The Abortion Thread

[TheAnimus]

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?

Of course its no different to a Champaign socialist, they need to be busily talking about enforcing their views on other people, because otherwise if they took the time to stop and think about individual liberty they would see the rank hypocrisy of their thoughts.

The issue I have is simple, even before uni, before my first introduction to neuroscience, once I'd understood something like the MCP model, then grasped the numbers involved for neurons in the human mind, the similarity between us and other mamals, I couldn't see any questions which reasonably couldn't one day be answered with a naturalist view point.

As such the concept of a 'soul' or some other no material essanse I can't see the need for, what would it do? What would it be responsible for? Any demonstrable trait a human has, that is, dare I say, their humanity, we can observe in primates.

So based on this, when we can say with a suitable confidence that medically we know a feotus isn't aware, can't feel pain etc, I don't think we have any moral right to interfere with someone elses choice.

Then when I see cases such as that doctor linked above I become completely outraged, in my mind he would have been a guilty man only for not treating her.

[Galant]

I hate to press the point Animus, but just for sake of clarity, would you concur with this answer to my question, that pro-lifers (who are not all theists and that is important to note) believe the issue is so serious because it potentially involves the killing of a human being, which is something that as a society we have considered very wrong? Can you understand that and that it is a potentially grave situation?

[TheAnimus]

I hate to press the point Animus, but just for sake of clarity, would you concur with this answer to my question, that pro-lifers (who are not all theists and that is important to note) believe the issue is so serious because it potentially involves the killing of a human being, which is something that as a society we have considered very wrong? Can you understand that and that it is a potentially grave situation?

No, for the simple reason as a society we kill people, not just a few, every min of every day via our own inaction.

Also as a percentage of proponents of pro-life in the media, I've yet to see one use a non-theist argument.

[Galant]

Okay, then we almost have nothing to talk about. Can we try taking this a step back?

Do you recognise any problem with the killing of human beings?


Also, for a non-theist position see - Atheist & Agnostic Pro-Life League and Libertarians for Life for starters.

[TheAnimus]

Okay, then we almost have nothing to talk about. Can we try taking this a step back?

Do you recognise any problem with the killing of human beings?

Absolutely. There are serious moral problems involved with the taking of all lives.

Do you recognise that in-action for those who die so trivial, is its own moral quagmire too?

[melon]

No, for the simple reason as a society we kill people, not just a few, every min of every day via our own inaction.

Also as a percentage of proponents of pro-life in the media, I've yet to see one use a non-theist argument.

Yeah but using that argument you could argue we could be killing just about anything we're not aware of or changing history, plus some of those issues relie on the collective not the single actions of one to influence another.

pretty hard to get a whole world for example to stop killing if by inaction your the only one doing it.

m

[TheAnimus]

Also, for a non-theist position see - Atheist & Agnostic Pro-Life League and Libertarians for Life for starters.

Only the Libertarians for life link has any information on their beliefs, so I've copied it here.

1. Human offspring are human beings, persons from conception, whether that takes place as natural or artificial fertilization, by cloning, or by any other means.

2. Abortion is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.

3. One's right to control one's own body does not allow violating the obligation not to aggress. There is never a right to kill an innocent person. Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.

4. A prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's body. Parents have no right to evict their children from the crib or from the womb and let them die. Instead both parents, the father as well as the mother, owe them support and protection from harm.

5. No government, nor any individual, has a just power to legally "de-person" any one of us, born or preborn.

6. The proper purpose of the law is to side with the innocent, not against them.

so lets begin!
1) Don't agree. Why would a Zygote that has the potential to be a human being, but is almost identical, but for a tiny fraction of DNA to another animal be a human being but that not. It's the confusion of potential with being an actual.

2) Not really, because a Zygote isn't a human my definition the accepted legal definition or by scientific peer reviewed consensus. As they aren't human its not homicide. Their argument isn't very well structured as everything has fallen down if point 1 is not able to be considered valid. If it was I'd then throw in the notion of Justifiable Homicide which I believe is the correct American term (i've not spent *that* long in the USA).

3) It's a gross over simplification, in the case of the linked article it would be more akin to a paracite which is endangering the host, the paracite is inflicting damage upon host, it is not 'innocent' thou it is no more aware of its actions than the influenza virus is of its death toll, its very being is a danger.

4) What right? what if the child was put their by the actions of assault, by honest mistake? If I enter in to a legal contract I expect a cooling off period before any rights can legally be asserted. There isn't much in the way of a precedent for someone having something thrust upon them, and that entity then having a right.

5) Erm what? You can't 'de-person' something which hasn't attained that status yet.

This is why these people are seldom in the spotlight, if you don't have a religious belief to hide behind, you have to try and justify and explain. Given that legally a Zygote has no status as a person, as a human being, my suggestion to them is explain why it should with medical ideas.

I can't philosophically get my head round the idea that a Zygote is of a fully fledged human status.

