoughts?

Be interested to know how aborting in this case was morally wrong.

[Galant]

I'll give a direct answer to that, if you're willing to consider it.

In response, and by way of a re-approaching to this whole question, I'd like to suggest a method of discussion by way of short, simple questions by which we can consider the issues. For my part, I have a feeling that the longer posts, to which I am prone, lend themselves more easily to misunderstanding or misinterpretation.

So if you're willing, in exchange for a direct answer to your question, I would appreciate an answer to this question of my own - Do you understand why pro-lifers believe abortion to be such an important and grave issue for society?

[billythewiz]

Do you understand why pro-lifers believe abortion to be such an important and grave issue for society?

Mother Theresa preached that killing a foetus is the same as killing an Adult. Presumably because they both have souls !

From here I think we should use democracy to decide if that is a good reason. You know there's a name for groups that oppose democracy and demand you follow rules because they say so.