What Does Abortion Have To Do With Pro-Choice?

reply to post by Wertwog

Haha, are you aware that "persons" in our society are entitled to open bank accounts, social security numbers, medical insurance, and can take you to court?

Yes, I am, and I dont see the problem.

As I mentioned in a previous post some persons have had their rights of "person-hood" removed when they've become so incapacitated they are unable to act on their own behalf AND are not conscious AND can no longer form impressions of the world and make plans. In these cases these individuals are usually on life support and the family makes the chose to turn off the machine or not.

I dont see how this challenges my position, it seems to support it instead. These persons loose their personhood not based on some ill-defined "agency", but based on the condition of their neural cortexes. They loose personhood when this neural cortex is necrotic due to brain damage. In the same way, people should be granted personhood when their neural cortexes develop. As above, so below.

You were saying there "is no difference" between a mother and child or siamese twins. Siamese twins are not each others mothers.

Yes, but why is it important that they are not each others mothers?

I am not justifying legislation, I am telling you what it is. A person, in law, can't harm or kill another person. I would look up the legal definition of a "person" and if you don't agree with it's basis, then try to have this changed.

What legislation is differs around the world. Again, a person in law CAN harm or kill another in some cases.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Wertwog

 

Clearly you didn't even bother to read my post on the subject. Skip over that part did you? My aunt was killed by a backalley abortionist. It is totally relevant, and I would be careful accusing me of not having compassion for my aunt or any woman/girl in her situation.

Then she should have gone to a professional to have the pregnancy terminated. As I said, ban on late-term abortion is just that, a ban on late-term abortion. Pregnancy can be terminated by other means that do not involve killing a baby. I also support any procedure if medically required to protect the mother. That is enough compassion and alternatives for women. Thus your straw man trying to portrait me as some kind of a control-freak without compassion wont work. I have more compassion than you, IMHO.

What do you think is the "correct" position? In what sense to you mean "correct"?

Ban on abortion (not termination of pregnancy) after neural cortex of the foetus is sufficiently developed (unless there is a medical need), to guarantee protection of both born and unborn human beings. I think around 5th month is a good limit. I consider this correct because I believe even biologically connected beings should have some protection in law.

Just to clarify, if you had read my post you would know that it was not a late-term abortion and it was done at a time when ALL abortion was banned just as many pro-lifers would prefer. As far as I can see, despite the fact I've given you several opportunities to actually go back and read the post you have not. If you are trying to make me angry by saying I don't have compassion for my aunt it won't work because there is no way in Hades you care more for my aunt than I do and you suggesting you do is beyond laughable! Nice try. You remain as cold and uncaring about women's circumstances as many other pro-lifers, IMO, in that you completely ignore them.

You are against late-term abortions and that is supposed to mean you care for women more than I do, when you openly have stated that a little "discomfort" is worth more than "killing a baby", displaying a complete lack of understanding of women's situations on many levels, as I've previously pointed out. You completely ignore my argument that abortions will be conducted no matter what laws are in place, trying to ban them only means more dead women and babies, an issue that most pro-lifers can't and won't face. Is this an example of your 'compassion'?

Your "correct" position is your own opinion that you 'believe'. It is not "correct" in the big "T" universal sense and the fact that you want to extend this to everyone just shows how controlling your aims are. You are "right" and therefore everyone else must be "wrong", prime black and white thinking.

The current laws seem to adequately cover your belief that early-term abortions should be allowed, so I don't see what you are really trying to accomplish with all this. I'm not arguing that the laws should be changed in any way.

reply to post by Wertwog

Look, the whole point of your position seems to be that you want 'person-hood' to be extended to the unborn and all the rights that go along with it, correct? This is so that mothers wouldn't be able to abort/kill 'persons'.

Yes, but only to some unborns. I have no ethical problem with early abortions.

You have thus far stated quite clearly that you consider whether or not something is a "person" should be based on it's neurology. Then you go on to talk about mind and consciousness and sentience as if these have anything to do with it. When I pointed out that these are not neurological concepts, you then now want me not to ignore them, but it is you yourself that defined the debate along these principals.

I do think mind and consciousness and sentience are also neurological concepts. You have not shown that this is not the case. Read this:

en.wikipedia.org...

