Wanna talk about abortion?
Posted by: Rasher on 27 April 2007
You obviously do as it keeps being mentioned by a certain few, so let's have it.
Can it ever be justified? Let's get it over with.
My own personal opinion:
Being a father of three, I know that my children are not a "product" of their parents but are little individuals. It is not for me to decide whether they should live or die once they have been concieved, so I am opposed, but I might be swayed into accepting that exceptional circumstances might justify abortion even though I can't imagine what those circumstances might be.
Whether contraception is the same thing or not, I'd have to say that it isn't, but I guess that depends on whether conception actually takes place momentarily or not. If it is totally preventitive, then I guess it's okay. (?).
Can it ever be justified? Let's get it over with.
My own personal opinion:
Being a father of three, I know that my children are not a "product" of their parents but are little individuals. It is not for me to decide whether they should live or die once they have been concieved, so I am opposed, but I might be swayed into accepting that exceptional circumstances might justify abortion even though I can't imagine what those circumstances might be.
Whether contraception is the same thing or not, I'd have to say that it isn't, but I guess that depends on whether conception actually takes place momentarily or not. If it is totally preventitive, then I guess it's okay. (?).
Posted on: 27 April 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:Originally posted by Willy:
[QUOTE]
[QUOTE]My post was to address Acad's assertion that scientist's don't have the slightest clue as to how consciousness emerges from the brain. They do.
Prove it. Quote some scientists.
Posted on: 27 April 2007 by Phil Cork
It seems that many discussions/arguments of this nature boil down to rhetoric. They're also highly emotionally charged, and, like religion, seem to evoke extremely polarised views.
One of the most insightful comments i've read (potentially hidden) in this thread is this, from Derek:
"Rasher - I can understand your personal view - however the issue is should you view be imposed on every one in the land."
I think this may be the crux of the matter. It is reasonable to assume that human beings will never unanimously agree on such an emotive and highly charged subject. Surely therefore, the issue is one of providing the choice for people to make their own moral judgements and hence take actions accordingly, within the framework of the law.
Given that the government is elected by the people, and that people who may agree entirely on political issues and hence vote for the same government, may disagree violently on an issue such as abortion, it seems reasonable that the (a) government should provide the option for the people to decide for themselves.
Those that are against abortion who end up facing an unplanned pregnancy are at liberty to proceed with their pregnancy or change their views, and those that are pro-abortion facing an unplanned pregnancy are free to terminate the pregnancy, or indeed also change their views when faced with the reality of the decision. For one group to vilently impose their views on the other is unreasonable at the very least - hence my agreement with Derek's point.
I can't see how this issue could satisfactorily be resolved any other way but by offering choice.
For the record, i consider religions that ban contraception ridiculous. I recall a thread on this forum some time ago where someone suggested that contraception is murder. I'm sure that even devout Catholics practice their own form of 'contraception' using such methods as rhythm, withdrawal etc. I'll repeat my somewhat flippant, but nevertheless honest question here:
Is it murder to ejaculate on a pair of tits?
A sperm 'knows' that it must swim to the egg, and fertilize it. Is it conscious? Surely not?! It's certainly not sentient, rather merely acting out pre-programmed actions. Is it murder to not give every sperm a fair chance to perform conception? Where do we draw the line?
Phil
One of the most insightful comments i've read (potentially hidden) in this thread is this, from Derek:
"Rasher - I can understand your personal view - however the issue is should you view be imposed on every one in the land."
I think this may be the crux of the matter. It is reasonable to assume that human beings will never unanimously agree on such an emotive and highly charged subject. Surely therefore, the issue is one of providing the choice for people to make their own moral judgements and hence take actions accordingly, within the framework of the law.
Given that the government is elected by the people, and that people who may agree entirely on political issues and hence vote for the same government, may disagree violently on an issue such as abortion, it seems reasonable that the (a) government should provide the option for the people to decide for themselves.
Those that are against abortion who end up facing an unplanned pregnancy are at liberty to proceed with their pregnancy or change their views, and those that are pro-abortion facing an unplanned pregnancy are free to terminate the pregnancy, or indeed also change their views when faced with the reality of the decision. For one group to vilently impose their views on the other is unreasonable at the very least - hence my agreement with Derek's point.
I can't see how this issue could satisfactorily be resolved any other way but by offering choice.
