Fewsion, do you think abortion should be made illegal?
And what is your stance on contraception?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

I'm not trying to pick flaws in your approaches I'm trying to understand your point of view. I've stated what I think constitutes a living being and I don't know if that's changed at all. See post #21.

How are you understanding "consciousness" as well? It was not my intention to be offensive. If "consciousness" is used in the more general sense, similar to being "awake" (not exclusively) then the unborn should be afforded this protection as they too have consciousness. It's an interesting point though, discussed further here: http://mitpress.mit.edu/books/chapte...33313chap1.pdf

Do you have a definition of what constitutes a living person that differs?

All I could get from post #21 was that you think "life" represents a "living being". In the context of this thread which is about abortion of a human being, I couldn't possibly fathom that you were crazy enough to suggest that an amoeba is on the same level of consciousness or sentience as a human. But I guess I can see now from this post that is what you are suggesting. This creates an almighty problem for you now which is the fact that in order for you to be alive, many trillions of "living beings" must die everyday . How do you resolve this conflict of interest fewsion? I assume you do eat food yeah? Why is it not ok to kill a glob of stem cells in the womb, but it is ok to kill an apple for lunch? According to you they are both "living beings".

Wrt to defining consciousness I don't believe it is that simple. There is no universally accepted definition so it sort of makes no difference what I say, because someone else could always come up with another definition. The definition you seem to have arrived at however, leaves you wide open to a massive contradiction about how you live your life and your personal ideology. My best guess however is aligned with that of medical science, which is basically that consciousness is something that is related to complex neural pattern activity and self awareness. Using this definition I can at least remain consistent across a variety of ethical scenarios and not make myself a hypocrite.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davomaxi

Yes please. Sorry for the 'your catholic mates' too that was out of line.

But basically yes please explain how Capital Punishment be endorsed and abortion sin binned when they both break a fairly important commandment.

Thanks for that. I don't have an answer. I wouldn't support capital punishment personally and I'm not just saying that either to be ethically consistent. I don't think that capital punishment serves as a useful deterrent or a useful solution to making victims of crime happier, or society a safer place.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geezah

Fewsion, do you think abortion should be made illegal?
And what is your stance on contraception?

Yes, I do.

I understand and respect the Church's teaching on contraception. Other than that it gets a little personal.

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude

All I could get from post #21 was that you think "life" represents a "living being". In the context of this thread which is about abortion of a human being, I couldn't possibly fathom that you were crazy enough to suggest that an amoeba is on the same level of consciousness or sentience as a human. But I guess I can see now from this post that is what you are suggesting. This creates an almighty problem for you now which is the fact that in order for you to be alive, many trillions of "living beings" must die everyday . How do you resolve this conflict of interest fewsion? I assume you do eat food yeah? Why is it not ok to kill a glob of stem cells in the womb, but it is ok to kill an apple for lunch? According to you they are both "living beings".

I don't. I've said from the start that an unborn child should be treated like it is a human being in a different stage of life. I don't treat animals or any other living things like human beings. Is it okay to kill an apple for lunch? Most definitely; but women don't birth apples and this discussion has never been about aborting unborn animals or plants (nice try though).

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude

Consciousness is something that is related to complex neural pattern activity and self awareness. Using this definition I can at least remain consistent across a variety of ethical scenarios and not make myself a hypocrite.

So to clarify, do you believe that abortion is permissible because they are not a conscious being? What if we just don't know enough about what embryos and foetuses are capable of in terms of consciousness? It's a grave decision to make on a whim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

I don't. I've said from the start that an unborn child should be treated like it is a human being in a different stage of life. I don't treat animals or any other living things like human beings.

That's great but it doesn't really make much room for the rights of the woman that must carry said unborn child. This is why so many people believe that abortion should not be made illegal. The rights of the foetus should not outweigh those of the mother. Using terminology such as "unborn child" is a petty attempt to play on the human emotive element which is typical of the pro-life movement. It won't work in here though because we all know that an embryo is not the same thing as an "unborn child".

Quote:

So to clarify, do you believe that abortion is permissible because they are not a conscious being? What if we just don't know enough about what embryos and foetuses are capable of in terms of consciousness? It's a grave decision to make on a whim.