Cognitive neuroscience is an academic field concerned with the scientific study of biological substrates underlying cognition,[1] with a specific focus on the neural substrates of mental processes. It addresses the questions of how psychological/cognitive functions are produced by the brain. Cognitive neuroscience is a branch of both psychology and neuroscience, overlapping with disciplines such as physiological psychology, cognitive psychology and neuropsychology.

Your simplistic view of neuroscience is not justified, it studies not only the "meat" of the brain, but epiphenomenons associated with it and how brain gives rise to these. We dont know everything, but we already know a lot, enough to reject both birth and conception as a limit.

Your credibility is seriously in question when you don't know where to draw the line on a neurological basis and in doing so would allow clams and oysters to have person-hood rights ... social security numbers and vote.

Clams and oysters are not developed enough, IMHO. And no voting, not all persons can vote, only intelligent ones (18+ humans).

reply to post by Wertwog

Just to clarify, if you had read my post you would know that it was not a late-term abortion and it was done at a time when ALL abortion was banned just as many pro-lifers would prefer.

Then our opinions are basically the same concerning the matter of your aunts abortion. And I am not pro-life, I dont agree with a ban on all abortion (nor am I always pro-choice, tough).

If you are trying to make me angry by saying I don't have compassion for my aunt it won't work because there is no way in Hades you care more for my aunt than I do and you suggesting you do is beyond laughable!

Huh? I wasnt suggesting that at all.

Nice try. You remain as cold and uncaring about women's circumstances as many other pro-lifers, IMO, in that you completely ignore them.

I completely ignore them by advocating allowing early abortions without any limits, late-term terminations of pregnancy that do no kill the baby, and any procedures that are medically required to protect the mother, all this payed for by taxes to guarantee easy access. Yeah, cold as an ice.. not.

You are against late-term abortions and that is supposed to mean you care for women more than I do, when you openly have stated that a little "discomfort" is worth more than "killing a baby", displaying a complete lack of understanding of women's situations on many levels, as I've previously pointed out.

Disregarding terminations of pregnancy that do not kill the baby, I stand by my statement. It is not a complete lack of understanding or compassion. It is a balance between rights of a baby and mother, with enough compassion for both.

You completely ignore my argument that abortions will be conducted no matter what laws are in place, trying to ban them only means more dead women and babies, an issue that most pro-lifers can't and won't face. Is this an example of your 'compassion'?

I dont think so. I believe outlawing late-term abortions would help keep their numbers minimal, with no or minimal increase in dead women and babies.

The current laws seem to adequately cover your belief that early-term abortions should be allowed, so I don't see what you are really trying to accomplish with all this. I'm not arguing that the laws should be changed in any way.

Which laws? Canadian? Slovakian? US? Dont forget to specify this when talking legislation. I am arguing in favor of late-term abortion ban, tough.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Wertwog

 

Haha, are you aware that "persons" in our society are entitled to open bank accounts, social security numbers, medical insurance, and can take you to court?

Yes, I am, and I dont see the problem.

I'll repeat:

Frankly, I'm finding it hard to take your arguments seriously when you openly state you would want rights of person-hood accorded to mollusks. Your credibility is seriously in question when you don't know where to draw the line on a neurological basis and in doing so would allow clams and oysters to have person-hood rights ... social security numbers and vote. Come on, really? How would you like to be taken to court by a clam or have your favorite candidate loose the election because of the "oyster vote". Frankly, you're being ridiculous and a little thought into your arguments might help them be a bit more cogent.

I do think mind and consciousness and sentience are also neurological concepts. You have not shown that this is not the case. Read this:

en.wikipedia.org...

Cognitive neuroscience is an academic field concerned with the scientific study of biological substrates underlying cognition,[1] with a specific focus on the neural substrates of mental processes. It addresses the questions of how psychological/cognitive functions are produced by the brain. Cognitive neuroscience is a branch of both psychology and neuroscience, overlapping with disciplines such as physiological psychology, cognitive psychology and neuropsychology.

Your simplistic view of neuroscience is not justified, it studies not only the "meat" of the brain, but epiphenomenons associated with it and how brain gives rise to these. We dont know everything, but we already know a lot, enough to reject both birth and conception as a limit.