For the record, i consider religions that ban contraception ridiculous. I recall a thread on this forum some time ago where someone suggested that contraception is murder. I'm sure that even devout Catholics practice their own form of 'contraception' using such methods as rhythm, withdrawal etc. I'll repeat my somewhat flippant, but nevertheless honest question here:
Is it murder to ejaculate on a pair of tits?
A sperm 'knows' that it must swim to the egg, and fertilize it. Is it conscious? Surely not?! It's certainly not sentient, rather merely acting out pre-programmed actions. Is it murder to not give every sperm a fair chance to perform conception? Where do we draw the line?
Phil
Posted on: 27 April 2007 by TomK
Oh dear, a few beers ago I decided not to touch this with a barge pole as abortion is such an emotive topic it’s all bound to end in tears. I have feelings and generally keep them to myself, as anybody directly affected would already be in a stressful situation and the last thing needed would be to have somebody lecturing them. However since you ask I’ll speak.
Before I had a family I had a pretty laissez-faire attitude. It’s up to the woman, it’s not a real life in there, etc. However now I’m a parent, and particularly after seeing my first son’s ultrasound pictures it all changed.
At 8 weeks he looked like a little ET who appeared to love jumping about like a circus acrobat.
At 20 weeks he had patterns of behaviour that carried on well into his early childhood.
At 20 weeks I saw his face (occasionally soft tissue could be captured even in the late 80s) and it’s recognisable as the handsome young man he is now at age 18.
Was there a human being there at conception? I don’t know.
Was there a human being there at 8 weeks? I don’t know but there was certainly something that responded to outside stimuli.
Was there a human being there at 20 weeks? Undoubtedly.
At what point is there a person in there? Who knows but I’m absolutely certain it’s there well before birth.
I very strongly believe that abortion should never be used as a method of contraception, and certainly not as a matter of convenience. For me it’s only acceptable in certain circumstances, such as where there’s a risk to the mother’s life, or perhaps where a severe foetal problem has been identified.
If my next-door neighbour had an abortion because it was going to disrupt her career would I comment? No. I’d find it abhorrent but although it’s fundamentally her choice the father surely has some choice here.
If my next-door neighbour aborted her severely disabled/deformed foetus would I comment? Absolutely not, because although I’d like to think I was strong enough to spend my life in support of my child, no matter how handicapped, I’ve no idea how I’d actually cope. I could never condemn somebody who didn’t want such a life.
Hopefully this doesn’t seem too sanctimonious but it’s really heart-felt and I hope I’m never in a position to have to make the choice.
Before I had a family I had a pretty laissez-faire attitude. It’s up to the woman, it’s not a real life in there, etc. However now I’m a parent, and particularly after seeing my first son’s ultrasound pictures it all changed.
At 8 weeks he looked like a little ET who appeared to love jumping about like a circus acrobat.
At 20 weeks he had patterns of behaviour that carried on well into his early childhood.
At 20 weeks I saw his face (occasionally soft tissue could be captured even in the late 80s) and it’s recognisable as the handsome young man he is now at age 18.
Was there a human being there at conception? I don’t know.
Was there a human being there at 8 weeks? I don’t know but there was certainly something that responded to outside stimuli.
Was there a human being there at 20 weeks? Undoubtedly.
At what point is there a person in there? Who knows but I’m absolutely certain it’s there well before birth.
I very strongly believe that abortion should never be used as a method of contraception, and certainly not as a matter of convenience. For me it’s only acceptable in certain circumstances, such as where there’s a risk to the mother’s life, or perhaps where a severe foetal problem has been identified.
If my next-door neighbour had an abortion because it was going to disrupt her career would I comment? No. I’d find it abhorrent but although it’s fundamentally her choice the father surely has some choice here.
If my next-door neighbour aborted her severely disabled/deformed foetus would I comment? Absolutely not, because although I’d like to think I was strong enough to spend my life in support of my child, no matter how handicapped, I’ve no idea how I’d actually cope. I could never condemn somebody who didn’t want such a life.
Hopefully this doesn’t seem too sanctimonious but it’s really heart-felt and I hope I’m never in a position to have to make the choice.
Posted on: 27 April 2007 by Earwicker
The problem with the law is it takes no account of people's right not to be born. It's all bout choice for the parents and the right of every nub-sculled particle of puke to manifest their fecundity in the blinkered hormone-driven pursuit of their own personal happiness.
The human population is now growing out of control and is wreaking havoc with the environment. If anyone gets pregnant who didn't intend to they should get their asses down the abortion clinic without delay.