Moot point. We do know enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude

That's great but it doesn't really make much room for the rights of the woman that must carry said unborn child. This is why so many people believe that abortion should not be made illegal. The rights of the foetus should not outweigh those of the mother. Using terminology such as "unborn child" is a petty attempt to play on the human emotive element which is typical of the pro-life movement. It won't work in here though because we all know that an embryo is not the same thing as an "unborn child".

Moot point. We do know enough.

Well move the goalposts again.

You still haven't stated what informs your opinion on the matter. How are you defining a "living being" and what informs your opinions on the matter?

If only it was so simple as "we all know that an embryo is not the same thing as an unborn child" and "we do know enough". No space for innovation in the sciences that would possibly reveal more? Sounds rather closed-minded.

Prolifer's can go fuck themselves, is easy for them to get all high and mighty about an issue that doesn't concern them directly.
Frankly it's none of their business, it's not their bodies that suffer and get deformed by an unwanted pregnancy.

Pregnancy is just a chemical reaction, the world is just a petri dish, is there scientific evidence that a soul exists?

Abortions will always be a part of human life like they have been for centuries, they should be safe and legal in this day and age.

/rant.

Pretty ordinary rant. Being anti-abortion is not contingent on my belief in the soul. Is there scientific evidence that an embryo is a human being? That's perhaps a more pertinent question to ask oneself, and it would provide a much more useful debate than discussing how pregnancies deform a female body.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

1. Yes, I do.

2. I understand and respect the Church's teaching on contraception. Other than that it gets a little personal.

1. Fair enough, I honestly hope that your view doesn't become the norm in this country though.

2. Nice dodge. I was baptised a Catholic but it has been a very long time since I have understood as well as respected the institution.

Read between the lines. It was not a dodge at all.

I guess i will start with; abortion after 12 weeks starts to get a bit...for me personally, uncomfortable. I guess from what i've read i understand that 12 weeks is around the time when the foetus starts to show some semblance of sentience/consciousness (forgive me if i am wrong).


I do not think abortion should be made illegal, and i certainly do not wish to be dictated to, within a secular society, by a religious group about what kind of rights, i as a woman should or should not have, especially given that the head of the church is a man, one that can not and will not ever be faced with the situation of having to carry a child to full term against his will.
I do not think there is any case in which a woman should be made to continue a pregnancy against her will.
On the contrary - I think abortion should be legal and safe, with the mothers best interests (both physical and mental) being the definitive factor.

I do not understand this insistence around pregnancy that a child should be born, or that if a child is aborted, its murder.
Finally i must agree with didge re: the rights of the foetus should not become more important than the rights of the woman.

p.s. I also think a sex education AND pregnancy/contraception overhaul would be good, having been told by friends who went to catholic schools that actually, they did not receive ANY sexual health information, is infact quite alarming.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

You still haven't stated what informs your opinion on the matter. How are you defining a "living being" and what informs your opinions on the matter?

If only it was so simple as "we all know that an embryo is not the same thing as an unborn child" and "we do know enough". No space for innovation in the sciences that would possibly reveal more? Sounds rather closed-minded.

It is universally accepted by neuroscientists that human consciousness requires stable brain activity in the cortical brain regions. Even though the neural tube closes at about 30 days and there is development of the midbrain (the part of the brain which controls automatic functions such as breathing and heart rate), the cortical regions do not develop until much later. Unstable cortical brain activity begins around 24-28wks and becomes stable during the 3rd trimester.

Even a child could understand that no amount of scientific innovation is going to speed up this process to the point that stable EEG activity commences at the moment of conception.

It has been argued that since "brain death" is an acceptable definition of human death (this is even accepted by the church), then "brain life" should be an acceptable definition of human life. I do not believe that abortion should be used as contraception but I accept the fact that "accidents" happen sometimes and I believe that women deserve the right to choose their own fate for a period of time prior to any "brain life" in the foetus. Thus I believe that there is a period of time following conception in which the mother's right to choose her own fate outweighs that of the embryo which has no brain activity. At the point in which a pre-mature baby can survive outside the womb (about 26wks) then the rights of the fetus become the same as those of the mother and hence they both have an equal right to life. If we put a big f#ckoff buffer zone inbetween at around 12wks then there can be no confusion.