Haha, this made me laugh. Ok. Cognitive psychology and neuropsychology do study cognition, which are the 'meaty' and 'chemical' processes involved with thinking. I have a MA in Cognitive Psychology and I can reliably tell you that "mind" is considered as separate from 'cognition'. There is overlap in the disciplines, many folks are spending a LOT of energy trying to get to this, expecially with regard to artificial intelligence and consciousness, but thus far, neurology and neuroscience alone can't explain "mind", "consciousness" or "sentience". Many branches of psychology can't either. We are getting close, but so far there is no 'purely neurological' basis for these phenomena. Note that I say "purely neurological', meaning 'meaty/chemical'. What we consider our "mind" and "consciousness" is a 'phenomena' that appears to result from our brains but as of yet there is no physical explanation of them.

Does that satisfy you that I might know what I'm talking about?

As I mentioned in a previous post some persons have had their rights of "person-hood" removed when they've become so incapacitated they are unable to act on their own behalf AND are not conscious AND can no longer form impressions of the world and make plans. In these cases these individuals are usually on life support and the family makes the chose to turn off the machine or not.

I dont see how this challenges my position, it seems to support it instead. These persons loose their personhood not based on some ill-defined "agency", but based on the condition of their neural cortexes. They loose personhood when this neural cortex is necrotic due to brain damage. In the same way, people should be granted personhood when their neural cortexes develop. As above, so below.

What part of "unable to act on their own behalf..." combined with the other criteria do you not understand? This is directly related to agency.

Thank about it. A person is someone who is conscious, can make impressions of the world, formulate plans and ACT upon them. Someone who has no agency can't be a person. Agency can't be removed by external means, you misunderstand. Agency has to do with someones ability to act and represent themselves. In the same way an 'agent' represents another person, we represent our own selves. It is tied together with having a body to act with, but it is a broader concept than you seem to think.

In the case of any unborn, because they are entirely dependent on their mother and can't communicate or represent themselves or act in the world, they must be represented by her as their 'agent'. They cannot be full persons yet until they are born and the umbilical cord is cut whereby they gain the ability (albeit in newborns it is limited) to represent themselves and act in the world. As children develop their personal agency develops also. For this reason children, although persons in law, are still seen as dependents or developing persons.

Agency is a key concept in personhood and that is why personal rights also scale. When we become fully adult we then take on all the full rights of personhood and adulthood, voting etc.

I find it odd you don't have a concept of agency. As I've said before, I think you want to dismiss it out of convenience to your position.

Yes, but why is it important that they are not each others mothers?

Because when you say there is "no difference" their clearly is a difference.

I am not justifying legislation, I am telling you what it is. A person, in law, can't harm or kill another person. I would look up the legal definition of a "person" and if you don't agree with it's basis, then try to have this changed.

What legislation is differs around the world. Again, a person in law CAN harm or kill another in some cases.

Granted, alright. So you used this in the context of twins. So sometimes, in some countries, these two persons would be able to harm or kill one another legally. What's your point?

Personhood isn't a clear concept. We all seem to know or have a sense of it, but it is difficult to pin down on paper which is why there is so much debate around it. In our society we have decided to define it as a human that has been born, but I'm sure in other times and places it hasn't been defined this way. This debate can go on forever, I don't see what it is really advancing in our understanding of this topic. I've tried to honestly point out what I think are the underpinnings of this concept but unless you have something new to add I'm done on this subject.

We actually don't disagree as much as you seem to think. If you support a woman's right to choose then we have no real disparity in our positions. I don't advocate for late-term abortions either because while I don't agree that these beings are yet 'persons' they are sufficiently developed and should be allowed the opportunity to 'become human'. I don't agree with suspending the mother's human rights in favor of this, however, and I have no real way to reconcile my two positions. Unless there was a way to transfer the fetus into a mechanical or willing surrogate there is no real way to protect both the mother's rights and child life. To me the mother's rights to her body are just as important as the child's life. If there wasn't a need for the mother to abort then the whole issue would be moot and I think this is what we as a society should be working toward rather than laws and bans.

and... now... to repeat... I think we've come to the end of our conversation.

reply to post by Maslo

No. Every fertilised egg has the potential to do two things. Die, or produce a human CHILD (which is again, only potential for adult). Just as sperm and eggs may produce only potential for adult, so does the embryo. Neither of these end points is a human adult. Though one creates the potential for one. But it does not posses it.