EW
The human population is now growing out of control and is wreaking havoc with the environment. If anyone gets pregnant who didn't intend to they should get their asses down the abortion clinic without delay.
EW
Posted on: 28 April 2007 by Willy
quote:Originally posted by acad tsunami:quote:Originally posted by Willy:
[QUOTE]
[QUOTE]My post was to address Acad's assertion that scientist's don't have the slightest clue as to how consciousness emerges from the brain. They do.
Prove it. Quote some scientists.
Acad,
As per my previous post suggest you read "On Intelligence" by Jeff Hawkins. (ISBN 0-8050-7456-2). Whilst it doesn't directly deal with the question of consciousness it proposes some extensions to what is already know about how the brain works. I have no difficulty in accepting that what he proposes is sufficient for the establishment of a "counsciouness". (That's not to say that at a quantum level what goes on in our bodies in general, and the brain in particular doesn't give rise to capabilities we certainly don't understand, and in many cases don't even accept).
As for "proof", well they're working on it.
Regards,
Willy.
Posted on: 28 April 2007 by Phil123
We all make decisions out of our personal beliefs. I may make the decision that it is my right to murder you(after all I can do what I want), but what about your right to stay alive? The trouble with our conscience is that it is often too far removed from reality in that we don't see or don't want to see the consequences of our actions. Here is a link to a site that shows the reality of an abortion procedure. This is a 'tame' site which some viewers may find disturbing.National Right to Life
Regards Phil
Regards Phil
Posted on: 28 April 2007 by Beano
I have a question for any lawyers reading; how old does the foetus have to be for someone to be culpable of murder if they attack the mother but kill the foetus?
Beano 98% pro-lifer 2% pro-choicer.
Beano 98% pro-lifer 2% pro-choicer.
Posted on: 28 April 2007 by JoeH
quote:Originally posted by Fredrik_Fiske:quote:Originally posted by Frank Abela:
Fredrik,
I'm a 1964 person...
People have always struggled with bringing up their children. Most see it as a joyous challenge. Some see it as a burden. Having started the process, their duty is to their children....
I ompletely agree about this, and if I ever fathered a child, I am sure I would be a brilliant, firm, fair, and kind father, but I think what future for this child? It's bloody terrifying!
Kindst regards from Fredrik
I'n a`1954 person, but I sometimes feel at least 20 years younger.(and sometimes 20 years older!) The one saving grace that I possess is the ability to not take life too seriously.
With regard to bringing children into a difficult world; my father was born during WW1 and we were born not longer after WW2, in which my father fought. There's never a 'safe' time to have children; if there's peace, war may not be far away. We've had two children, and would not have been without them, despite the worry, grief and expense that children inevitably bring. If you worry too much about the future, in general or specific terms, it simply ruins the present. 'Carpe diem' is a very wise saying, or as the Bible puts it 'Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof'.
I guess our view of parenthood is all down to our own experience of childhood, but I very much agree with Fredrik's view that people should not have children unless they really want them; to do otherwise is almost certainly going to have a bad outcome for both parents and children.
Gosh, what a pompous post!
Posted on: 28 April 2007 by joe90
In my opinion conscious, medical procedure abortion is murder of a human being.
My God commands "Thou shalt not kill" where the 'kill' is from the Hebrew word to murder (as opposed to killing in self-defence, which is not murder).
Anyways I'd like to leave religion out of it except to let you all know where I come from. For me, I've been told and that's final.
But in order to argue it out with others who are not inclined to my spiritual beliefs...
How is it that if I terminate my child's life right now, be it through murder or neglect, that I go to prison?
Yet if it's done inside the womb under a certain time it is not?
What is different between my son now and my son then except perhaps location and physical looks?
When my wife and I conceived him (yes it takes two - this whole 'every sperm is sacred' stuff is nonsense - you can have a wet dream and not kill anybody. They're just sperm until ONE hits an egg) he became my son.
Perhaps he didn't LOOK like a human but he WAS a human in its most basic form. He wasn't a dog, or a cat, or anything else. HE WAS A HUMAN BEING and I can prove it because when he popped out that's what he was.
Oak seeds are little oaks - ok they don't LOOK like oak trees yet but given the right circumstances it will be a tree. It isn't going to swap over to be an elm, is it?
A sperm/egg combo comes out in around 9 months as a human - so it must have been one to start with.
This simple observation seems to have been completely forgotten by those who rationalise away murder with their medical/scientific arguments.
