Wanna talk about abortion?

quote:

Originally posted by Willy:
[QUOTE]

[QUOTE] 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?

Yes joe90, it appears you lack the ability to understand what could be going through the mind of a victim of violent rape - how is the 13 year old in question supposed to deal with the thought of the 'monsterous child of a monster' growing inside her? Do you expect her to be totally rational? If it were your daughter screaming to have the 'evil bastard' aborted I wonder what you would advise? No doubt you would say it was 'God's will' and she will be comforted?

Please note I have put the words 'monsterous child of a monster' and 'evil bastard' in quote marks to illustrate that these thoughts are not my own but are examples of the type of thoughts experienced by some rape victims.

quote:

Originally posted by Deane F:
[QUOTE]

But they would have your pity, I am sure.

joe90 does not do pity anymore that joe90's God does pity.

quote:

Originally posted by Frank Abela:
Earwicker,

it doesn't matter that the brain is not developed. It is still a growing organism. It's not for you to make a judgement on when the child develops consciousness.

At the moment of conveption thorganism consists of two cells. To say that two cells have consciousness is, as Spock would say, frankly illogical.

quote:

All animals, even an amoeba, react consciously to stimuli such as heat, cold or light. They're all alive and that's what counts.

Well, so do plants.

Apart from my point about the law in UK being in nice balance on the issue, the one thing that really strikes me about those, both here on the Forum and in general life, who take an absolute position is that some see it as an issue of complete black and white morality, whereas the truth is that it can never be something that is a other than a choice of the "lesser evil" and relative heart-ache and sadness.

The positions of "absolute "Pro-Life" and completely "Laissez Faire" fails to show any empathy for the situation and awful choices the individual faces in every case of this. A lack of empathy is not a good thing as it implies an inability to think into the situation that others find themselves in, for whatever reasons.

What is then a crucial point is just what the non-empathetic person would do if faced with a parallel situation affecting themself. This is where people change, and revisit their position on the whole issue, especially if they cannot find sympathy with others less blessed with not facing such horrible decisions.

AS I noted, I believe the balance in UK law is rather beautifully balanced, and of course has been rebalanced (with a shorter period for undergoing an abortion) in the light of medical advances that make survival of the empryo/foetus likely from an earlier stage possible. Clearly this is law drafted in the light of medical science and not morality first and foremost, but the absolutist moral position is not one that can cater for the infinit variabilities in the individuality of each situation.

As I said above, "This is an impossible one to call."

Sincerely, Fredrik

quote:

Originally posted by joe90:


I'd like to get back to the abortion argument.

Can you prove to me that abortion is not killing another human being?

No one needs to. The law is what it is.

quote:

Originally posted 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.

Until there is definitive proof of one of the theories (or more likely bits from a number of them) on how the brain works there will be those insist on worshiping consciousness as something magical, much as our forefathers worshiped the sun (before we knew it to be a simple fusion reaction) or trees for waving their branches and making the wind (before we knew the reverse to be true).
Working with the model for brain function proposed by Hawkins (which is as I said partly proven and partly speculative - at this stage) I have no difficulty in accepting that the consciousness is merely a biological function, largely associated with the brain and that at some point after I die and as the bodily functions cease my consciousness ceases to be. Simple matter of the application of the laws of physics (that we don't yet fully understand) in ways (that we don't yet fully understand).
Of course it would be nice if I could believe in consciousness as something mystical that continues after death of the physical body but that's un-necessairly complex.

Regards,

Willy.

quote:

Originally posted by Willy:
[QUOTE]


[QUOTE] Until there is definitive proof of one of the theories (or more likely bits from a number of them) on how the brain works there will be those insist on worshiping consciousness as something magical,

I am not sure I know of anyone who worships consciousness. Do you know anyone?

quote:

Working with the model for brain function proposed by Hawkins (which is as I said partly proven and partly speculative - at this stage) I have no difficulty in accepting that the consciousness is merely a biological function,

You need to read more. I have given you details of a beginners book you could read. Once you have read that I can recommend others.

quote:

largely associated with the brain and that at some point after I die and as the bodily functions cease my consciousness ceases to be.

