UK Abortion Law
Discussion
HM-2 said:
"Living" and "alive" are synonymous but "life" is somewhat distinct. Multiple definitions of "life" have been proposed, some of which would treat an embryo or foetus as life, some which wouldn't, and some which you could probably argue either way.
The proposed NASA definition of life, "a self-sustaining system capable of Darwinian evolution", precludes both foetus and parasites because neither are self sustaining. The old MRS GREN acronym, covering movement, respiration, sensitivity, growth, reproduction, excretion and nutrition, is also questionable whether it can be applied to a foetus...but can be interpreted as categorising prions and certain kinds of crystals as "life".
The scientific consensus has increasingly become that "life" is not a concept that can be demonstrated empirically- that is to say, life in a scientific sense does not actually exist. Over 100 definitions of "life" have been presented, so claims like "science says life begins at conception" are at best misleading and at worst outright false, as it depends very much how you define it.
All of these are moot points anyway because the phrase "life begins at conception" isn't a reference to any of these scores of conflicting definitions, its reference to the religious concept of ensoulment.
I like your post, I’ve read some of the same literature, but I suspect Esceptico has decided if he can’t win the argument he’ll cry abuse so I suspect he won’t even read this. But I enjoyed it.The proposed NASA definition of life, "a self-sustaining system capable of Darwinian evolution", precludes both foetus and parasites because neither are self sustaining. The old MRS GREN acronym, covering movement, respiration, sensitivity, growth, reproduction, excretion and nutrition, is also questionable whether it can be applied to a foetus...but can be interpreted as categorising prions and certain kinds of crystals as "life".
The scientific consensus has increasingly become that "life" is not a concept that can be demonstrated empirically- that is to say, life in a scientific sense does not actually exist. Over 100 definitions of "life" have been presented, so claims like "science says life begins at conception" are at best misleading and at worst outright false, as it depends very much how you define it.
All of these are moot points anyway because the phrase "life begins at conception" isn't a reference to any of these scores of conflicting definitions, its reference to the religious concept of ensoulment.
Edited by HM-2 on Sunday 20th June 23:12
Edited by HM-2 on Sunday 20th June 23:16
HM-2 said:
"Living" and "alive" are synonymous but "life" is somewhat distinct. Multiple definitions of "life" have been proposed, some of which would treat an embryo or foetus as life, some which wouldn't, and some which you could probably argue either way.
The proposed NASA definition of life, "a self-sustaining system capable of Darwinian evolution", precludes both foetus and parasites because neither are self sustaining. The old MRS GREN acronym, covering movement, respiration, sensitivity, growth, reproduction, excretion and nutrition, is also questionable whether it can be applied to a foetus.
The scientific consensus has increasingly become that "life" is not a concept that can be demonstrated empirically- that us to say, life in a scientific sense dues not actually exist. Over 100 definitions of "life" have been presented, so claims like "science says life begins at conception" are at best misleading and at worst outright false, as it deorbds very much how you define it.
All of these are moot points anyway because the phrase "life begins at conception" isn't a reference to any of these scores of conflicting definitions, its reference to the religious concept of ensoulment.
Just because the phrase “life begins at conception” is used by religious people (who then inject a nonsensical and mythical concept of soul) doesn’t mean it doesn’t have validity absent of such connotations.The proposed NASA definition of life, "a self-sustaining system capable of Darwinian evolution", precludes both foetus and parasites because neither are self sustaining. The old MRS GREN acronym, covering movement, respiration, sensitivity, growth, reproduction, excretion and nutrition, is also questionable whether it can be applied to a foetus.
The scientific consensus has increasingly become that "life" is not a concept that can be demonstrated empirically- that us to say, life in a scientific sense dues not actually exist. Over 100 definitions of "life" have been presented, so claims like "science says life begins at conception" are at best misleading and at worst outright false, as it deorbds very much how you define it.
All of these are moot points anyway because the phrase "life begins at conception" isn't a reference to any of these scores of conflicting definitions, its reference to the religious concept of ensoulment.
Any definition of “life” that excludes parasites (or in my view viruses) is just a bad definition. If you insist on self sustaining then new born babies would fail too.
You seem to be using the definition of life to obscure the debate.
When I say life begins at conception I’m referring to my own life and other people’s lives. Or are you disputing that there is an unbroken timeline from when my father’s sperm fused with my mother’s egg, creating an entity with unique DNA that has existed from that point to today? And that my existence today is wholly dependent upon the past existence leading all the way back to conception? Had that timeline been broken - in the womb or outside - I wouldn’t be here.
Esceptico said:
You seem to be getting very upset and making this personal, using swear words and abusing me. Shouting at me and bringing in extraneous arguments isn’t addressing the points I raised.