Rape victim babies? I'd say the numbers are EXTREMELY small. Coming from a law enforcement background, I can safely say that rape has NOTHING to do with sex - it's about power. If a child was produced, give it up for adoption. How often are we reminded about couples who can have children. There would be 100 fold the number waiting vs rape victim children I suspect.
Women's rights, 'it's her body'? What a pile of crap. Women aren't allowed to kill born people. Why should they be allowed to kill unborn people? The child inside her isn't her body at all - it's someone elses.
Abortion takes a life and in any body's law that's an offence punishable by law.
My God commands "Thou shalt not kill" where the 'kill' is from the Hebrew word to murder (as opposed to killing in self-defence, which is not murder).
Anyways I'd like to leave religion out of it except to let you all know where I come from. For me, I've been told and that's final.
But in order to argue it out with others who are not inclined to my spiritual beliefs...
How is it that if I terminate my child's life right now, be it through murder or neglect, that I go to prison?
Yet if it's done inside the womb under a certain time it is not?
What is different between my son now and my son then except perhaps location and physical looks?
When my wife and I conceived him (yes it takes two - this whole 'every sperm is sacred' stuff is nonsense - you can have a wet dream and not kill anybody. They're just sperm until ONE hits an egg) he became my son.
Perhaps he didn't LOOK like a human but he WAS a human in its most basic form. He wasn't a dog, or a cat, or anything else. HE WAS A HUMAN BEING and I can prove it because when he popped out that's what he was.
Oak seeds are little oaks - ok they don't LOOK like oak trees yet but given the right circumstances it will be a tree. It isn't going to swap over to be an elm, is it?
A sperm/egg combo comes out in around 9 months as a human - so it must have been one to start with.
This simple observation seems to have been completely forgotten by those who rationalise away murder with their medical/scientific arguments.
Rape victim babies? I'd say the numbers are EXTREMELY small. Coming from a law enforcement background, I can safely say that rape has NOTHING to do with sex - it's about power. If a child was produced, give it up for adoption. How often are we reminded about couples who can have children. There would be 100 fold the number waiting vs rape victim children I suspect.
Women's rights, 'it's her body'? What a pile of crap. Women aren't allowed to kill born people. Why should they be allowed to kill unborn people? The child inside her isn't her body at all - it's someone elses.
Abortion takes a life and in any body's law that's an offence punishable by law.
Posted on: 28 April 2007 by Deane F
joe90
If a physician asseses that a maternal life is endangered by the continuation of a pregnancy then it seems to me that a medical intervention to terminate the pregnancy is justified and necessary.
Yet you would call this murder. I take a liberty here, so please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems very clear from your post that you would rather the maternal life is risked and possibly lost than have that pregnancy terminated by a medical procedure that sets out to protect the life of that pregnant woman.
If a physician asseses that a maternal life is endangered by the continuation of a pregnancy then it seems to me that a medical intervention to terminate the pregnancy is justified and necessary.
Yet you would call this murder. I take a liberty here, so please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems very clear from your post that you would rather the maternal life is risked and possibly lost than have that pregnancy terminated by a medical procedure that sets out to protect the life of that pregnant woman.
Posted on: 28 April 2007 by Nigel Cavendish
Whatever your personal viewpoint, abortion is legal and not "an offence punishable by law."
Posted on: 28 April 2007 by Derek Wright
Joe90
Your view is OK by me for your observance as long as you do not require that it is followed be every one else.
Your view is OK by me for your observance as long as you do not require that it is followed be every one else.
Posted on: 28 April 2007 by Willy
quote:Originally posted by joe90:
When my wife and I conceived him (yes it takes two - this whole 'every sperm is sacred' stuff is nonsense - you can have a wet dream and not kill anybody. They're just sperm until ONE hits an egg) he became my son.
"It takes two" - not any more. Stem cell from woman's bone marrow + some chemicals = sperm cell...
quote:Originally posted by joe90:
Rape victim babies? I'd say the numbers are EXTREMELY small. Coming from a law enforcement background, I can safely say that rape has NOTHING to do with sex - it's about power. If a child was produced, give it up for adoption. How often are we reminded about couples who can have children. There would be 100 fold the number waiting vs rape victim children I suspect.
So a 13yr old raped by her father should go full term despite the very significant physical and physcological damage she will suffer as a result? Not to mention the genetic consequences that will result of such a coupling.
Regards,
Willy.
Posted on: 28 April 2007 by dave brubeck
I think it should be left up to the parents.