Really? How do you know? Brain function and consciousness are not exactly the same thing. They are related but they are different. Once the body can no longer support itself consciousness leaves the body - this has been proved, moreover it can be experienced with a little training.

quote:

Of course it would be nice if I could believe in consciousness as something mystical that continues after death of the physical body but that's un-necessairly complex.

un-necessairly complex? Oh please do explain. If something is overly complex then it can't exist? Your Hawkins book is full of nonsense like this.

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:

quote:

Originally posted by joe90:


I'd like to get back to the abortion argument.

Can you prove to me that abortion is not killing another human being?

No one needs to. The law is what it is.

The law concerns murder and manslaughter not killing per se. The question is valid. Of course abortion is killing.

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:

quote:

largely associated with the brain and that at some point after I die and as the bodily functions cease my consciousness ceases to be.

Really? How do you know? Brain function and consciousness are not exactly the same thing. They are related but they are different. Once the body can no longer support itself consciousness leaves the body - this has been proved, moreover it can be experienced with a little training.

Even if it has been proven that consciousness can reach outside of the body, (and there are some mechanisms in Quantum Physisc which may support such capabilities) that doesn't prove that counsciousness is anything other than a function of the body (brain in particular). The magnetic field of a magnet reaches outside the magnet. Turn off the (electro)magnet and the field disappears too. My view is that when the body dies so does the counciousness as it is a function of the biological/physical processes of that body.

quote:

Of course it would be nice if I could believe in consciousness as something mystical that continues after death of the physical body but that's un-necessairly complex.

un-necessairly complex? Oh please do explain. If something is overly complex then it can't exist? Your Hawkins book is full of nonsense like this.[/QUOTE]

If something is overly complex then it is less likely to exist. In my opinion the biological and physical mechanisms proposed are perfectly adequate to explain how consciousness emerges from a lump of grey jelly. (Actually that's a highly structured lump of grey jelly).

I shall no doubt read further on the subject, and the many others that interest me (work is the curse of the reading classes). From casting an eye over her website not sure that Susan Blackmore is a good starting point though. Comes across as letting her (near) theology drive her science. Glad of any other more pragmatic references though.

Regards,

Willy.

In answer to your original question...

No.

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:

The law concerns murder and manslaughter not killing per se. The question is valid. Of course abortion is killing.

That does depend on your concept of life; at what stage does a foetus / fertilised egg become a life?

Without life there can be no death, so no murder.

( Keith Potter speaks well of you Eric, btw. )

M

quote:

Originally posted by mike lacey:

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:

The law concerns murder and manslaughter not killing per se. The question is valid. Of course abortion is killing.

That does depend on your concept of life; at what stage does a foetus / fertilised egg become a life?

Without life there can be no death, so no murder.

( Keith Potter speaks well of you Eric, btw. )

M

Surely both the egg and sperm are living cells even before combining? I would suggest (pedanticly) that at any stage abortion is "killing", however up to a point, as defined in Law it is not "murder". As previously stated I am of the opinion that there are circumstances where the greater good is best served by abortion.

Regards,

Willy.

quote:

The law is what it is.

Then law is wrong and is based on nonsense and permits the killing of children because adults wish to wash their hands of their responsibilities.

quote:

You have taken an absolute position on something.

Yes I have. Abortion is murder. Do you have an elastic position on it? When is it ok?

quote:

When an absolute moral position is taken there will nearly always be a situation where the application of the ethic results in harm.

True. Abortion results in harm to the child does it not?

quote:

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.