If one believes that "human life" and thus human rights begins at the moment of conception then you do not allow the mother the right to choose her own fate in the event of an accident or rape during a period of time in which the fetus has no "brain life" and thus absolutely no sense of what it means to be human. I have no problem with defining "human life" as beginning at the moment of conception, but I do have a problem with forcing that definition on others who do not agree with it. I think that is less moral than respecting the mother's human rights.

ps: in fact I welcome the definition of "human life" as beginning at the moment of conception. But as explained, there is a period of time in which the human rights of an embryo are not the same as those of a fetus > 26wks. I would argue that the human rights of the embryo develop gradually in sync with its physiological development and become full at around 26 wks.

I would also argue that you cannot apply this reasoning to other situations such as mentally retarded people or people who have had some injury and are "almost" brain dead, because those cases are very different and thus require a different set of ethical justifications.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

Pretty ordinary rant.

Why? Because she's a woman expressing her opinion forcefully?

Quote:

Originally Posted by weekender

Why? Because she's a woman expressing her opinion forcefully?

Well we all know how much of the Catholic Church hates the idea of women having ideas or making their own decisions.

How many female cardinals are there? Oh only zero? That doesn't seem like a lot.
How many female bishops are there? Oh also zero... That still doesn't seem like a lot.
How many female priests are there? Hahahaha I kid, I kid it's zero.

Doesn't stop them from trying to dictate to all women (not just Catholic women) and force their fucking stone age mythology on them.

Seriously Fewsion just shut up. There isn't a Catholic opinion about women or their rights that has actually been formulated by women or even consulted them for their opnion. The whole religion is a giant pile of misogynistic crap.

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude

It is universally accepted by neuroscientists that human consciousness requires stable brain activity in the cortical brain regions.

Pfft, science. What has it done for us lately?

I prefer the Catholic Church's position: everyone once in a while, God changes his mind. Sometimes the soul enters the foetus during quickening (a 'scientific' term to describe when the mother starts to feel it kick) at other times, the soul has been there from the moment of conception. Science be damned, I've got a hunch we're right this time.

But whatever God's mood is, the most important thing we need to agree on is what a pregnant women does with her body should be under the purview of men who aren't allowed to have sex. It's the only thing which makes sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

What if we just don't know enough about what embryos and foetuses are capable of in terms of consciousness? It's a grave decision to make on a whim.

If this is an ethical and not a doctrinal position you have to extend it to all living things. If you don't do that, you are not applying ethics, you are applying doctrine.

I can't imagine didjerijude how you can think that neurosurgeons know all they can know about consciousness or that we've reached the limits of scientific knowledge about the capacities of embryos. I don't pretend to know anything about neurosurgery but I don't share your convictions in that regard.

Also:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15271233

Even the abstract goes to show that it's not a simple task of stating where consciousness begins.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo "brain activity begins at about the 6th week"

In all this though, defining a living human being as one with consciousness necessitates re-defining what a living human being is. You have your definition of what life is. You have your definition of what a human being is. Why do you need to re-define what an embryo or a foetus is? They are at a different stage of life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude

It is universally accepted by neuroscientists that human consciousness requires stable brain activity in the cortical brain regions. Even though the neural tube closes at about 30 days and there is development of the midbrain (the part of the brain which controls automatic functions such as breathing and heart rate), the cortical regions do not develop until much later. Unstable cortical brain activity begins around 24-28wks and becomes stable during the 3rd trimester.

Even a child could understand that no amount of scientific innovation is going to speed up this process to the point that stable EEG activity commences at the moment of conception.

It has been argued that since "brain death" is an acceptable definition of human death (this is even accepted by the church), then "brain life" should be an acceptable definition of human life. I do not believe that abortion should be used as contraception but I accept the fact that "accidents" happen sometimes and I believe that women deserve the right to choose their own fate for a period of time prior to any "brain life" in the foetus. Thus I believe that there is a period of time following conception in which the mother's right to choose her own fate outweighs that of the embryo which has no brain activity. At the point in which a pre-mature baby can survive outside the womb (about 26wks) then the rights of the fetus become the same as those of the mother and hence they both have an equal right to life. If we put a big f#ckoff buffer zone inbetween at around 12wks then there can be no confusion.

