NaddiaAoC wrote:
I especially think of it when I read statements like this from Indie:

All else aside, that is your mistake. You, or I, or Niall001 or anyone else cannot prove our points of view to be valid...The[y] simply are valid as such, and by sharing them are subject to other's scrutiny, but it is up to them to decide if it's the right point of view for them, or if they think it's wrong. You aren't going to convince Niall001 of anything, any more than he could convince you that his position is correct. And I think that is what this boils down to, not the validity of the argument, but who is right.

How does Indie know that Nick won't convince Niall of anything or that Niall won't convince Nick of anything? .....

I took umbrage with this statement as well. It seemed like a way of just walking away from an important topic. Everyone here knows me. I am a firebrand at times. But despite my heated and sometimes over-the-top battles with Niall and Mad, we have all always had a respect for each other that I think is shown in the fact that we all keep coming back and TRYING to discuss things. I do not say that I am 100% right, but I do feel strongly in what I know and how I feel. Since we all need to live together in this civilization, the throwing up of hands and not talking about a topic that may be heated or may not change minds seems to me a dangerous idea.

I think things got over heated because it was really just Niall and I talking here. If more people join in, I may come back to this and try again. Nothing wrong with that. I am always willing to engage in discussion...even after a bad taste.

Chris, thanks for the job! You know I am always here to try to get things going. Just been busy lately with other stuff so I have not been contributing much. Hopefully I will be able to find more time in the coming months of fall/winter.

And, oh my non-god! I hope you are ok? Is your wife ok? My best wishes to you.

Mr. P.

NaddiaAoC wrote: I haven't followed other abortion threads on BookTalk to know what arguments have been made. Niall, you challenged Nick stating that he does not understand your views. I'm curious, what is your point of view? You come across to me as a prolifer. What's your position on abortion, legally and morally? What are your reasons for your position? You state that the important criteria when discussing abortion is the point at which the taking of human life should be illegal. Is that correct?

Nadia I guess you could describe me as prolifer it you'd like. Brevity is a virtue sometimes, but it can also confuse and annoy people as has become evident in this thread. I think that abortion should be illegal under most circumstances, the exception being where the life of the mother is threatened and no viable alternative course of action exists.

Why is the mere existence of human life in the embryonic state more important than a woman's right to make choices for her own body and future? If you are "pro-life," do you make any exceptions for abortion, I.E. rape, risks to the woman's health or life, etc?

Why is human life in an embryonic state described as mere?

I haven't the time to give you the long versions, but I just can't see any basis for regarding a neonatal human or prenatal human in the later stages of pregnancy the right to life and not the prenatal human during the earlier stages of development. The criteria that is usually invoked relates to consciousness and/or viability, yet clearly the human right to life is not based on these things as other humans who have terminal diseaes or who lose consciousness for considerable periods of time do not have their right to life taken from them. Similarly, animals who have a level of consciousness that is far more developed that of the neonatal human and who are viable do not receive any rights whatsoever.

When it comes to abortion, I just find it totally inconsistent to allow neonates, those with terminal diseases, those of reduced intellectual capacity and the unconscious a right to life while denying that same right to the foetus during the early stages of its development and to animals who function at higher levels than neonates.

As for this thread, Chris pretty much nailed the reasoning behind my choice of thread title. I'm not certain if Nick is still participating in the actual discussion or just the meta, but I'm going to avoid the meta aspects of this thread for now because I just don't have the time or the patience. I'm perfectly willing to discuss the subject, just so long as its in the right spirit.

I'll eventually make a post about this car accident. There is much more to it. I am really really lucky to be alive.

Niall001 wrote:When it comes to abortion, I just find it totally inconsistent to allow neonates, those with terminal diseases, those of reduced intellectual capacity and the unconscious a right to life while denying that same right to the foetus during the early stages of its development and to animals who function at higher levels than neonates.

I agree, it's totally inconsistent. I think that in extreme cases, where there is no prognosis for a minimal (to be determined) quality of life, there should be a provision for euthanasia. An example would be a case where the neonate had such severe deformities that it couldn't survive the first week of life - it's simply cruel to force it to endure that week.