So what if I am not a woman? We don't allow women to murder in general, but we permit abortion? It's a paradox. I suspect that abortion is allowed simply because it's convenient for men too.
What IS going to comfort the woman who is raped? A killing?
If I killed you and your mother was devastated, would she be excused from murdering me in revenge? Would that undo your death?

quote:

Yes joe90, it appears you lack the ability to understand what could be going through the mind of a victim of violent rape - how is the 13 year old in question supposed to deal with the thought of the 'monsterous child of a monster' growing inside her? Do you expect her to be totally rational? If it were your daughter screaming to have the 'evil bastard' aborted I wonder what you would advise? No doubt you would say it was 'God's will' and she will be comforted?

Please note I have put the words 'monsterous child of a monster' and 'evil bastard' in quote marks to illustrate that these thoughts are not my own but are examples of the type of thoughts experienced by some rape victims.

I don't understand, no, but I can sympathise. Perhaps you understand because you are a victim of rape? If not, you are simply imagining what it must be like.
I expect no rationality no. Are you saying abortion is irrational?

No I would not say it was God's will (what's wrong with you?) nor would I be able to comfort her. But after a while, the wounds would heal a little and life could go on.

But what would killing the child do? It would put a death on her hands. Guilt and death is what you advocate.
I advocate forgivness and life and a chance to make the best of a very bad situation.

Without this sort of thinking I would have been denied my beautiful older sister, who, whilst not the result of rape, was the result of two teenagers doing something they should not have been doing at 16 and 19. The father promptly disappeared and wasn't seen for nearly 30 years.
Thank God it was the '60s and that abortion wasn't even thought of by my Grandparents, who supported my poor mother through a very tough time.

You just think about that.

Neither my sister, nor my mother would have had it any other way.

I wish to avoid the moral arguments. They are pointless.

What I am still waiting for is for someone to prove that a human sperm/egg combination IS NOT a human being and removing this from a woman's body is therefore not ending the life of a human being.

quote:

Originally posted by joe90:
What I am still waiting for is for someone to prove that a human sperm/egg combination IS NOT a human being and removing this from a woman's body is therefore not ending the life of a human being.

If you think a cell with human DNA in its nucleus is a human being then yes, it's murder. And murder every time you scratch your head, bleed, onanise, cut or burn yourself, loose bits of your body in accidents...

Hopefully semantic zeal doesn't blind us to the difference between human cells and human beings.

EW

quote:

What I am still waiting for is for someone to prove that a human sperm/egg combination IS NOT a human being .

Maybe you should prove how IT IS a human being.

Maybe this is a discussion no-one could win...

quote:

Maybe you should prove how IT IS a human being.

Huh?

Female human and male human get together. 9 months later a baby emerges.

What ELSE could it have been to start with?

Never heard of a human female giving birth to kitttens.

quote:

If you think a cell with human DNA in its nucleus is a human being then yes, it's murder. And murder every time you scratch your head, bleed, onanise, cut or burn yourself, loose bits of your body in accidents... Hopefully semantic zeal doesn't blind us to the difference between human cells and human beings.

Semantic zeal is right.

Your argument is nonsense. You KNOW that's a human being in there - building itself body and scientifically proven to be doing it in stages. The life is building itself a body.

Just like plant life is embedded in a seed that becomes a rose, or a birch etc...

Just like whale life creates more whales and kangaroo life creates more kangaroos.

Human life creates humans.

If you can't figure that out you need to brush up on basic knowlegde.

quote:

Originally posted by joe90:
Human life creates humans.

If you can't figure that out you need to brush up on basic knowlegde.

Every cell in your body contains a complete DNA blueprint of an entire human body. The difference is (of course) a fertilised egg can DEVELOP into a human being if it is allowed to.

You think the fact that certain types of cells can develop into humans bestows some special magic on them; I don't.

EW

quote:

As I said above, "This is an impossible one to call."

After being away for the weekend, I'm amazed this is still going!
In order to have a balanced view we would need to stand in the shoes of everyone in this position; from the rape victim, to the non-believer in life before birth, to the carrier of a damaged foetus. Of course we can never do this individually, but we can do it collectively, so I don't accept that it is impossible to call provided we are willing to see the other point of view.