You have some strong, but ultimately flawed, opinions on the point at which life exists. It can be debated either way but unless life can exist in its natural habitat then it isn’t viable life - Protozoa exist as single cell organisms independently in their own habitats. Human life is unsustainable outside of the mother before ~24 weeks. In some cases it is possible for younger foetuses to survive and in others impossible for older ones to survive. But until they reach the point that they can survive independently from the mother then it is HER choice.It is purely and simply about the choice the mother has over what is going on in her body; whether it be a question of if her body can physically cope with it, mentally cope with it, whether she can raise that child, whether that embryo can survive a full-term pregnancy, whether there are medical complications which will impact on quality of life. No one else (barring in the case of vulnerable or incapable mothers) should have any say whatsoever.
Until you have walked in (or next to) the shoes of a woman contemplating an abortion you are not well equipped to know what a dreadful life changing experience this can be. Having been in what sounds a very similar position to Mr Flashman and watching the agony of my partner going though labour to abort our 3rd pregnancy at 18 weeks due to medical complications, I wouldn’t want anyone to have to do similar. I was there to listen to the medical advice, talk through the options, support her decision and then support her through the ordeal. We know we made the right decision but, 12 years later, she is still affected by it because of, in the main, short-sighted attitudes towards abortions but also because it is a bloody horrible thing to go through.
Your opinion, those of religious zealots, pro-life wannabe policy makers and men are frankly an irrelevance. The only thing that is important is the mother is able to make an informed choice over what happens in their body to a foetus that isn’t viable without her.
The UK currently and thankfully does this pretty well.
MarcoD said:
You have some strong, but ultimately flawed, opinions on the point at which life exists. It can be debated either way but unless life can exist in its natural habitat then it isn’t viable life - Protozoa exist as single cell organisms independently in their own habitats. Human life is unsustainable outside of the mother before ~24 weeks. In some cases it is possible for younger foetuses to survive and in others impossible for older ones to survive. But until they reach the point that they can survive independently from the mother then it is HER choice.
It is purely and simply about the choice the mother has over what is going on in her body; whether it be a question of if her body can physically cope with it, mentally cope with it, whether she can raise that child, whether that embryo can survive a full-term pregnancy, whether there are medical complications which will impact on quality of life. No one else (barring in the case of vulnerable or incapable mothers) should have any say whatsoever.
Until you have walked in (or next to) the shoes of a woman contemplating an abortion you are not well equipped to know what a dreadful life changing experience this can be. Having been in what sounds a very similar position to Mr Flashman and watching the agony of my partner going though labour to abort our 3rd pregnancy at 18 weeks due to medical complications, I wouldn’t want anyone to have to do similar. I was there to listen to the medical advice, talk through the options, support her decision and then support her through the ordeal. We know we made the right decision but, 12 years later, she is still affected by it because of, in the main, short-sighted attitudes towards abortions but also because it is a bloody horrible thing to go through.
Your opinion, those of religious zealots, pro-life wannabe policy makers and men are frankly an irrelevance. The only thing that is important is the mother is able to make an informed choice over what happens in their body to a foetus that isn’t viable without her.
The UK currently and thankfully does this pretty well.
You, and others, are wasting your time. It is purely and simply about the choice the mother has over what is going on in her body; whether it be a question of if her body can physically cope with it, mentally cope with it, whether she can raise that child, whether that embryo can survive a full-term pregnancy, whether there are medical complications which will impact on quality of life. No one else (barring in the case of vulnerable or incapable mothers) should have any say whatsoever.
Until you have walked in (or next to) the shoes of a woman contemplating an abortion you are not well equipped to know what a dreadful life changing experience this can be. Having been in what sounds a very similar position to Mr Flashman and watching the agony of my partner going though labour to abort our 3rd pregnancy at 18 weeks due to medical complications, I wouldn’t want anyone to have to do similar. I was there to listen to the medical advice, talk through the options, support her decision and then support her through the ordeal. We know we made the right decision but, 12 years later, she is still affected by it because of, in the main, short-sighted attitudes towards abortions but also because it is a bloody horrible thing to go through.
Your opinion, those of religious zealots, pro-life wannabe policy makers and men are frankly an irrelevance. The only thing that is important is the mother is able to make an informed choice over what happens in their body to a foetus that isn’t viable without her.
The UK currently and thankfully does this pretty well.
MarcoD said:
You have some strong, but ultimately flawed, opinions on the point at which life exists. It can be debated either way but unless life can exist in its natural habitat then it isn’t viable life - Protozoa exist as single cell organisms independently in their own habitats. Human life is unsustainable outside of the mother before ~24 weeks. In some cases it is possible for younger foetuses to survive and in others impossible for older ones to survive. But until they reach the point that they can survive independently from the mother then it is HER choice.
It is purely and simply about the choice the mother has over what is going on in her body; whether it be a question of if her body can physically cope with it, mentally cope with it, whether she can raise that child, whether that embryo can survive a full-term pregnancy, whether there are medical complications which will impact on quality of life. No one else (barring in the case of vulnerable or incapable mothers) should have any say whatsoever.