We, as a society, inflict so much damn suffering in the name of preserving life, that we forget there are fates worse than death. We soothe our own pain and fear of loss by forcing the survival of those who won't live long anyway, and end up in extreme pain and distress that could all be alleviated with a strong shot of morphine...

Perhaps most disgusting of all is, (in the US and Canada anyway, not so sure of other places) in the rare instance of allowing someone to die, how we go about the task. Starving and dehydrating the person, inflicting even more pain and distress. The (ir)rationale for this is to not take an active role in causing the death, which is utter bullshit. As much as a lie by omission is still a lie, omission of life preserving measures is tantamount to killing. What people fail to accept is that there is nothing inherently wrong in the act to begin with, which actually makes their cruel inaction the crime (of ethics not law, perhaps.)

Sure, life is precious, but perpetuating it past the point of being able to enjoy, or even perceive it, is cruel IMO.

I think that in extreme cases, where there is no prognosis for a minimal (to be determined) quality of life, there should be a provision for euthanasia. An example would be a case where the neonate had such severe deformities that it couldn't survive the first week of life - it's simply cruel to force it to endure that week.

Personally, I can understand one might want to take such a course of action, but it would be problematic in the extreme to implement. As you seem to recognise, it would be difficult to determine what the minimal quality of life should be, who should determine it and whether parents should have a choice be allowed to not kill their newborn child. Still, if somebody is dieing, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do so in the least painful manner possible.

However, I think think we're moving away from the topic of abortion here. What I would note is that you suggest that it would be cruel to force the newborn to live. I'm not sure that this is the case given the extremely limited capabilities of the newborn under normal circumstances, let alone in some cases of severe deformity where the newborn does not possess even the modest capacities that a fully functioning newborn has.

Niall001 wrote:

indie wrote:I think that in extreme cases, where there is no prognosis for a minimal (to be determined) quality of life, there should be a provision for euthanasia. An example would be a case where the neonate had such severe deformities that it couldn't survive the first week of life - it's simply cruel to force it to endure that week.

Personally, I can understand one might want to take such a course of action, but it would be problematic in the extreme to implement. As you seem to recognise, it would be difficult to determine what the minimal quality of life should be, who should determine it and whether parents should have a choice be allowed to not kill their newborn child. Still, if somebody is dieing, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do so in the least painful manner possible.

Agreed, it is extremely difficult to come up with that baseline measurement for quality of life, past which euthanasia would be considered. I think like most treatments the ultimate decision would have to lay with the parents, based on informed opinions of their doctors and the applicable case studies on record.

Niall001 wrote:However, I think think we're moving away from the topic of abortion here. What I would note is that you suggest that it would be cruel to force the newborn to live. I'm not sure that this is the case given the extremely limited capabilities of the newborn under normal circumstances, let alone in some cases of severe deformity where the newborn does not possess even the modest capacities that a fully functioning newborn has.

It was off on a tangent. I thought the subjects sufficiently related to make the post. Abortion and euthanasia have much in common, and many differences too.

Another extreme example, but one that doesn't rely on physical defect of the neonate would be something like this:
In a region where starvation is commonplace, disease is rampant, and the birth of another child could threaten the existence of the entire family, abortion is not only logical but quite possibly necessary to prolong the existence of the mother, and any other children. Sadly this is not without precedent. There's documentation of thousands of neonates left to die in the snow in Russia and the satellite states of the former Soviet Union, often because the family as a whole would starve by trying to feed one more mouth. Abortion of a non-perceptive embryo seems to me a much less cruel resolution in this kind of extreme scenario.

Niall,

Let me start off by acknowledging a couple things you said. First of all, I understand your position. For most of my life I held the same (or a very similar position). I was strongly prolife in every case except with regard to emergent situations that threatened the mother's life. My prolife view was shaped by the conservative Christian religion I was raised in, and the view that all human life is precious to God and should not be destroyed by humans. Even in cases of rape, the human life that results is God's, not mine. Now I'm curious why you hold such strong prolife views? Are they theistic in nature? My experience has been that the majority of people who are prolife are either religious or they have been influenced by prolife propaganda (like the horrible pictures of fetuses being aborted) without really putting any thought into their position. I'm sure that doesn't characterize everyone. I don't want to make assumptions about your beliefs, so what influences have led you to take this position?

