http://www.booktalk.org/forums/can-you- ... 71-30.htmlGee this conversation has exploded. Niall and Mr. P. if we're looking to attract and keep new members we might want to respond to their request that we not divert the conversation away from the original topic. As indie said, it is easy enough to start your own thread. In fact, there was an abortion thread a while back where, if I recall correctly, I directed questions/statements to both of you that went unanswered.
And that's why we're starting a new thread.
Irish, apologies if I didn't answer some of your questions. As far as I recall, I was very busy at the time. If you want to put those questions to me now, I'll do my best to answer them - you know, so long as I'm not busy.
Nick
Hold on Nick, what happened to having the ability to choose? What happened to being a self-sufficient individual? This argument is no more convincing than pro-life arguments that utilise imagery of the developing foetus.Look into the eyes of a newborn and then look into the eyes of a zygote. What color are the zygotes eyes? Can you discern a personality in the zygote? The infant? Can the zygote move about in any way or alert anyone of its desires?
I can only assume that you don't think we should kill off unwanted orphans, so if that's the case there are circumstances under which you endorse allowing individuals survive even when it is "on the dime of everyone else in society." If I were to ask you what you thought the difference was between the foetus and the newborn, no doubt we'd end up back at the "It's only a bunch of cells phase", which is why I find all of these drain on society arguments so bloody irrelevant.Remember the Schiavo discussion? If a person has the means to keep themselves alive through medicine or care, then great. If they want to die, let them. If they cannot decide, the next of kin should decide without any repurcussions. I do not support keeping people alive if there is no hope of getting better or if they cannot function if it is on the dime of everyone else in the society.
This is a little more relevant. The assumption you seem to make here that I do not is that consciousness is somehow that which marks the start of life. If this is the case, then I have to wonder what you mean by consciousness. Depending on the definition one uses, it is possible to argue that other mammals are conscious (given that they display self-awareness, compassion, desire etc.) or that newborn children are not (given that their capacities, awareness and capabilities are less than that of the average chicken). It is also worth noting that consciousness is not consistent throughout life. An individual is not regarded as some sort half-life when placed under general anaesthetic even though they are conscious. Some individuals spend decades in a coma without consciousness, so if an individual must display consciousness in order to have a recognised life, then you'd have to wonder how these people should have been treated.Well "The Pre-Natal Human" is a very general term. There are very specific phases of a pregnancy. At the very beginning it is not conscious at all.
Those are statements. I was kind of hoping you'd just explain the reasoning behind them. Especially given that "the laws as they are" (and I can only assume you mean the laws that apply in the USA), tend to allow the foetus a right to life during the later stages of pregnancy.The only time a human has a 'right' to life is after it is born. There is no guarantee that a fertilized egg will survive to birth. Now, I am fine with the laws as they are. No abortions after a certain time and all that.
Me:
Mr. PNick, maybe I'm wrong but it seems to me that it is you who is missing the point. I do not care if someone is self-sufficient or productive. I regard the developing human as a person...By using the far-fetched example of killing off China, I only hoped to show you how irrelevant your arguments about overpopulation are to any debate about abortion. Clearly, I failed.
Oh for Fuck's sake. You asked me a question. I explained my answer.What you and all who share your views miss, and refuse to even CONSIDER, is that myself and other like me do NOT consider the developing mass of cells human until a certain point in the development. Your far fetched examples are polemics, plain and simple.
I am perfectly willing to acknowledge the fact during the earlier stages of development, the human organism does not have impressive capabilities. That's obvious. I'm also aware that you think that humans (in the textbook sense with a small h) only have a right to life when they display these (as yet unlisted) characteristics.
What the hell are you talking about? I attempted to explain my argument by analogy. You didn't get it. What exactly do you find polemical about that?
Do you even read what I type? Really, I have to wonder.What you also fail to accept is that Pro-Choice is NOT pro-abortion. You said earlier you would prefer to couch the discussion as Anti-Abortion and Pro-Abortion. To me that is more polemical than Pro-Choice. And this is because as someone who is Pro-Choice, I am leaveing that choice for people like you to NOT have abortions.
What I said was:
In order for a term to be polemical it would have to be designed to cast negative aspersions on one side of a debate. That was not the case with the label "pro-abortion" because it was used as shorthand.Well personally I tended to use the terms pro-abortion and anti-abortion simply because pro-legalised abortion and anti-legalised-abortion don't exactly slip off the tongue, however I've given up on that because you end upsetting pro-choice types who insist that the term doesn't adequately reflect that they aren't pro-abortion but pro-having-the-option-of-having-abortions.
I'm starting to sound like a broken record here but I console myself with the fact that at least I won't irritate you, given that you can't seem to hear me.You would have people do as YOU will (YOU = You and those that share your views). You would force only one option. ANd that would most probably not stop abortions anyway. Desperate women would still seek to have it done.
Imagine for a moment that I suggested to you that by opposing infanticide you were trying to have people do as you would. Would that be accurate? Yes. Would it be relevant? No.
Now before you go giving Trigger a bad back, I'm not suggesting that - for you - endorsing the availability of abortion is the equivalent of endorsing the legalisation of infanticide. Given that you do not believe that the human organism is a Life during the early stages of developement, it would be impossible for you to purposely take its life, nor would you cause the pain that's usually associated with infanticide.
My point - one you seem to miss every single time - is that what is at issue is the basis we should use for deciding on whether or not various forms of the human organism should have a right to life recognised and protected by state. On this issue, you've floated all over the place. You started talking about productivity and viability in one place, moved on to consciousness later, then brought up the cost to society, later birth was decided upon as the milestone and at one stage having nice eyes and being able to communicate desire were suggested as the defining criteria.
The starting point of any productive debate on abortion should be examining the alternatives for deciding the criteria for deciding who and what is entitled to have a right to life recognised legally.
Me:
Nick:This is also irrelevant. Given that you support policies that prevent parents from engaging in infanticide, do you go out of your way to help parents who are burdened with children they regret having? Why not?
Nick, I'm assuming that you don't actually support the repeal of laws that ban infanticide. If that is the case this answer makes no sense. I think you must have misread the question.I would support programs to help these people out. I would offer personal help where I could. I would not feel compelled to do more. Why? Because I did not want to pass a law that only gave them one option. I left them a choice at every step of the way, knowing how hard it is to raise children and how much it changes your life. I also would have supported programs to educate on use of contraception and also counselling on what to expect from whatever choice they would eventually make prior to carrying the pregnancy to full term.
[Broken record] Neither would a newborn child. [Broken record]The cells would never know any better.
Finally:
But Niall would feel all cozy knowing that his uber-moral stand has won out. His will shall be done! Now off to the coffee shop.
It seems to me that questions like this explain why I'm find myself in broken-record mode so often when discussing this issue with you Nick. it seems that you've already decided that you know what I believe, so you're not so much reading what I write, as reading what you think I believe into what I post. That ends discussions quickly.Is it just humans you are concerned with or life in general? Is it because humans have a soul that you are so concerned about protecting human life?
Edited for Nick's Benefit.