Until you have walked in (or next to) the shoes of a woman contemplating an abortion you are not well equipped to know what a dreadful life changing experience this can be. Having been in what sounds a very similar position to Mr Flashman and watching the agony of my partner going though labour to abort our 3rd pregnancy at 18 weeks due to medical complications, I wouldn’t want anyone to have to do similar. I was there to listen to the medical advice, talk through the options, support her decision and then support her through the ordeal. We know we made the right decision but, 12 years later, she is still affected by it because of, in the main, short-sighted attitudes towards abortions but also because it is a bloody horrible thing to go through.
Your opinion, those of religious zealots, pro-life wannabe policy makers and men are frankly an irrelevance. The only thing that is important is the mother is able to make an informed choice over what happens in their body to a foetus that isn’t viable without her.
The UK currently and thankfully does this pretty well.
How do you know what I’ve been through? How presumptuous. It is purely and simply about the choice the mother has over what is going on in her body; whether it be a question of if her body can physically cope with it, mentally cope with it, whether she can raise that child, whether that embryo can survive a full-term pregnancy, whether there are medical complications which will impact on quality of life. No one else (barring in the case of vulnerable or incapable mothers) should have any say whatsoever.
Until you have walked in (or next to) the shoes of a woman contemplating an abortion you are not well equipped to know what a dreadful life changing experience this can be. Having been in what sounds a very similar position to Mr Flashman and watching the agony of my partner going though labour to abort our 3rd pregnancy at 18 weeks due to medical complications, I wouldn’t want anyone to have to do similar. I was there to listen to the medical advice, talk through the options, support her decision and then support her through the ordeal. We know we made the right decision but, 12 years later, she is still affected by it because of, in the main, short-sighted attitudes towards abortions but also because it is a bloody horrible thing to go through.
Your opinion, those of religious zealots, pro-life wannabe policy makers and men are frankly an irrelevance. The only thing that is important is the mother is able to make an informed choice over what happens in their body to a foetus that isn’t viable without her.
The UK currently and thankfully does this pretty well.
Probably worst day of my life was attending scan with my wife to find that the foetus had died/wasn’t developing properly and that she would have to have a procedure - effectively an abortion - to have it removed.
Second worst day was the previous time that happened.
There were miscarriages too (that didn’t require additional treatment). Still pretty heartbreaking.
Fortunately, in between we were successful so do have one child.
MarcoD said:
You have some strong, but ultimately flawed, opinions on the point at which life exists. It can be debated either way but unless life can exist in its natural habitat then it isn’t viable life - Protozoa exist as single cell organisms independently in their own habitats. Human life is unsustainable outside of the mother before ~24 weeks. In some cases it is possible for younger foetuses to survive and in others impossible for older ones to survive. But until they reach the point that they can survive independently from the mother then it is HER choice.
.
Yours is an oft quoted argument but rather puzzling. A new born baby can’t survive independently yet most people don’t support infanticide. If someone were on life support (and are expected to make a full recovery) almost no-one would say it is okay to stop life support just because they wouldn’t survive at that point in time without it. .
Abortion law in the U.K. puts the mother before the foetus. Practically that makes sense. Unwanted children are a drag. I’m just fed up with pro abortionists painting it as some sort of moral victory for women.
Ironically abortion is used in many places eg India to kill off female foetuses so more women than men are the victim of abortion.
I can’t stand the religious anti abortionists nor the zealous pro abortionists. I suspect there are a lot like me that sort of accept abortion as a necessary evil but don’t want to think about it too deeply as the flaws in the arguments supporting abortion are pretty clear and morally it is simply wrong (if you think the killing of innocents is wrong).
Abortions themselves aren't a moral victory for women.
Their rights to make their own decisions about them are.
No-one is "pro abortion", that's a greasy term like "pro life" intended to lean on the scales of how those who oppose women being given autonomy over this want the argument framed.
Fortunately, it's an argument that was settled many years ago.
Their rights to make their own decisions about them are.
No-one is "pro abortion", that's a greasy term like "pro life" intended to lean on the scales of how those who oppose women being given autonomy over this want the argument framed.
Fortunately, it's an argument that was settled many years ago.
Esceptico said:
Just because the phrase “life begins at conception” is used by religious people (who then inject a nonsensical and mythical concept of soul) doesn’t mean it doesn’t have validity absent of such connotations.
It's not just used by religious people, it originates from religious discourse. The question of what point life begins at seems meaningful from an ethical point of view but under any real examination rapidly falls apart. It's arbitrary, just as every other point in the foetal lifecycle is. From a technical, biological perspective, a fertilised embryo is objectively no more the point life begins than a 16 week foetus (roughly the point of begining to responding to external stimuli) or 24 weeks (around the minimum point if viability, IE self sustaining). It really depends on the definition.There's nothing wrong with believing life begins at conception, but asserting categorically that science defines life beginning at conception as you have is simply not accurate.