I cannot think of a greater responsibility than being a parent, except from situating my NAPSC as far away from my 82 as is possible.
You can argue the toss over timescales ad infinitum, but it's pretty much irrelevant to the issue.
Incidentally, that was a lovely chicken burger I had for my lunch today.
Poor chicken there with its consciousness and all...
I cannot think of a greater responsibility than being a parent, except from situating my NAPSC as far away from my 82 as is possible.
You can argue the toss over timescales ad infinitum, but it's pretty much irrelevant to the issue.
Incidentally, that was a lovely chicken burger I had for my lunch today.
Poor chicken there with its consciousness and all...
Posted on: 28 April 2007 by joe90
quote:So a 13yr old raped by her father should go full term despite the very significant physical and physcological damage she will suffer as a result? Not to mention the genetic consequences that will result of such a coupling.
Yup.
I think she'd be damaged already.
Why kill the innocent child?
Posted on: 28 April 2007 by joe90
quote:Your view is OK by me for your observance as long as you do not require that it is followed be every one else.
Are we arguing the rights and wrongs of abortion or arguing about forcing others to do things they don't agree with?
I'd like to get back to the abortion argument.
Can you prove to me that abortion is not killing another human being?
Posted on: 28 April 2007 by Steve S1
quote:Can you prove to me that abortion is not killing another human being?
Joe, what's you view on capital punishment? Or State execution as it probably should be called.
Steve
Posted on: 28 April 2007 by Willy
quote:Originally posted by joe90:quote:So a 13yr old raped by her father should go full term despite the very significant physical and physcological damage she will suffer as a result? Not to mention the genetic consequences that will result of such a coupling.
Yup.
I think she'd be damaged already.
Undoubdtly.
Why kill the innocent child?
To mitigate against further physical and psychological damage to the mother (and the child).
I have come to the view that it is necessary sometimes to sacrifice one life for the greater good, not unlike the Tikopians who, as a backup to coitus interuptus, practicised abortion, infanticide and suicide in order to keep their population to a sustainable level. Given the consequences of not doing so would you argue that they were wrong?
I would argue that there are few crimes greater than bringing a child into the world without the where with all to cater to it's physical and emotional needs. I believe that there are several species that can spontaneously abort when food is in short supply (e.g. kangaroos). Are they guilty of murder?
Regards,
Willy.
Posted on: 28 April 2007 by joe90
quote:To mitigate against further physical and psychological damage to the mother (and the child).
How is this mitigation achieved?
'Your honour, my neighbour was ugly and smelled bad so I killed him to mitigate further psychological damage to my family. I had to destroy the town in order to save it.'
LOL - kangaroo abortion.
Hell, praying mantis females devour their mates whilst copulating.
Are you going to justify killing your lover because praying mantises do?
Or what about some species of shark that devour their own young?
Gonna do that too?
Or what about rabbits that eat their own faecal matter?
Gonna do that too?
C'mon - come up with a REASONABLE argument.
Posted on: 28 April 2007 by u5227470736789439
The issue is impossible to call.
It seems to me that even if there were a 100 per cent ban on abortion, it would go on, but in back streets, and that seems a compelling enough reason to allow it even if it remains an individual choice for the people concerned in every case.
Apart from obvious medical reasons to allow for it, there can be very compelling personal and familly ones as well.
It seems to me that the law in UK is rather well judged, and shows signs that a mature democratic system can indeed frame sensible and workable legislation on very complex and difficult issues.
There is no moral black and white position on this, but only a series of relative heart breaks. I was talking to an old girlfirend of mine on Tuesday...
It was not an easy thing for her, and the truth is I am sure she will live with this all her days. [Not my offspring, I hasten to add]. But she was clear that she could not have done the job of bringing up the child properly, and the conception was obviously not planned. She is a highly intelligent being, and so what of the situation for those more intellectually challenged? One might say chastity, but that is not going to become popular any time soon I suspect.
Sincerely, Fredrik
It seems to me that even if there were a 100 per cent ban on abortion, it would go on, but in back streets, and that seems a compelling enough reason to allow it even if it remains an individual choice for the people concerned in every case.
Apart from obvious medical reasons to allow for it, there can be very compelling personal and familly ones as well.
It seems to me that the law in UK is rather well judged, and shows signs that a mature democratic system can indeed frame sensible and workable legislation on very complex and difficult issues.
There is no moral black and white position on this, but only a series of relative heart breaks. I was talking to an old girlfirend of mine on Tuesday...