I *really* can't get my head round people sticking their noise in the private lives of others, who are acting within our legally established ethics, when there are 'developed humans' (trying to disambiguate between terms in a manner that is how I understand you see them) who are actively dieing in awful ways, which are considered ilegal at present. What I'm getting at is from an economic analysis, assuming what I think I have as your moral view point, I can't see why your worrying about this small number of lives, over those which we are currently loosing by lack of clean water or food, or aids meds.

[Galant]

Absolutely. There are serious moral problems involved with the taking of all lives.

Do you recognise that in-action for those who die so trivial, is its own moral quagmire too?

I do but I would recognise it not as a moral quagmire but a moral challenge to all people. The difference being that whilst morality obliges us to help others it does not oblige us to help those we cannot possibly help. I can, and should, feel empathy and even loss. I should mentally recognise the severity of what has happened. However, if we allow ourselves to be crushed by problems we are not able to help we can end up hindering ourselves from doing that which is possible for us. In order to be of any use in helping I must be a healthy, functioning person. That means I must eat, and provide for my needs and the needs of my family. That means work and it also means family time and some leisure or rest time. To not take care of oneself in these ways only adds burden to society. The question that comes when we have taken care of ourselves and our families (and when we are raising our families and helping to direct them and teach them) is what priority do we place on helping others in need, and how much time and money are we to spend on that. That question is an important one and the answer will vary in specifics from person to person. Two questions which can help a person determine their answer are as follows. First, after all my other responsibilities are met so that I and my family do not add to the burden (as listed above - I may have missed some), then what time and money do I have left? Second, what needs are there around me that I can meet? With these two answers, we should then make our choice and commitment. I believe that is a logical and practical way to tackle this issue.

One last point. Should a person decide not to do all they possibly could do or to help at all, I do not believe this invalidates whatever good they might have chosen to do, and most importantly, I don't believe it means that person should not do any good if they are not going to do all good. It's not an all or nothing question. It's more a question of good, better and best. It's good to do something, it's better to do more, it's best to do everything you can.

Does that make sense?

With regards your affirmation that "there are serious moral problems involved with the taking of all lives", what is your approach to reconciling that with your statement that you do not see or recognise the gravity of the situation for those against abortion?

[Galant]

Only the Libertarians for life link has any information on their beliefs, so I've copied it here.
...SNIP...

If I may, what you're quoting is their statement of values, not their arguments as to why they hold those values. I provided the links so that you could see there are non-theists who are against abortion.

[TheAnimus]

If I may, what you're quoting is their statement of values, not their arguments as to why they hold those values. I provided the links so that you could see there are non-theists who are against abortion.

The difference is its very easy to dismiss such people. As I've said before in discussions with you there are people who believe the earth is flat!?! But we don't have to be polite to them, we don't have to worry about their 'feelings' as we blast another rocket in to space or watch Sky TV.

The issue is you wish to have special treatment for your views, because you believe them to be valid, you consider a Zygote to be human, but offer no evidence for why it is (which would first require defining the characteristics to be human in an empirical manner).

It really was easy to rip apart their assertions, as #1 is flawed by current legal and conventional scientific accepted status. If they wish to change those ideals, they should do so by the scientific process, not by "it's in mai book" religious tripe.

[TheAnimus]

I do but I would recognise it not as a moral quagmire but a moral challenge to all people. The difference being that whilst morality obliges us to help others it does not oblige us to help those we cannot possibly help.

No, in all my examples its been luxury items which if anything we would be healthier without. We can help, we should help, we don't help.

This viewpoint makes such ideas as this

However, if we allow ourselves to be crushed by problems we are not able to help we can end up hindering ourselves from doing that which is possible for us. In order to be of any use in helping I must be a healthy, functioning person. That means I must eat, and provide for my needs and the needs of my family.

Doesn't add up. Why then do you have the time and resources to care or concern yourself with the goings on of a Zygote, if you've not for the easily preventable, avoidable death of someone who lacks clean water?

I like economic theory, its all about efficiency, doing the most with what you have, the end goal isn't the concern, its about getting whatever the process is carried out. A little bit of economic theory applied to the way us as humans interact makes it quite striking that we should worry about those developed lifes, rather than those potential lives. At least in my view, do you not share that?

You have eloquently explained why people choose to not give everything they can give to save lives, so what they are willing to give, I believe can be much better spent than in worrying over a zygote.

With regards your affirmation that "there are serious moral problems involved with the taking of all lives", what is your approach to reconciling that with your statement that you do not see or recognise the gravity of the situation for those against abortion?

Because I don't see a Zygote as a human life.

Its how you view and see life that matters too, by some accepted defintions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life) using a kitchen cleaner is committing a mass removal of life.
Do you consider the murder of animals to matter, even if they demonstrate suffering?