Esceptico said:
Any definition of “life” that excludes parasites (or in my view viruses) is just a bad definition. If you insist on self sustaining then new born babies would fail too.
Most definitions of "life" are either so specific they omit certain kinds of what most people would consider "life", or so broad they encompass inanimate objects or strands of protein. It's you who made the categorical claim "from a biological perspective, life begins at conception". The onus in you us to provide the definition of "life" by which you made this statement and argue why that one above others is valid.Esceptico said:
You seem to be using the definition of life to obscure the debate.
It takes some serious mental gymnastics to accuse someone whose specifically addressing and questioning the validity of the core tenet on which you argument has been based as "trying to obscure the debate", bit then again I get the impression you're far happier shouting your apparent moral superiority from the rooftops than you actually are rationalising your views.Esceptico said:
When I say life begins at conception I’m referring to my own life and other people’s lives. Or are you disputing that there is an unbroken timeline from when my father’s sperm fused with my mother’s egg, creating an entity with unique DNA that has existed from that point to today? And that my existence today is wholly dependent upon the past existence leading all the way back to conception? Had that timeline been broken - in the womb or outside - I wouldn’t be here.
This isn't a scientific argument, though. It also suffers a similar flaw of being broadly applicable to inanimate objects and things we wouldn't consider to be "life" such as tumours. Edited by HM-2 on Monday 21st June 08:02
There is little chance of changing minds in an argument such as this on a forum. Opinions on the matter are not formed on certain facts which, when confronted, can be proved wrong. It’s a case of ‘this is what I believe’ and no counter argument can trump that.
The definition of life is irrelevant in the matter of abortion. The religiously convinced say they know the exact time and place for life to exist as if this settle the argument. But they are wishing and it doesn’t. Doctors, and obviously the religiously convinced, can’t even be precise on the time of death.
I’m always nervous of arguments by the convinced.
My opinions on the matter has wavered over my lifetime because of various experiences and it’s all but impossible to conceive of a situation or story that will change my mind when it’s been made up following subtle triggers over a long period of time, but it has happened in the past.
One thing that has stayed more or less constant throughout my adult life is the belief that abortion is a matter for the woman. I also believe that involving the father will probably be helpful to all concerned post abortion.
It’s not a decision I’m going to make. It’s not a decision I have made.
Those countries that restrict abortions even more than this one does all seem to have a contempt for women. Those who rule know better. Know best in fact. Yet, in the USA at least, it is clear that many in power vote for it because they wish to stay in power.
If it is legal and those involved in the process behave ethically, then my opinion is that it is a matter of personal morals. If you don’t believe that abortion is right, then don’t have one and any person forcing or pressuring you to do so should commit an offence. If you want an abortion, and it is legal, and processed ethically, then others should wind their necks in. Including me.
The definition of life is irrelevant in the matter of abortion. The religiously convinced say they know the exact time and place for life to exist as if this settle the argument. But they are wishing and it doesn’t. Doctors, and obviously the religiously convinced, can’t even be precise on the time of death.
I’m always nervous of arguments by the convinced.
My opinions on the matter has wavered over my lifetime because of various experiences and it’s all but impossible to conceive of a situation or story that will change my mind when it’s been made up following subtle triggers over a long period of time, but it has happened in the past.
One thing that has stayed more or less constant throughout my adult life is the belief that abortion is a matter for the woman. I also believe that involving the father will probably be helpful to all concerned post abortion.
It’s not a decision I’m going to make. It’s not a decision I have made.
Those countries that restrict abortions even more than this one does all seem to have a contempt for women. Those who rule know better. Know best in fact. Yet, in the USA at least, it is clear that many in power vote for it because they wish to stay in power.
If it is legal and those involved in the process behave ethically, then my opinion is that it is a matter of personal morals. If you don’t believe that abortion is right, then don’t have one and any person forcing or pressuring you to do so should commit an offence. If you want an abortion, and it is legal, and processed ethically, then others should wind their necks in. Including me.
HM-2 said:
This isn't a scientific argument, though. It also suffers a similar flaw of being broadly applicable to inanimate objects and things we wouldn't consider to be "life" such as tumours.
The point “life” begins is only arbitrary if you chose an arbitrary definition of life in the first place such as demanding that an organism must be self sustaining. Edited by HM-2 on Monday 21st June 08:02
You conveniently dismiss my argument as “not scientific” without addressing the point made.
To summarise again:
- there exists an organism today called Esceptico
- Esceptico is unique - no other organism has the same DNA
- the organism Esceptico came into existence when the sperm and egg fused, the unique DNA arose and the resulting cell started to divide
References to tumours and inanimate objects are not relevant. It is not morally wrong or illegal to kill a tumour. It is treated as morally wrong and generally illegal to kill a human organism outside the womb. If there is a continuity of existence of the human organsim from when the cell containing the unique DNA arises that begs the question why it shouldn’t receive the same moral and legal protection from the point of existence.