Another thing I want to mention is that I agree with you on a couple points you made. I agree that a unique human life starts at conception. Clearly (to me anyway), life exists on a continuum. Life is present in the sperm and ovum prior to conception and life is present long after conception, but the fertilization of the ovum produces a new and unique human life. I also agree with your point about conscious non-human life. To say that we should not kill a human based upon such criteria as consciousness and viability, but then to turn around and kill a non-human animal who possesses those same criteria is a hypocrisy, IMO. Good point.

Now I have a challenge for you, Niall. You've laid out your prolife argument, but what do you know about the prochoice position? What do you think are the strongest prochoice arguments? What are the weakest? If you had to play devil's advocate and argue abortion from a prochoice point of view without giving away your biases, what arguments would you make?

Nad

I'll be making you a mod when I figure out how to set up ranks, Cheryl. I thought I'd ad this unrelated behind-the-scenes message right here to confuse and annoy everyone.

indie wrote:
I agree, it's totally inconsistent. I think that in extreme cases, where there is no prognosis for a minimal (to be determined) quality of life, there should be a provision for euthanasia. An example would be a case where the neonate had such severe deformities that it couldn't survive the first week of life - it's simply cruel to force it to endure that week.

We, as a society, inflict so much damn suffering in the name of preserving life, that we forget there are fates worse than death. We soothe our own pain and fear of loss by forcing the survival of those who won't live long anyway, and end up in extreme pain and distress that could all be alleviated with a strong shot of morphine...

Perhaps most disgusting of all is, (in the US and Canada anyway, not so sure of other places) in the rare instance of allowing someone to die, how we go about the task. Starving and dehydrating the person, inflicting even more pain and distress. The (ir)rationale for this is to not take an active role in causing the death, which is utter bullshit. As much as a lie by omission is still a lie, omission of life preserving measures is tantamount to killing. What people fail to accept is that there is nothing inherently wrong in the act to begin with, which actually makes their cruel inaction the crime (of ethics not law, perhaps.)

Sure, life is precious, but perpetuating it past the point of being able to enjoy, or even perceive it, is cruel IMO.

Well damn!! Yes!

I will say one thing...I wish you would have joined the original discussion...it may have been more moderate. It is not a stretch to say that I could see myself typing the same exact thing you have Indie. You make great points.

I know I may be being bitchy a bit here, but Niall, you brought up other cases where we are inconsistent as respect to ending life by juxtaposing abortion of the fetus with "with terminal diseases, those of reduced intellectual capacity and the unconscious". Indie was totally within the crux of the converation by going in to euthanasia. I agree with his assessment as well. We need more doctors like Kavorkian to carry out euthanasia on those who chose it for reasons as mentioned above. There should be assisted euthanasia because letting people suffer is worse than death.

Maybe we should include other forms of termination with this discussion if you, Niall, feel that it all relates to the moral issue we are discussing.

Of course am still willing to discuss this. When have I ever run from a discussion (barring real life occurences and time constraints)?

Mr. P.

It was off on a tangent. I thought the subjects sufficiently related to make the post. Abortion and euthanasia have much in common, and many differences too.

I understand. The two are related alright, and there was nothing terribly off-topic about your post, but I was just trying to guide the thread away from becoming a euthanasia thread. So long as we stick to the aspects of euthanasia that relate to abortion, this should work.

Another extreme example, but one that doesn't rely on physical defect of the neonate would be something like this:
In a region where starvation is commonplace, disease is rampant, and the birth of another child could threaten the existence of the entire family, abortion is not only logical but quite possibly necessary to prolong the existence of the mother, and any other children. Sadly this is not without precedent. There's documentation of thousands of neonates left to die in the snow in Russia and the satellite states of the former Soviet Union, often because the family as a whole would starve by trying to feed one more mouth. Abortion of a non-perceptive embryo seems to me a much less cruel resolution in this kind of extreme scenario.