I also believe that science has little to do with this subject, apart from obvious biology of course. You can't define when consciousness begins because if a sperm knows which way to go, it is no different to the same sperm 10 seconds after fertilisation of the egg, before cells begin to multiply - but conception has occurred. So where does it begin? Is it when sperms and eggs are created, used or not? If so, we can't be taking responsibility for the life of each and every one of them, can we! So I think we need to introduce the concept of potential life and acknowledge the difference between biological physical lifeforms and spiritual consciousness, which I believe attaches itself to a "potential life chance" over the course of a pregnancy in an ever increasing and deepening way. Sometimes they are in there, and sometimes they are not. Termination means that the spirit will leave it and go elsewhere. Spirit isn't in the body. I don't lose a bit of me when I cut my toenails.
That leads me to adopt the idea of a continual spiritual existence before and after life. We focus on this physical life believing it is everything, but it might turn out to be similar to missing a maths class one day because of a visit to the dentist. With all these lives coming and going in sperms and eggs and children, it can't make sense to me any other way.
Ultimately therefore, I believe that it matters more how we deal with it for our own personal development than it matters to the foetus itself.
I think a pregnancy is a potential life, and therefore that person is real, and we must treat it as such. I think that if exceptional circumstances demand a termination, then it'll be okay too, but we'll have to deal with it and the baggage that comes with it. I think we are all looked after.

quote:

Originally posted by joe90:

Yes I have. Abortion is murder. Do you have an elastic position on it? When is it ok?

Yes, the exigencies of real life force me to take an elastic position on some things. This is the result of growing up, going through some suffering and hopefully learning a little wisdom.

There are some situations in which a choice must be made that will result in harm no matter which course is taken.

There is an old story - I think it is African in origin - that goes something like this:

A woman is trapped standing with her baby in a river that is slowly flooding. As the river rises to her belly she lifts her baby to her chest.

When the river rises to her chest; she lifts her baby to her face.

When the river rises to her neck; she lifts her baby above her head.

When the river rises to her nose.....she stands on the baby.

quote:

Originally posted by acad tsunami:

quote:

Originally posted by Nigel Cavendish:

quote:

Originally posted by joe90:


I'd like to get back to the abortion argument.

Can you prove to me that abortion is not killing another human being?

No one needs to. The law is what it is.

The law concerns murder and manslaughter not killing per se. The question is valid. Of course abortion is killing.

I did not say it was not a valid question, only that no one needs to prove it. Abortion certainly kills something, but that something is not classified, under the law, as a human being otherwise murder and manslaughter charges could be brought.

In my understanding(and I did not come up with it all by myself- Lakoff 1996),
the key in the discussion is not getting the "something between nothing and baby" status right,
but the acceptance of the actions of the mother.
many anti-abortion positions are based on conservative attitudes towards the choice of the mother. The actions of the mother are seen to consist of two types:

Either misbehaviour of the "young slut" type, of women who 've gotten pregnant
due to their own weakness and it wouldn't have happened if they'd acted responsibly
and they've got it coming to them and allowing an abortion would mean we help them get away with it.

Of misbehaviour of the selfish kind of women who put their own ambitions and desires before their responsibility in raising children. Abortion supports these people in their immoral behaviour.

Once you categorise the actions of the woman as immoral, it's a natural fit to consider the foetus as a real person, with a preference for focusing on advanced pregnancy, but in principle from the moment of conception. And once you see abortion as baby killing, there is no going back, because what was the key point has become secondary.

If the actions of the woman are deemed acceptable, it's a natural fit to see the foetus as not a real person(it's a medical procedure), with a preference for viewing early pregnancy as the typical case.

That to me sounds a very outdated feminist empowerment argument that considers nothing other than "woman as a victim". It isn't about women victimisation, it's about the baby. Men want to have a say in this, but are denied on the basis of "it's my body", but then that position is manipulated to portray men as irresponsible and uncaring monsters.
It's a hardcore feminist argument. I think feminism has moved on considerably now and that sort of thinking is long past.