Well written. Of particular importance in what we tend to define as human 'concoiusness' is the development of long range thalamo-cortical connections and the establishment of synchronous rhythms in that network, and between cortical areas.

Particularly good summary: http://www.nature.com/pr/journal/v65...pr200950a.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

If this is an ethical and not a doctrinal position you have to extend it to all living things. If you don't do that, you are not applying ethics, you are applying doctrine.

An ethical position that distinguishes living human beings from living things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

I can't imagine didjerijude how you can think that neurosurgeons know all they can know about consciousness or that we've reached the limits of scientific knowledge about the capacities of embryos. I don't pretend to know anything about neurosurgery but I don't share your convictions in that regard.

Also:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15271233

Even the abstract goes to show that it's not a simple task of stating where consciousness begins.

That's a red herring article mate, completely out of context in this discussion. If you really want to dive into neuronal correlates of conciousness, and what we do and do not understand, you need to do a lot of reading on the anaesthesia associated work done by people like Nicholas Franks, George Mashour, Giulio Tononi, Michael Alkaire and Christof Koch

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo "brain activity begins at about the 6th week"

In all this though, defining a living human being as one with consciousness necessitates re-defining what a living human being is. You have your definition of what life is. You have your definition of what a human being is. Why do you need to re-define what an embryo or a foetus is? They are at a different stage of life.

That wikipedia quote is full of fail. Neuronal firing =/= brain activity

So likewise a sperm cell or an egg is a human being at a different stage of life. So is a blastocyst. Is there no room for saying; at A many weeks, a fetus is at stage X and abortion is still acceptable. However at B many weeks, fetus is at stage Y and abortion is not acceptable. 'A fetus' or 'an embryo' as a single term does not adequately define stages of maturation that are relevant to the discussion (i.e. conciousness-like brain activity).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

I can't imagine didjerijude how you can think that neurosurgeons know all they can know about consciousness or that we've reached the limits of scientific knowledge about the capacities of embryos. I don't pretend to know anything about neurosurgery but I don't share your convictions in that regard.

You can believe whatever you want. I'm sure you also believe that Jesus was the son of god and rose from the dead, and if you like you can believe that a 2 day old embryo has consciousness and sits around playing cards and reading Jung in the uterus while it waits to pop out and see the sunshine.

Other people however do not believe that. Other people believe that a 10wk old foetus does not possess enough physiological development to be afforded the same human rights as a fully grown adult woman. They use scientific evidence to justify that moral position. Why should those woman be forced to abide by your rules which have no scientific basis?

I have never said that I know for sure either way but I believe that it is possible. You disagree with absolute certainty.

Speaking of human rights, look at article 6 of the Convention of the Rights of the Child:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm

Lastly, I won't spam the quotations from this page:

http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/

But you can see that even abortion advocates acknowledge that abortion is the killing of a living human being. And so, the question must return to the scientific evidence about the onset of consciousness (however problematic), or questions about when the embryo feels pain or the human rights (despite its self-contradiction) of the mother.

so how do you justify that the Catholic Church allows the killing of adult human beings?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

I have never said that I know for sure either way but I believe that it is possible. You disagree with absolute certainty.

Speaking of human rights, look at article 6 of the Convention of the Rights of the Child:

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm

Lastly, I won't spam the quotations from this page:

http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/

But you can see that even abortion advocates acknowledge that abortion is the killing of a living human being. And so, the question must return to the scientific evidence about the onset of consciousness (however problematic), or questions about when the embryo feels pain or the human rights (despite its self-contradiction) of the mother.

Hello Dodge city

Answer the question. Why should a woman be forced to follow the rules of the catholic church if that is not what she believes?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbb618

so how do you justify that the Catholic Church allows the killing of adult human beings?

I'm not their spokesperson. I've seen it for the first time in this thread.

Quote:

Hello Dodge city

Because there is no question that abortion is killing an unborn human being. Plain and simple.

This can have everything to do with the Catholic Church if you want. It can also have absolutely nothing to do with the Catholic Church. If you have defined what it is to be human and what it is to be living then there's no way out of that. The only retort is about physiological development of the embryo or the onset of consciousness: they're evasions. If you want to speak more about human rights, explain how you do away with the rights of the child?