The thing about this example is that it is a scenario where law, order and indeed society in general have broken down. While I could understand why somebody would have an abortion or leave a neonate to die rather than kill another child, I don't think that it is the kind of situation that laws are designed to cater for. You can imagine the outrage that would come from both so called pro-life and so-called pro-choice individuals if a law was passed allowing infanticide in times of extreme hardship.

Now I'm curious why you hold such strong prolife views? Are they theistic in nature? My experience has been that the majority of people who are prolife are either religious or they have been influenced by prolife propaganda (like the horrible pictures of fetuses being aborted) without really putting any thought into their position. I'm sure that doesn't characterize everyone. I don't want to make assumptions about your beliefs, so what influences have led you to take this position?

Cheryl I'm reluctant to talk about my own experiences too much in this thread, lest they become the subject. To answer your question briefly, I am religious, but that doesn't really tend to affect my opinion on legal matters. While I might think that even simulated child pornography is immoral, I have no desire to see it illegal. I am in favour of the legalisation of most recreational drugs. I am in favour of legalised prostitution. I am in favour of legalising euthanasia under certain circumstances. Were I a Hindu, I would have no objection to the legalisation of Hamburgers. I have no desire to impose my morality on anybody else than you do, though of course, I may be wrong.

You've laid out your prolife argument, but what do you know about the prochoice position? What do you think are the strongest prochoice arguments? What are the weakest? If you had to play devil's advocate and argue abortion from a prochoice point of view without giving away your biases, what arguments would you make?

The strongest pro-choice arguments I've encountered come from the like of Singer who (at least partially) follow through on the traditional arguments that regard certain the exhibition of certain characteristics as the criteria we should use to declare someone Alive. Singer believes that children should not be declared alive until some considerable time after birth (he regards a three year old as a gray-case). His system of ethics is relevantly coherent, but I'd not like to live in a society based on them!

Some quotes from him:

Those who defend women's rights to abortion often refer to themselves as 'pro-choice' rather than as 'pro-abortion'. In this way they seek to bypass the issue of the moral status of the foetus, and instead make the right to abortion a question of individual liberty. But it cannot simply be assumed that a woman's right to have an abortion is a question of individual liberty, for it must first be established that the aborted foetus is not a being worthy of protection. If the foetus is worthy of protection, then laws against abortion do not create 'victimless crimes' as laws against homosexual relations between consenting adults do. So the question of the moral status of the foetus cannot be avoided.

http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1995----03.htm

An animal experiment cannot be justifiable unless the experiment is so important that the use of a brain-damaged human would be justifiable

If the fetus does not have the same claim to life as a person, it appears that the newborn baby does not either, and the life of a newborn baby is of less value to it than the life of a pig, a dog, or a chimpanzee is to the nonhuman animal.

If we can put aside these emotionally moving but strictly irrelevant aspects of the killing of a baby we can see that the grounds for not killing persons do not apply to newborn infants.

http://www.religion-online.org/showarti ... title=2659

Now, I know that very few people who label themselves as pro-choice would agree with Singer when it comes to abortion, but I find that he - unlike most pro-choice advocates - follows the usual arguments through to their natural conclusion.


EDIT

misterpessimistic wrote:
I know I may be being bitchy a bit here, but Niall, you brought up other cases where we are inconsistent as respect to ending life by juxtaposing abortion of the fetus with "with terminal diseases, those of reduced intellectual capacity and the unconscious". Indie was totally within the crux of the converation by going in to euthanasia. I agree with his assessment as well. We need more doctors like Kavorkian to carry out euthanasia on those who chose it for reasons as mentioned above. There should be assisted euthanasia because letting people suffer is worse than death.

Maybe we should include other forms of termination with this discussion if you, Niall, feel that it all relates to the moral issue we are discussing.

Of course am still willing to discuss this. When have I ever run from a discussion (barring real life occurences and time constraints)?

Mr. P.

Sorry Nick. I didn't see your post before replying to Indie and Nadia. I've no problem discussing the other issues as they relate to abortion, but for practical reasons, I just think it's best if we try and focus on a single issue. Otherwise this topic could suddenly turn into a discussion of the benefits of democracy or speedos.