There is a clash of interests between the mother and the unwanted foetus. The U.K. has decided to give the mother the power over the foetus’ life (practically at least up to 24 weeks as abortions are available on demand).
What is legal is not necessarily consistent with what people think they believe ethically eg the US was founded on the idea of freedom yet allowed slavery.
Esceptico said:
The point “life” begins is only arbitrary if you chose an arbitrary definition of life in the first place such as demanding that an organism must be self sustaining.
You conveniently dismiss my argument as “not scientific” without addressing the point made.
To summarise again:
- there exists an organism today called Esceptico
- Esceptico is unique - no other organism has the same DNA
- the organism Esceptico came into existence when the sperm and egg fused, the unique DNA arose and the resulting cell started to divide
References to tumours and inanimate objects are not relevant. It is not morally wrong or illegal to kill a tumour. It is treated as morally wrong and generally illegal to kill a human organism outside the womb. If there is a continuity of existence of the human organsim from when the cell containing the unique DNA arises that begs the question why it shouldn’t receive the same moral and legal protection from the point of existence.
There is a clash of interests between the mother and the unwanted foetus. The U.K. has decided to give the mother the power over the foetus’ life (practically at least up to 24 weeks as abortions are available on demand).
What is legal is not necessarily consistent with what people think they believe ethically eg the US was founded on the idea of freedom yet allowed slavery.
You'e unique, I'll give you that You conveniently dismiss my argument as “not scientific” without addressing the point made.
To summarise again:
- there exists an organism today called Esceptico
- Esceptico is unique - no other organism has the same DNA
- the organism Esceptico came into existence when the sperm and egg fused, the unique DNA arose and the resulting cell started to divide
References to tumours and inanimate objects are not relevant. It is not morally wrong or illegal to kill a tumour. It is treated as morally wrong and generally illegal to kill a human organism outside the womb. If there is a continuity of existence of the human organsim from when the cell containing the unique DNA arises that begs the question why it shouldn’t receive the same moral and legal protection from the point of existence.
There is a clash of interests between the mother and the unwanted foetus. The U.K. has decided to give the mother the power over the foetus’ life (practically at least up to 24 weeks as abortions are available on demand).
What is legal is not necessarily consistent with what people think they believe ethically eg the US was founded on the idea of freedom yet allowed slavery.
Esceptico was little more than a bunch of cells unaware of his own existence and reliant on his mother's willingness to have a parasite living within her for his existence. I don't believe that narrative BTW, but I'm using it to point out the fallacy in your argument towards independent existence happening at conception. The point where you became worthy of self recognition is debatable but it wasn't when your Da shot his load.
Defining life is quite complicated as you're aware. Applying rights to said life is even more complicated. But I think you're pissing into the wind in the false straw men you're creating, the UK has given women the power to take ownership of their bodies in ways that many other countries don't, that is a good thing.
Esceptico said:
HM-2 said:
"Living" and "alive" are synonymous but "life" is somewhat distinct. Multiple definitions of "life" have been proposed, some of which would treat an embryo or foetus as life, some which wouldn't, and some which you could probably argue either way.
The proposed NASA definition of life, "a self-sustaining system capable of Darwinian evolution", precludes both foetus and parasites because neither are self sustaining. The old MRS GREN acronym, covering movement, respiration, sensitivity, growth, reproduction, excretion and nutrition, is also questionable whether it can be applied to a foetus.
The scientific consensus has increasingly become that "life" is not a concept that can be demonstrated empirically- that us to say, life in a scientific sense dues not actually exist. Over 100 definitions of "life" have been presented, so claims like "science says life begins at conception" are at best misleading and at worst outright false, as it deorbds very much how you define it.
All of these are moot points anyway because the phrase "life begins at conception" isn't a reference to any of these scores of conflicting definitions, its reference to the religious concept of ensoulment.
Just because the phrase “life begins at conception” is used by religious people (who then inject a nonsensical and mythical concept of soul) doesn’t mean it doesn’t have validity absent of such connotations.The proposed NASA definition of life, "a self-sustaining system capable of Darwinian evolution", precludes both foetus and parasites because neither are self sustaining. The old MRS GREN acronym, covering movement, respiration, sensitivity, growth, reproduction, excretion and nutrition, is also questionable whether it can be applied to a foetus.
The scientific consensus has increasingly become that "life" is not a concept that can be demonstrated empirically- that us to say, life in a scientific sense dues not actually exist. Over 100 definitions of "life" have been presented, so claims like "science says life begins at conception" are at best misleading and at worst outright false, as it deorbds very much how you define it.
All of these are moot points anyway because the phrase "life begins at conception" isn't a reference to any of these scores of conflicting definitions, its reference to the religious concept of ensoulment.
Any definition of “life” that excludes parasites (or in my view viruses) is just a bad definition. If you insist on self sustaining then new born babies would fail too.
You seem to be using the definition of life to obscure the debate.