It was not an easy thing for her, and the truth is I am sure she will live with this all her days. [Not my offspring, I hasten to add]. But she was clear that she could not have done the job of bringing up the child properly, and the conception was obviously not planned. She is a highly intelligent being, and so what of the situation for those more intellectually challenged? One might say chastity, but that is not going to become popular any time soon I suspect.
Sincerely, Fredrik
Posted on: 28 April 2007 by Deane F
quote:Originally posted by joe90:
C'mon - come up with a REASONABLE argument.
quote:Originally posted by Deane F:
joe90
If a physician asseses that a maternal life is endangered by the continuation of a pregnancy then it seems to me that a medical intervention to terminate the pregnancy is justified and necessary.
Yet you would call this murder. I take a liberty here, so please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems very clear from your post that you would rather the maternal life is risked and possibly lost than have that pregnancy terminated by a medical procedure that sets out to protect the life of that pregnant woman.
Posted on: 29 April 2007 by joe90
Steve asked:
I am against it, though it's difficult not to call for blood from some of these scumbags.
Deane F asked:
I asked my wife that question and she answered immediately that she would not have an abortion.
I agree with her.
Which would you have me choose between?
My child or my wife?
I hope never to be presented with such a choice, but I would see them both on the other side. I could stand there in front of the Almighty knowing he wouldn't pin their deaths on me.
quote:Joe, what's you view on capital punishment?
I am against it, though it's difficult not to call for blood from some of these scumbags.
Deane F asked:
quote:joe90
If a physician asseses that a maternal life is endangered by the continuation of a pregnancy then it seems to me that a medical intervention to terminate the pregnancy is justified and necessary.
Yet you would call this murder. I take a liberty here, so please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems very clear from your post that you would rather the maternal life is risked and possibly lost than have that pregnancy terminated by a medical procedure that sets out to protect the life of that pregnant woman.
I asked my wife that question and she answered immediately that she would not have an abortion.
I agree with her.
Which would you have me choose between?
My child or my wife?
I hope never to be presented with such a choice, but I would see them both on the other side. I could stand there in front of the Almighty knowing he wouldn't pin their deaths on me.
Posted on: 29 April 2007 by Deane F
quote:Originally posted by joe90:
Rape victim babies? I'd say the numbers are EXTREMELY small. Coming from a law enforcement background, I can safely say that rape has NOTHING to do with sex - it's about power. If a child was produced, give it up for adoption. How often are we reminded about couples who can have children. There would be 100 fold the number waiting vs rape victim children I suspect.
You have taken an absolute position on something. When an absolute moral position is taken there will nearly always be a situation where the application of the ethic results in harm. There are many ways to logically deal with such situations, whether they are real or hypothetical, and these are such methods as simplification, re-categorisation or minimisation.
You have chosen to minimise the sort of harm that might result from a strict application of your moral position. It is quite obvious that you are not a woman, have not been raped and are not pregnant with your rapist's baby. There may be only very small numbers of pregnancies that result from rape or incest, but I can state with near certainty that a statistic would be of no comfort whatsoever to a woman or an adolescent female victim of rape who is faced with carrying their pregnancy to term without the choice being extended to them as to whether or not they wish to terminate that pregnancy.
But they would have your pity, I am sure.
Posted on: 29 April 2007 by Willy
quote:Originally posted by joe90:quote:To mitigate against further physical and psychological damage to the mother (and the child).
How is this mitigation achieved?
'Your honour, my neighbour was ugly and smelled bad so I killed him to mitigate further psychological damage to my family. I had to destroy the town in order to save it.'
C'mon - come up with a REASONABLE argument.
So you equate the physical and psychological damage that will be suffered by a 13yr old rape victim being denied an abortion with that of someone having to tolerate a smelly neighbour?
Regards,
Willy.
Posted on: 29 April 2007 by acad tsunami
quote:Originally posted by Willy:
[QUOTE]
As for "proof", well they're working on it.
So I was right. They don't know and they can't prove it. As for Hawkins and his view that consciousness emerges from the neocortex this is pure bollox on a par with much of the drivel that Ramachandran writes (Ramachandran would sell his mother for a research grant and locates concsiousness in the frontal lobe - also without evidence). If you want an introduction to the current scientific thinking on consciousness you could read Consciousness : An Introduction by Dr. Susna Blackmore but she will tell you that science is clueless as to how consciousness emerges from a lump of grey jelly.