Quote:

Originally Posted by dbb618

so how do you justify that the Catholic Church allows the killing of adult human beings?

edit: rather dishonest to not have included more relevant information from your earlier post from the wikipedia page about this, specifically:

"In his encyclical Evangelium Vitae published in 1995, Pope John Paul II removed this public safety qualification and declared that, in today's modern society, capital punishment can scarcely ever be condoned."

Dude, answer a simple question: Is it right to restrict a woman rights by stopping her from aborting her baby, yes or no?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

edit: rather dishonest to not have included more relevant information from your earlier post from the wikipedia page about this, specifically:

"In his encyclical Evangelium Vitae published in 1995, Pope John Paul II removed this public safety qualification and declared that, in today's modern society, capital punishment can scarcely ever be condoned."

I remember Jesus saying that ay! "But whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. Unless of course thou hast made a decision, that the smiter is worthy of a stoning: thus shall yee stone away."

Good pick-up by the Pope.

:sarcasm:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davomaxi

Dude, answer a simple question: Is it right to restrict a woman rights by stopping her from aborting her baby, yes or no?

Yes. Very leading question. Asked another way. Is a woman's right to abort a baby greater than that baby's right to life? Then the answer is no.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

Because there is no question that abortion is killing an unborn human being. Plain and simple.

No it isn't plain and simple, that is what YOU believe. Other people do not believe that.

So answer the question. Why do other people have to believe what you do?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

An ethical position that distinguishes living human beings from living things.

What is your basis for making that distinction?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

Yes. Very leading question. Asked another way. Is a woman's right to abort a baby greater than that baby's right to life? Then the answer is no.

Yep that is what you believe. I don't believe that. Let's say my wife or my sister does not believe it either. So answer the question, is it acceptable to force your belief onto my wife or my sister by turning it into law? You are forcing them to go through a situation which could be emotionally traumatic, dangerous or potentially even life threatening, against their will. According to our beliefs that would make such a law a violation of their human rights.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

edit: rather dishonest to not have included more relevant information from your earlier post from the wikipedia page about this, specifically:

"In his encyclical Evangelium Vitae published in 1995, Pope John Paul II removed this public safety qualification and declared that, in today's modern society, capital punishment can scarcely ever be condoned."

Nowhere in either the Old or New Testaments is "abortion" forbidden. All sorts of horrible acts are explicitly condemned and/or proscribed, but not abortion.
Your views seem more aligned with the guidance offered in the Quran.

Are you a muslim fewsion?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

Because there is no question that abortion is killing an unborn human being. Plain and simple.

At a base and incredibly simplistic level this is correct. But why is it that you place a value on an unborn human being, that you do not afford to other living creatures?

For example, an embryo that withdraws in response to noxious stiumuli, and exhibits some form of memory response in such a manner, shows processing characteristics comparable to a sea hare. Given that the life is being terminated at that stage, why are we ascribing a greater moral dilemma to the killing of such an embryo than we do to a sea slug?

It comes down to your belief that the human embryo's potential to grow into a high-functioning concious state trumps the fact that at it's current stage, it is no more concious than a sea slug. It is very important to note that this is not a scientific argument. It is about people ascribing different weight to the concepts of potential or current 'value' of the life in question.

However, if one is to judge that a 'human life' has greater intrinsic value at any stage of it's development than 'lower' life forms (even say when it exhibits a lower level of concious processing), then you're straying into a discussion about souls and whatnot. Which no one on earth has any business imposing on anyone else.

Personally, I don't think the 'potential' argument is more important than the rights of the mother (up to a point). What concerns me is the pain and distress caused to the life form at the moment of termination. If it has no capacity, or an extremely limited capacity to process that in a manner resembling what we might term 'human', then I don't consider it to be immoral to perform an abortion. didjeridude makes a distinction about when such a level of concious processing is reached that is well founded in scientific evidence, and I tend to agree with him (although I think a lesser 'safety margin' would be perfectly acceptable).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

Yes. Very leading question. Asked another way. Is a woman's right to abort a baby greater than that baby's right to life? Then the answer is no.

It wasn't a leading question at all. If you stop a woman from aborting a foetus/baby whatever that is essentially part of her own body you are restricting her freedoms.