Notice I said lives, not human lives. There are concepts and ideals that should be rationalised, I'm a meat eater, I enjoy Frios Gras too, and I have a fear/hatred of chickens, ****ing chickens. But I don't pretend to worry about the lives I'm destroying every time I put bleach in the toilet. I don't really care about the pig whom was my breakfast. There isn't a simple set of rules for each taking of a life, its foolish to pretend there is, with any defintion there will be edge cases which transcend it.s

[Phage]

Looking into the eye of a chicken is looking into the eye of a dinosaur.

[Zhaoman]

Gallant clearly believes that 'humans' (the definition of which is blurry) are inherently special somehow and that the special moment happens when sperm meets egg to spawn the wonderful thing that is 'life'.

Nothing wrong with that of course but an argument on where human life starts and ends is not going to get anywhere when one party does not see that life (like everything in the universe) is on a sliding scale and it is only us that have chosen to give such ideas black and white definitions. Instead of trying to decide when something is "alive" or "dead", we should start refering to both as "grey". I hope this offers Gallant a slightly different perspective on this discussion?

[TeePee]

Did I miss the direct answer to the question?

Did I miss your damnation of IVF and all those who practice it?

[Galant]

Sorry for the delay, but work and family have meant it's taken a while.

I've also been having a long think about all this.

TeePee, the reason I haven't given the answer yet is because although Billythewiz gave a straight answer, TheAnimus didn't and I didn't want to move on to something else without a chance for everyone to be on the same page.

The reason I asked that question, rather than just giving a straight answer first, is that I don't see the point in trying to answer a question on one of the most complicated scenarios this issue can raise if one of the simplest, most fundamental aspects of the same issue could not be acknowledged, understood and respected.

Animus, I said before that I felt we almost have nothing to talk about, I think I'm at the point where I think that's true, or at least, we have no real method of moving forward. There are two things which, for me, are necessary in continuing a dialogue between us. The first is a common understanding of, and respect for, the basic concepts. My understanding of this issue is that it is an issue of justice for both sides. For the anti-abortion side - justice with regards the right to life. For the pro-choice side - justice with regards to the right to freedom. Those are both serious issues and worth consideration and pursuit, because whatever side the truth falls on, a miscarriage of justice is occurring. Of course, this assumes both of those rights for all human beings. I may have seemed forthright in some of my posts, my apologies I did not appear considerate enough, but I have full respect for each individual's right to freedom. I hope I have not come across as insulting anyone who seeks to defend freedom. I have been urgently trying to show that if there is a life at risk, though, then this becomes a right to life issue and a right to freedom issue for the baby which must therefore, also be defended.

The second thing that is necessary for me, is a commitment to listen to one another, and to communicate with one another based upon what is said, trying to understand what the others says, and respectfully.

I am at the point where I seriously doubt you either want to listen or understand - that is - to actually have a dialogue on this. I'm have the strong impression that you simply believe what you believe and have no intention of trying to understand my arguments, but rather that when I post you assume what I've said, give it no consideration, and then throw out a few ideas to shoot it down and consider the job done. I believe that, in part, since in some of your responses it seems obvious you've clicked 'reply' before you've even read my post, going through it and answering it line by line without reading ahead or thinking that a sentence later might be intended to help clarify or justify an earlier point.

I also have some doubt that you're taking the debate seriously. Comments about 'serious' moral issues tied up with the taking of all lives, and then throwing out arguments about 'why care for anyone if x-y&z" (which serve no purpose in advancing the discussion, at all) - honestly make me wonder whether you really care - certainly about the discussion, and possibly about the lives you mention. As I said, for me, genuine care for lives is an important requirement in this discussion.

Due to all this, unless you really want to re-do the way we're communicating here, I'm going to practise some of that economy of time you mention, and spend the hours I would take in responding to you to be with my family, from whom I've been taking them. I don't feel any obligation to continue a discussion with anyone who does not listen and/or cannot acknowledge an understanding of the basic facts of the issue. I have no desire to cause you any upset, it's just that my time is important to me, and this issue is important to me, and I've no desire to have it mocked.

As for the direct to answer to the question on the article you posted. I promised a response so I will give one soon. I have a baby to feed right now. I then intend to carry on the discussion, where left off, with Billy (or anyone else), if he wants to.

I'm sure I'll be accused of backing down from arguments or avoiding you because I'm unable to contend with your arguments. I'm not concerned. Having reviewed what I've written so far, I believe it should be evident to anyone who cares to look that I have already sufficiently answered your points. If you want to go back and take a look at what I have actually said, and go from there, feel free.

Regards.

[Phage]

I do care and agree that it's an important issue. If a zygote is human it is a killing. If it not, it is not even worth noticing.

You define a human as beginning at conception. Despite your protestations you have not put forward any coherent argument for this.

I disagree - a cell is a cell and nothing more. I do agree that I'm not sure that there is any way for you to effectively communicate your conclusions, because, I suspect that they are not capable of being articulated without reference to the spiritual.

I understand your point of view, I just don't agree with it.