When I say life begins at conception I’m referring to my own life and other people’s lives. Or are you disputing that there is an unbroken timeline from when my father’s sperm fused with my mother’s egg, creating an entity with unique DNA that has existed from that point to today? And that my existence today is wholly dependent upon the past existence leading all the way back to conception? Had that timeline been broken - in the womb or outside - I wouldn’t be here.
"You seem to be using the definition of life to obscure the debate".
The debate is around life to which rights attach (which you have addressed, before getting bogged down in the meaningless debate about scientific definitions of life). This is the fuzzy bit. A scientific definition of life is, in this context, a bit of a debating rabbit hole that a bunch of folk on this thread are disappearing down unnecessarily.
The debate about decisions as to when human rights attach to an embryo/foetus/infant/child/adult is the big one here, and it is often tied to debates around sentience, in turn sometimes reduced to things like the ability to survive alone, or the ability to feel pain/emotion. And as we all know, these (especially the latter) are arbitrary, often deeply personal views and vary from society to society, as well as individual to individual. In another example, witness the many debates as to when children should be expected to be able to take responsibility for their crimes: when are they "completely human" enough to be responsible?
As someone said, religions who sometimes argue human rights for embryos often do so on a "soul" basis, convenient and clever, as it allows the souls of non-believers to be disregarded in the next religious war/ethnic cleansing...keep the innocent babies alive, but bomb those pesky Muslims out of existence.
Edited by Harry Flashman on Monday 21st June 12:16
Esceptico said:
TwigtheWonderkid said:
roger.mellie said:
Esceptico said:
It is pretty clear that life starts at conception (given any reasonable, scientific definition of life). Some definitions of legal person or human with rights don’t start at conception. The former is biology the latter is politic
Stop saying that like it’s an indisputable fact. It isn’t and most of the rest of your argument immediately falls apart if you base it on that assumption.The other issue with the "life begins at conception" view is that it gets you into a load of hot water when it comes to IVF, stored embryos etc. What's their status? Most embryos stored for IVF will never be used, so what about their rights. Embryos are created after mum has had her eggs extracted and dad has provided a sperm sample, yet neither are there at the time. At the point of conception, the parents are on their way home from hospital on the tube, or already at home. What if they don't wish to proceed, suddenly can't afford it, die in an accident before implantation?
You get into a legal quagmire believing that those embryos, a clutch of maybe 4 or 8 cells, are actually human beings.
Edited by TwigtheWonderkid on Sunday 20th June 15:40
Your argument is rather odd to be honest. The vast majority of life on earth is made up of single cell organisms. Most of the history of life on Earth there were only single cell organisms. Yes you claim that a human in its earliest phase (with more than one cell) is not alive? What does that say about most of life on Earth then?
You say destroying people is unpalatable, and it is, but it doesn't worry me because I don't believe that's what we're doing. What's unpalatable is that the 500 bugs dead on your number plate are far more sophisticated and viable lifeforms than a foetus aborted at 8 weeks (most abortions are carried out very early). We kill millions of creatures in our lives, all of which are really no less worthy than us. Eating meat (which I do) bothers me more than abortion.
But that's my opinion. Other opinions are available.
skyrover said:
InitialDave said:
skyrover said:
Personal responsibility?
Then let those who don't wish to be parents take personal responsibility for that.Esceptico said:
The point “life” begins is only arbitrary if you chose an arbitrary definition of life in the first place such as demanding that an organism must be self sustaining.
What you seem unable to grasp is that your own definitions appear to be equally as arbitrary as any other, and present exactly the same problems. I say "appear to be" because you can't even be consistent on what your own definitions are. The summary below, for instance, is not a definition. Esceptico said:
You conveniently dismiss my argument as “not scientific” without addressing the point made.
I'm not dismissing your argument, such as you have one, as "non-scientific". I'm rebutting your assertion that "science" defines life as beginning at conception, because science doesn't even coherently define "life". We can have a debate about your argument on its merits as a belief or article of faith- which is all it actually is- but don't go pretending there's some scientific basis to it.Esceptico said:
To summarise again:
- there exists an organism today called Esceptico
- Esceptico is unique - no other organism has the same DNA
- the organism Esceptico came into existence when the sperm and egg fused, the unique DNA arose and the resulting cell started to divide
You seem oblivious to the multitude of preconditions that this "definition" (which isn't actually a definition but barely a description) requires.- there exists an organism today called Esceptico
- Esceptico is unique - no other organism has the same DNA
- the organism Esceptico came into existence when the sperm and egg fused, the unique DNA arose and the resulting cell started to divide
"Organisms" meet defined characteristics, such as being composed of cells, which preclude non-cellular entities from being categorised as "life". There's significant ongoing argument as I've already referenced, as to whether viruses are organisms and whether they are alive.
Organisms must also reproduce according to accepted definitions- is Turritopsis nutricula, the immortal jellyfish that cannot reproduce but which is capable of spontaneous regression to a polyp at any point in its life cycle therefore not an organism?