As to your question - Absolutely the woman's right is greater than the potential baby. It grows within her,, it cannot survive outside of her during gestation. For all intents and purposes she owns it the same way she owns her own organs.

No one else has the right tell anyone what they can or can't do with their own body (within reason of course).

Quote:

The Biblole

Exodus 35:2
Six days work shall be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a Sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the Lord. Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.

Perhaps we should make laws against working on sunday?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davomaxi

Perhaps we should make laws against working on sunday?

Please don't.

The trading hours in Perth are already shit enough.

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude

No it isn't plain and simple, that is what YOU believe. Other people do not believe that.

So answer the question. Why do other people have to believe what you do?

You don't have to believe what I believe. Laws have never been about unanimous decision-making in society so don't pretend this is any different. However, the law in NSW regarding abortion does not give women the right to have an abortion simply because they don't want a pregnancy, doctors must inquire as to whether there are lawful reasons for the abortion. So if you are championing the rights of women to choose simply as a human rights matter, then I don't think you even have the support of the law in that regard.

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude

Yep that is what you believe. I don't believe that. Let's say my wife or my sister does not believe it either. So answer the question, is it acceptable to force your belief onto my wife or my sister by turning it into law? You are forcing them to go through a situation which could be emotionally traumatic, dangerous or potentially even life threatening, against their will. According to our beliefs that would make such a law a violation of their human rights.

Did you address the human rights of the child as well? What's your response to that? You're the one who raised human rights don't forget. Aside from that, you've hardly given an impartial and balanced appraisal of pregnancy and childbirth have you?

Quote:

Originally Posted by claude glass

What is your basis for making that distinction?

I don't understand the point of your question. Are you asking how or why I distinguish humans from other animals?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CircusMidget

Nowhere in either the Old or New Testaments is "abortion" forbidden. All sorts of horrible acts are explicitly condemned and/or proscribed, but not abortion.
Your views seem more aligned with the guidance offered in the Quran.

Are you a muslim fewsion?

macc4 are you posting under a different alias again?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davomaxi

It wasn't a leading question at all. If you stop a woman from aborting a foetus/baby whatever that is essentially part of her own body you are restricting her freedoms.

As to your question - Absolutely the woman's right is greater than the potential baby. It grows within her,, it cannot survive outside of her during gestation. For all intents and purposes she owns it the same way she owns her own organs.

No one else has the right tell anyone what they can or can't do with their own body (within reason of course).

I haven't argued to the contrary. Yes, criminalising abortions would impinge on a freedom women have had to abort babies since about 1969 in Australia. But so are many freedoms taken away with laws in society. The function of criminal law is the maintenance of the welfare of society's citizens including the unborn.

The baby is also defined as a separate organism within the mother. It has its own DNA distinct from its parents. The test of being human or a worthwhile living human is not whether it would survive on its own.

More interesting news:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/student-un...606-1zwf0.html

"The union is supposed to foster and enhance campus culture, and be inclusive. This (group) is discriminatory to women and an affront to women's rights - they are politicising women's bodies,"

Versus

"We recognise that the issue we're talking about is definitely controversial but we need to engage in a discussion on those issues."

Well what next for turkey? If a woman has a miscarriage will the coroner need to be informed?
Will there be a funeral and birth/ death certificate issued?

Perhaps stake burnings?

Hmmm, time will tell.

It's total crap that the western world is becoming more pro-life because they are ageing. In fact studies have shown that it's the youth who are becoming pro-life as opposed to pro-abortion at a faster rate than any other age group.

Thankfully the type of youths who think they are cool and like to post to anonymous internet forums are not reflective of the world's youth.

Youths are not stupid. With advances in science and technology, especially in the medical field, it's now literally impossible to pretend that abortion is not murder. Youths want people to live life as they want, provided they are not hurting anyone. They rightly think that banning gay marriage is not only cruel but weird. But they've never been ok with murder.

In 50 years it will be gay marriage (and hopefully euthanasia) which will be legal, and abortion which will be either illegal or so restricted as to be well on the way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

You don't have to believe what I believe. Laws have never been about unanimous decision-making in society so don't pretend this is any different. However, the law in NSW regarding abortion does not give women the right to have an abortion simply because they don't want a pregnancy, doctors must inquire as to whether there are lawful reasons for the abortion. So if you are championing the rights of women to choose simply as a human rights matter, then I don't think you even have the support of the law in that regard.