Potential is an arbitrary and ill-defined concept. Thats why we should protect only actuality.

The actuality of the fact is that every fertilized egg produces a human adult if left alone. Every sperm and egg produces death if left alone.

Nothing is guaranteed, ever. Many pregnancies, 30% i think, end spontaneously. Its all probabilities, both with fertilisation, fetal development and even after birth it is not guaranteed child will survive into adulthood.

What nature does has no will. It is a selfish gene. It just replicates. What man does has a will. It can be controlled.

Sperms and eggs certainly have a potential (probability) to initiate some chain of events ultimately leading to a human adult. They have potential. Just like embryo has only some probability to initiate chain of events ultimately leading to a human adult.

If I choose not to have sex or masturbate, or anything, be I a woman or a man, my egg or sperm will be destroyed by my body and recycled for energy, with the remains being ejected as waste produce.

If I chose not to have an abortion, my fertilized egg will become a human adult. The body will seek to produce it, maintain it, and get it to the final result.


This is quite a simple fact, and why sperm and egg potential is not the same as a zygotic one.

reply to post by Gorman91

The actuality of the fact is that every fertilized egg produces a human adult if left alone.

If left alone, newborn will die. It requires actions to go from fertilised egg to human adult.

Every sperm and egg produces death if left alone.

No, if you have sex, it produces embryo if left alone. It produces death only if you actively act to make it so (use acticonception as opposed to not) - actively terminate its potential.

This shows the whole passive/active choice divide is purely arbitrary, thus irrelevant, just like potential is arbitrary and irrelevant. Its omission bias logical fallacy to deem actions resulting in the same consequences morally different, just because one is more passive and one is more active (refusing sex vs. abortion), and its logically inconsistent to deem actions resulting in the same consequences morally different even when both are equally active (using contraception vs. abortion).

What nature does has no will. It is a selfish gene. It just replicates. What man does has a will. It can be controlled.

Why it should be OK to not control man if he wants to actively terminate potential with contraception, but OK to control man if he wants to do it with abortion?

reply to post by Maslo

If left alone, newborn will die. It requires actions to go from fertilised egg to human adult.

Energy for maintenance as product of our evolution as mammals is not relevant when dealing with the relativity of the subject. That is, creation.

No, if you have sex, it produces embryo if left alone. It produces death only if you actively act to make it so (use acticonception as opposed to not) - actively terminate its potential. This shows the whole passive/active choice divide is purely arbitrary, thus irrelevant, just like potential is arbitrary and irrelevant. Its omission bias logical fallacy to deem actions resulting in the same consequences morally different, just because one is more passive and one is more active (refusing sex vs. abortion), and its logically inconsistent to deem actions resulting in the same consequences morally different even when both are equally active (using contraception vs. abortion).

If you have sex, you are accepting the consequences of what happens if you do not take precautions. Precautions to the production of that life.

Again, one is dealing with a life that exists, and its potential. The other is dealing with a life that may exist, but can still be stopped before the production of unique human genome and bodily form.

What you just ranted on is quite irrelevant to what I said therefore, and not arbitrary at all. There is a set point in time when a human life begins. And that is the product of its own cell with its own blue prints. The potential before this life exists can be stopped without murder, because nothing exists yet. The stopping of that potential to reach an adult after it exists is murder, because you physically stopped an existing entity, not haploids that will die if left to their own devices.

Why it should be OK to not control man if he wants to actively terminate potential with contraception, but OK to control man if he wants to do it with abortion?

Because the "selfish gene" does not exist yet.

Once again, the selfish gene only cares about replicating. We are the product of that replication. We also have memes, which has allowed us to "rebel" as Dawkins put it, against the selfish gene. When dealing with this rebellion, we must accept the fact that there is a fixed point in time when the selfish gene replicates to a new form, and when it has not. And in our rebellion, we must accept the fact that the individual's gene exists after its replication, not before.