Do organisms need to be "self-sustaining systems"? An embryo is not self-sustaining and nor is a parasite, but precluding them from being "organisms" also raises questions about how Siphonophorae (such as the Portuguese man-o-war) are categorised. They're a colony organism consisting of multiple Hydrozoa of varied varieties and functions. So is a Portuguese man-o-war and "organism"? Or are its component Hydrozoa? Or both? Or neither?
Many cells lack one or more defining characteristic of "organisms", does that mean these cells aren't "life"?
Is uniqueness required for life? Multiple creatures undergo reproduction through parthenogenesis, which means that offspring can present 100% of the genetic material of the parent. Given that these two creatures are genetically identical, are they no longer considered life?
This is my exact point; you propose a "definition" (even though yours isn't) and it takes someone with only a relatively rudimentary education in biology about fifteen minutes to completely pick it apart. If a definition cannot be applied with uniformity, it's useless.
Esceptico said:
References to tumours and inanimate objects are not relevant.
You only see them as "irrelevant" because they're inconvenient for your arguments as demonstrable data points that nullify the validity of the terminology you use and definitions on which your arguments are predicated.Esceptico said:
If there is a continuity of existence of the human organsim from when the cell containing the unique DNA arises that begs the question why it shouldn’t receive the same moral and legal protection from the point of existence.
What differentiates an embryo from an unfertilised egg? Both are organisms; both are "life", both present continuity of existence into a fully formed human organism. Do you propose sperm receive the same rights as humans? Again, is "uniqueness" of DNA an essential characteristic? Do you propose giving personhood to ovarian teratoma? They are capable of division, have been known to form fledging foetuses, contain genetic information distinct from the mother, and yet are considered a benign tumour. There's also been at least a dozen recorded case of partial parthenogenetic chimerism in humans, where certain cells (and in some cases entire systems) of a living human contain genetic material only from one partner. Does a lack of uniqueness in these systems mean these people are not fully "life"?
Theoretically, complete parthenogenesis is technically possible in humans, although extremely unlikely. Would a human created through this mechanism be life or not?
Esceptico said:
There is a clash of interests between the mother and the unwanted foetus.
The concept of "interest" is a purely societal one. rscott said:
skyrover said:
InitialDave said:
skyrover said:
Personal responsibility?
Then let those who don't wish to be parents take personal responsibility for that.His adding of "starting with contraception" is unnecessary, as obviously I already support contraception being readily available, not just abortion rights.
Harry Flashman said:
I agree with some of this analysis but also observe that you are doing the same thing as RogerMellie:
"You seem to be using the definition of life to obscure the debate".
The debate is around life to which rights attach (which you have addressed, before getting bogged down in the meaningless debate about scientific definitions of life). This is the fuzzy bit. A scientific definition of life is, in this context, a bit of a debating rabbit hole that a bunch of folk on this thread are disappearing down unnecessarily.
The debate about decisions as to when human rights attach to an embryo/foetus/infant/child/adult is the big one here, and it is often tied to debates around sentience, in turn sometimes reduced to things like the ability to survive alone, or the ability to feel pain/emotion. And as we all know, these (especially the latter) are arbitrary, often deeply personal views and vary from society to society, as well as individual to individual. In another example, witness the many debates as to when children should be expected to be able to take responsibility for their crimes: when are they "completely human" enough to be responsible?
As someone said, religions who sometimes argue human rights for embryos often do so on a "soul" basis, convenient and clever, as it allows the souls of non-believers to be disregarded in the next religious war/ethnic cleansing...keep the innocent babies alive, but bomb those pesky Muslims out of existence.
Harry, the problem is I know all the scientific arguments, I suspect Esceptico does too. Insert chosen joke here about don't wrestle with a pig who likes the mud. I'll get accused of calling pig next, or worse shouting it."You seem to be using the definition of life to obscure the debate".
The debate is around life to which rights attach (which you have addressed, before getting bogged down in the meaningless debate about scientific definitions of life). This is the fuzzy bit. A scientific definition of life is, in this context, a bit of a debating rabbit hole that a bunch of folk on this thread are disappearing down unnecessarily.
The debate about decisions as to when human rights attach to an embryo/foetus/infant/child/adult is the big one here, and it is often tied to debates around sentience, in turn sometimes reduced to things like the ability to survive alone, or the ability to feel pain/emotion. And as we all know, these (especially the latter) are arbitrary, often deeply personal views and vary from society to society, as well as individual to individual. In another example, witness the many debates as to when children should be expected to be able to take responsibility for their crimes: when are they "completely human" enough to be responsible?
As someone said, religions who sometimes argue human rights for embryos often do so on a "soul" basis, convenient and clever, as it allows the souls of non-believers to be disregarded in the next religious war/ethnic cleansing...keep the innocent babies alive, but bomb those pesky Muslims out of existence.