Making a lifestyle choice is not a human right and nobody has ever suggested it is or should be. The fact that you are confusing it with a human right really shows your complete lack of understanding about ethics. Being forced to suffer potentially detrimental physical and/or emotional consequences of an unplanned pregnancy, rape or incest IS an impingement on human rights. I believe that prevention of any form of human suffering, physical or emotional is a human right that should be protected, but it's pretty clear in this case you don't and you think women should stfu and cop it. On this point the law does protect the rights of the mother.

Quote:

Originally Posted by fewsion

Did you address the human rights of the child as well? What's your response to that? You're the one who raised human rights don't forget. Aside from that, you've hardly given an impartial and balanced appraisal of pregnancy and childbirth have you?

What child? There is no child. We are talking about an embryo or a fetus up to 12wks. I've addressed the issue of neural development and consciousness and its relationship to human rights on numerous occasions. Your ignorant response is "oh that's just silly, how can the scientists possibly know that an embryo has no consciousness?". I can't help you if you choose to ignore the vast amount of empirical knowledge that exists regarding embryonic development in favour of some magical airy fairy possibility which is beyond the realms of physical reality.

Maybe there is a flying spaghetti monster and unicorns that live in the clouds? Keep an open mind fewsion, scientific innovation could reveal that too one day.

I really disagree with your opinion fewsion, not that you've been entirely forthright with it.
Obviously abortion shouldn't be a contraceptive option.
Nor is it a decision that most women in that situation would make lightly.

But I don't understand someone judging a woman as a murderer for a partially developed foetus in her body, when she was a rape/ incest victim, when her health or the embryo's development was in jeopardy, or her mental health or economic situation couldn't handle a pregnancy?
When a woman is pregnant do you just see them as some sort of incubator?
Thankfully in this country your ilk didn't make the law & women's rights are respected and upheld.
Pretty poor form for Turkey though

Quote:

Originally Posted by didjeridude

Making a lifestyle choice is not a human right and nobody has ever suggested it is or should be. The fact that you are confusing it with a human right really shows your complete lack of understanding about ethics. Being forced to suffer potentially detrimental physical and/or emotional consequences of an unplanned pregnancy, rape or incest IS an impingement on human rights. I believe that prevention of any form of human suffering, physical or emotional is a human right that should be protected, but it's pretty clear in this case you don't and you think women should stfu and cop it. On this point the law does protect the rights of the mother.

What child? There is no child. We are talking about an embryo or a fetus up to 12wks. I've addressed the issue of neural development and consciousness and its relationship to human rights on numerous occasions. Your ignorant response is "oh that's just silly, how can the scientists possibly know that an embryo has no consciousness?". I can't help you if you choose to ignore the vast amount of empirical knowledge that exists regarding embryonic development in favour of some magical airy fairy possibility which is beyond the realms of physical reality.

If unborn children have no human rights, explain what is meant by the phrase in article 6 of the Conventions on the Rights of the Child. I hvae nothing else to say on that matter until you address that point first.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Madam Lasher

I really disagree with your opinion fewsion, not that you've been entirely forthright with it.
Obviously abortion shouldn't be a contraceptive option.
Nor is it a decision that most women in that situation would make lightly.

But I don't understand someone judging a woman as a murderer for a partially developed foetus in her body, when she was a rape/ incest victim, when her health or the embryo's development was in jeopardy, or her mental health or economic situation couldn't handle a pregnancy?
When a woman is pregnant do you just see them as some sort of incubator?
Thankfully in this country your ilk didn't make the law & women's rights are respected and upheld.
Pretty poor form for Turkey though

I agree completely and I don't mean to suggest that women would take this decision lightly, nor are they incubators, nor would there be exceptions in the law for rape/incest victims (despite how this could be reconciled with their "right to life"). However, of the estimated 85 000 abortions each year I can't imagine how many of these cases would be from rape/incest victims. Though statistics are hard to come by (and the use of RU 486 problematises this further), some stats suggest that abortion is a lifestyle choice articulated as a "mental health" issue for the mother. Though that sounds callous, speak to any mother who has carried a baby to full-term, whether unplanned, unwanted or otherwise and ask about their mental health having had the child. My feeling would be that the fear/emotional rollercoaster that is having children is a part of the process. Speak to mothers who have planned pregnancies and their experience is no different.

Fewsion - my question was: what is the basis for coming to an ethics in which humans have priority over non-humans? I'm not challenging the position, I'm asking you how you arrived there. If you hold strong ethical views, I think you should be sure on the basis for those views. You very clearly draw a bold line about rights to life. How did you arrive at that line?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

If unborn children have no human rights, explain what is meant by the phrase in article 6 of the Conventions on the Rights of the Child. I hvae nothing else to say on that matter until you address that point first.

No, he shouldn't have to address that point. As previously explained, an embryo or fetus (or fertilised egg, or blastocyst) does not posses the characteristics that we would define a child by. It does not possess level of development or conciousness required. It has the potential to grow into a child, but again this comes back to your belief that the potential end-point of development trumps the actual current existence of the child.

So at what stage would this apply? Is it at the moment of fertilisation that the life realises this 'potential'? Or at the moment of implantation? Or once the cell mass has reached the developmental stage we call it an embryo?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chad

Youths are not stupid. With advances in science and technology, especially in the medical field, it's now literally impossible to pretend that abortion is not murder. Youths want people to live life as they want, provided they are not hurting anyone. They rightly think that banning gay marriage is not only cruel but weird. But they've never been ok with murder.

Again, do you define murder based on the potential of the developing embryo to become human? Or it's current awareness? Do we define the slaughter of animals for food as murder, many of them posses greater concious awareness than even a late term fetus. Or is murder a concept that is strictly restricted to humans? If so, do we call it murder because it involves the killing of a concious, reasoning entity? Which leads us back to the point that up until a reasonably late stage, a fetus does not exhibit the characteristics we would associate with a human level of conciousness. Therefore you must define murder based on a belief that the potential of the embryo to develop into a human is more weight than it's current physiological characteristics. That is a judgement based on personal ethics, not science and sounds suspiciously like one is arguing for the concept of a soul. Which then begs the question, at what stage of fertilisation, implantation and embryogenesis does this potential manifest?

As someone who actually works in the field of developmental neurobiology, i'm not really sure what advances you refer to when you say that medical science has shown without a doubt that abortion is murder.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fewsion

If unborn children have no human rights, explain what is meant by the phrase in article 6 of the Conventions on the Rights of the Child. I hvae nothing else to say on that matter until you address that point first.

For starters, this declaration is clearly not an ethical discussion about abortion rights versus fetal rights and is not intended to be. There is no mention of abortion anywhere, there is no mention of the terms embryo or fetus, nor any of the issues surrounding the definition of a human being, human life, brain life nor any issue surrounding consciousness. The fact that you are confusing it with the abortion debate once again shows that you really have a poor grasp of ethical concepts and basic comprehension.

Secondly, you have assumed that article 1 refers to the moment of conception, but it does NOT state that a child is defined as a human being which begins at the moment of conception and continues until the age of 18. The wording remains ambiguous and I assume this has been done on purpose in order to deflect attention away from the abortion debate and keep it focused on children who have been born or will be born.

Quote:

Article 1

For the purposes of the present Convention, a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.

And finally, even if we were to assume that a 'child' were defined as the moment of conception onwards, you still didn't read what I wrote. I never said the foetus has no rights. In fact I strongly agree with article 6. What I said however, is the rights of the foetus should not outweigh those of the mother's when circumstances dictate. Those circumstances are defined under law. You even got the bit about the law completely wrong. Bad bad comprehension fewsion.

It's rather ironic actually that religion has generally thought of itself as inventing morality and outspoken religious people usually act as if they are morally superior than atheists, yet you have such a bad understanding of ethics. I guess they don't teach you to think much in bible school, just act like robots and do as you're told. It's no wonder you believe women should be treated the same way.

Why do women choose to abort? Because they can't or wish not to carry, care for and raise a baby.

If passionate, protesting pro-lifers are so keen on keeping foetuses alive, are they prepared to care for the mother throughout pregnancy then essentially become the child's carer? If not they should really just mind they're own business. Shouting your wisdom from the mountain is pretty easy when you don't have to actually back it up with behavior.

Article 6 didj, what does the phrase in article 6 refer to?