Abortion does not solve rape. It simply transforms the victim into a victimizer. Here are some quotes from people who had an abortion after a rape.

"I soon discovered that the aftermath of the abortion continued a long time after the memory of my rape had faded. I felt empty and horrible. Nobody told me about the emptiness and pain I would feel deep within, causing nightmares and deep depressions. They had all told me that after the abortion I would continue on with my life as if nothing had happened. ... I found that though I could forgive the man who raped me, I couldn't forgive myself for having the abortion."

"I still feel that I probably couldn't have loved that child conceived of rape, but there are so many people who would have loved that baby dearly. The man who raped me took a few moments of my life, but I took that innocent baby's entire life."

This comment starkly shows the actual effect on the women who is aborted to "cure" rape: It shifts the focus from the violence the rapist committed against her, to the violence she committed against the baby.

I would never dream of minimizing rape by saying that it only "took a few moments" of the woman's life -- clearly the fear, trauma, and sense of violation lasts much more than a few moments. But this person described her own rape that way, because she is now comparing what the rapist did to her, with what she did to this baby.
As one young woman put it, "The solution to rape is not abortion. The solution to rape is stopping rape."

Also if we look at abortion as just a medical procedure and the baby’s life has no meaning, why don’t we televise it? Or would this stir the conscience of the people. As I said earlier we live in a society where we don’t want to see the reality of our actions.
When the abortion law was passed in 1967, its sponsers persistently claimed that it would not allow abortion on demand…that is abortion on request, or a woman’s right to choose abortion on any ground whatsoever. Yet, from the beginning it was clear that the wording of the law made it possible to manipulate the law so that we have abortion on demand. Over the years abortions have increased annually, making a total today of over 4.5 million unborn children who have been legally destroyed with 90% of these have been carried out for social reasons with no genuine threat to the mother’s health.

In many ways we are a much more humane society than we have ever been, but our society shows no mercy to unborn children. Nor to their mothers, who are very often pressurised by lovers, families and husbands who do not want the responsibility of a child. They all want to forget the fact that the child is already alive, although hidden in the mother’s womb. The mother, however, does not forget. The child can be removed from her womb, but not from her mind. Once women have time to think – without panic- they recognise that the terms describing the fetus as ‘a bunch of cells’, or as ‘a blob of jelly’ are totally untrue. The word ‘fetus’ is just the technical term for an unborn baby…but again dehumanising terminology makes it easier to ‘deal with’.

quote:

Originally posted by Willy:

Surely both the egg and sperm are living cells even before combining? I would suggest (pedanticly) that at any stage abortion is "killing", however up to a point, as defined in Law it is not "murder". As previously stated I am of the opinion that there are circumstances where the greater good is best served by abortion.

Regards,

Willy.

I refer you to my previous question about 'lost' sperm. Surely we're not beholden to ensure that every sperm is ejaculated into a vagina, or women beholden to ensure that every egg is at least given a chance to be fertilized by having sex at the right time every month.

This demonstrates the difficulty in concentrating on 'living cells which have the potential to create life', and human beings themselves. As I mentioned earlier, I believe its helpful therefore to centre on sentience, ie at which point does a foetus become aware of it's surroundings, and develop consciousness.

It's a question of line drawing, and due to the impracticality of drawing the line before conception (as above), and the difficulties presented to women in drawing the line AT conception and not allowing them to terminate AT ALL, a line has been drawn during the pregnancy, at a point which is believed to be a compromise between all the above issues. I don't know the ins and outs of the argument for the current limit, but i can imagine that people considerably better informed on this issue than anyone here have debated the issue at considerable length and derived the current limits.

This offers those that agree with abortion a legal means to partake in it for a variety of reasons, and those that don't the liberty to ignore it. What is unfortunate is that those on both sides of the argument seem to be determined to preach to the other what they should believe. Just like religion...

Don't get me started on why the world could benefit greatly from an absence of religion!

Phil