Edited by Harry Flashman on Monday 21st June 12:16
I don't have the time or mental energy that HM-2 is applying to this thread. I'm impressed and see the value. But think his words will fall on infertile soil
.The debate is never around your chosen framing as a
holes (like me) will always twist it to suit their own argument. That's the internet. As someone didn't say, religions are full of logical inconsistencies, the ones that survive are the ones that can either adapt to modern knowledge or give an umbrella to those that don't want to accept it. When it comes to abortion, they have plenty of skin in that game. Their logical inconsistencies don't matter, their acquisition of believers does..
But this isn't a religious argument and should not be turned into one. As after all nobody here is openly arguing on a religious basis.
Bottom line on the thread title is still that I support the UK being one of the most progressive countries in the world on this topic, I support Ireland also being one of them in more recent times, I really get annoyed about living in NI and our backward politicians fighting against the tide whilst turning a blind eye to what really goes on due to their beligerence and negligence.
gregs656 said:
MarcoD said:
You have some strong, but ultimately flawed, opinions on the point at which life exists. It can be debated either way but unless life can exist in its natural habitat then it isn’t viable life - Protozoa exist as single cell organisms independently in their own habitats. Human life is unsustainable outside of the mother before ~24 weeks. In some cases it is possible for younger foetuses to survive and in others impossible for older ones to survive. But until they reach the point that they can survive independently from the mother then it is HER choice.
It is purely and simply about the choice the mother has over what is going on in her body; whether it be a question of if her body can physically cope with it, mentally cope with it, whether she can raise that child, whether that embryo can survive a full-term pregnancy, whether there are medical complications which will impact on quality of life. No one else (barring in the case of vulnerable or incapable mothers) should have any say whatsoever.
Until you have walked in (or next to) the shoes of a woman contemplating an abortion you are not well equipped to know what a dreadful life changing experience this can be. Having been in what sounds a very similar position to Mr Flashman and watching the agony of my partner going though labour to abort our 3rd pregnancy at 18 weeks due to medical complications, I wouldn’t want anyone to have to do similar. I was there to listen to the medical advice, talk through the options, support her decision and then support her through the ordeal. We know we made the right decision but, 12 years later, she is still affected by it because of, in the main, short-sighted attitudes towards abortions but also because it is a bloody horrible thing to go through.
Your opinion, those of religious zealots, pro-life wannabe policy makers and men are frankly an irrelevance. The only thing that is important is the mother is able to make an informed choice over what happens in their body to a foetus that isn’t viable without her.
The UK currently and thankfully does this pretty well.
You, and others, are wasting your time. It is purely and simply about the choice the mother has over what is going on in her body; whether it be a question of if her body can physically cope with it, mentally cope with it, whether she can raise that child, whether that embryo can survive a full-term pregnancy, whether there are medical complications which will impact on quality of life. No one else (barring in the case of vulnerable or incapable mothers) should have any say whatsoever.
Until you have walked in (or next to) the shoes of a woman contemplating an abortion you are not well equipped to know what a dreadful life changing experience this can be. Having been in what sounds a very similar position to Mr Flashman and watching the agony of my partner going though labour to abort our 3rd pregnancy at 18 weeks due to medical complications, I wouldn’t want anyone to have to do similar. I was there to listen to the medical advice, talk through the options, support her decision and then support her through the ordeal. We know we made the right decision but, 12 years later, she is still affected by it because of, in the main, short-sighted attitudes towards abortions but also because it is a bloody horrible thing to go through.
Your opinion, those of religious zealots, pro-life wannabe policy makers and men are frankly an irrelevance. The only thing that is important is the mother is able to make an informed choice over what happens in their body to a foetus that isn’t viable without her.
The UK currently and thankfully does this pretty well.
And I say that as someone who supports abortions being available on their current terms.
You cannot except to convince people with non-arguments about viability of life or the starting point of life or a mother's right to choose. We don't apply the viability argument to a newborn baby or an adult requiring medical care. The point at which one considers that life starts is arbitrary. And we always weigh one person's rights against those of others and indeed against our opinion of the self-interest of the individual.
If you're getting frustrated when people poke obvious holes in your argument, make a better case. Don't pretend they just don't understand and don't get rude or aggressive. You're just undermining your own case and that's a problem because access to abortions is important.
Are some of you aware that this sort of thing is going on within the UK? - https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/may/26/nort...
I don't blame the UK politicians, I blame our local fkwits. But it has turned into a massive buck passing exercise where as long as they can keep playing pass the parcel nothing will be done. Pity initiative isn't a requirement for being an SOS NI as they've nothing to lose electorally in their own constituency but foolishly hope it'll get them a better cabinet position in the future.
I don't blame the UK politicians, I blame our local f
kwits. But it has turned into a massive buck passing exercise where as long as they can keep playing pass the parcel nothing will be done. Pity initiative isn't a requirement for being an SOS NI as they've nothing to lose electorally in their own constituency but foolishly hope it'll get them a better cabinet position in the future.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff