UK Abortion Law
Discussion
ATG said:
The point at which one considers that life starts is arbitrary.
Which fundamentally renders any argument predicated on it essentially meaningless. Assuming "life" exists at all!When one believes life starts is essentially an article of faith, and articles of faith do not good policy make.
ATG said:
Because your arguments are fundamentally flawed.
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.
That’s an aggressive response, the only argument I’ve made is that I don’t think what is happening in the US - which is entirely religiously motivated, is likely to happen here. I’m not getting frustrated.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.
I do, however, think that trying to change entrenched views on this subject is a waste of time and that this topic was better for the brief moment when people were simply sharing their own opinions rather than debating.
There is simply no common ground between someone who, for what ever reason, thinks life starts at contraception and someone who doesn’t.
HM-2 said:
The concept of "interest" is a purely societal one.
What you write is interesting - if we were talking about astrobiology rather than human reproduction and the ethics of elective abortions.We learnt about human reproduction in biology at school. The start of a new human life was explained as the fusion of egg and sperm. We didn’t have a debate about the definition of life and whether humans were “life”.
When we finally had what looked like a viable pregnancy I bought a book for my wife that went through the stages, month by month, with great pictures from inside the womb. That also started at conception.
I don’t know how human reproduction it taught at university but I would be surprised if it started at the tenth day or third week or first trimester. I’m going to guess it starts with conception.
So saying that human life starts at conception is not some random date I’ve chosen. It is taught that way. Frankly I’m struggling to understand the difficultly in accepting that.
Humans love making definitions, creating categories and stages. They therefore divide human existence into various stages and label them. However, those are invented terms and stages that may or may not be useful for comprehension and for setting legislation eg age of consent or when you can legally drive a car. None of that has any biological impact on the individual human, which continues to change throughout its existence irrespective of any human defined categories.
The biological starting point for a human is not necessarily the point they are granted human rights. That is what the abortion debate revolves around, rather than some esoteric discussions of how life should be defined. The latter is just a distraction. I suspect you know that but are happy to lead this thread into a corner rather than discuss the real issue of why as a society we don’t give embryos and foetuses full rights. That would of course have far reaching consequences - medical research would be more difficult, IVF would be far less successful, abortion would be much more restricted, etc.
This thread is the same as most on PH (and life in general). People have a pre-existing position and arguments and evidence are examined from that perspective. For most people it takes a lot to change their mind. Certainly it took my many years to shift from being very pro choice to my current position, where I sort of still support abortion, but I struggle to justify it morally.
Esceptico said:
We learnt about human reproduction in biology at school. The start of a new human life was explained as the fusion of egg and sperm. We didn’t have a debate about the definition of life and whether humans were “life”.
Drawing a simplified definition from secondary school education, designed to be easily comprehensible to young teenagers, and then extrapolating this as the conclusive and definitive answer to the question of "when life starts" whilst ignoring wider discourse within the scientific community of what constitutes "life" seems somewhat misguided to me. If you repeatedly simplify and simplify a concept in order to distil it for teaching out to children, then you're liable to lose not only nuance but meaning in whole or part.Esceptico said:
I don’t know how human reproduction it taught at university but I would be surprised if it started at the tenth day or third week or first trimester. I’m going to guess it starts with conception.
Within biology, the concept of "life" is not commonly taught at all other than to highlight the lack of agreement on what it actually constitutes- I've already covered this.Esceptico said:
So saying that human life starts at conception is not some random date I’ve chosen. It is taught that way.
At levels above the most basic educational requirements, it isn't. Esceptico said:
The biological starting point for a human is not necessarily the point they are granted human rights. That is what the abortion debate revolves around, rather than some esoteric discussions of how life should be defined. The latter is just a distraction.
I do fundamentally agree that the debate concerns the point they are granted rights, but that doesn't mean misinformation like "science views life as beginning as conception" shouldn't be countered, especially when it's a fundamental crux or tenet of the position an argument on what that point of granting "human rights" is.Esceptico said:
So saying that human life starts at conception is not some random date I’ve chosen. It is taught that way. Frankly I’m struggling to understand the difficultly in accepting that.
Because maybe it isn't true. It's debateable both ways. If life is created at conception, is a sperm dead? If it's alive, what type of life is it, if not human? If a couple undergoing IVF have half a dozen fertilised eggs frozen, use the first one and it works, by telling the clinic has she no longer needs the others, has she had 5 abortions? Has she had any? Has she had no abortions but aborted 5 babies?
Your line in the sand, that you fail to understand how anyone else can dispute, sure throws up some tricky questions?
TwigtheWonderkid said:
The church has been keen to claim that sex is purely for procreation as a way of demonising homosexuality, and latterly to argue against gay marriage, yet those same churches would have no issue in marrying a widow and widower in their 60s.
RC church, yes; other ones, no. C of E for example emphasizes the unitive aspect of human sex, which you have rightly drawn attention to, in addition to the obvious procreational purpose.Although TBF that's the C of E 'official' line which of course many in it will quietly, or otherwise, ignore.
I haven't read the full thread but my thoughts are they we have it about right. The one thing which I think is a bit of a red herring as regards the time limit is that people seem to be of the opinion that it should be set at the point of viability. I'd disagree with that reasoning (although not necessarily at the limit, per-se). If the decision is a moral one then why is it that the point of viability is the determining factor? Logically, it should be the point at which the foetus could be said to be a "person". That, from what I have read, seems to be around 12 weeks. This, I believe is where Ireland has set the limit. If a foetus has no central nervous system nor anything resembling a brain then, to my way of thinking it is not a human being. It is simply a collection of human cells and I cannot see any moral objection to discarding some cells. It's little different to cutting your nails - nail clippings are "human" but they are not a human.
Esceptico said:
This thread is the same as most on PH (and life in general). People have a pre-existing position and arguments and evidence are examined from that perspective. For most people it takes a lot to change their mind. Certainly it took my many years to shift from being very pro choice to my current position, where I sort of still support abortion, but I struggle to justify it morally.
Morals are personal. There are no absolutes. If it offends your morals but you are prepared to go against them, then it is likely that you will struggle to justify it to yourself. It seems that abortions are legal in certain circumstances. The staff are obliged to follow the rules, i.e. act ethically. Beyond that, it is down to individuals. Convincing others of one's own morals is a fraught pasttime.
AJL308 said:
I haven't read the full thread but my thoughts are they we have it about right. The one thing which I think is a bit of a red herring as regards the time limit is that people seem to be of the opinion that it should be set at the point of viability. I'd disagree with that reasoning (although not necessarily at the limit, per-se). If the decision is a moral one then why is it that the point of viability is the determining factor? Logically, it should be the point at which the foetus could be said to be a "person". That, from what I have read, seems to be around 12 weeks. This, I believe is where Ireland has set the limit. If a foetus has no central nervous system nor anything resembling a brain then, to my way of thinking it is not a human being. It is simply a collection of human cells and I cannot see any moral objection to discarding some cells. It's little different to cutting your nails - nail clippings are "human" but they are not a human.
What would your criteria be to qualify as a person?That is to many, crucial to this topic.
For many religious folk (and some others) that's at conception. Other end of the spectrum is birth, or beyond for Peter Singer et al.
Genuinely interested at why 12 weeks for you.
standards said:
AJL308 said:
I haven't read the full thread but my thoughts are they we have it about right. The one thing which I think is a bit of a red herring as regards the time limit is that people seem to be of the opinion that it should be set at the point of viability. I'd disagree with that reasoning (although not necessarily at the limit, per-se). If the decision is a moral one then why is it that the point of viability is the determining factor? Logically, it should be the point at which the foetus could be said to be a "person". That, from what I have read, seems to be around 12 weeks. This, I believe is where Ireland has set the limit. If a foetus has no central nervous system nor anything resembling a brain then, to my way of thinking it is not a human being. It is simply a collection of human cells and I cannot see any moral objection to discarding some cells. It's little different to cutting your nails - nail clippings are "human" but they are not a human.
What would your criteria be to qualify as a person?That is to many, crucial to this topic.
For many religious folk (and some others) that's at conception. Other end of the spectrum is birth, or beyond for Peter Singer et al.
Genuinely interested at why 12 weeks for you.
If we set it at the point of viability of survival upon premature birth then we are essentially saying that our moral/ethical limit is the limit of our current technology and not that of any basic human dignity or potential of suffering. If the objection to abortion is the moral one then taking the attitude of we probably couldn't save you anyway so you're basically expendable is somewhat perverse, surely?
I understand the religious beliefs on the issue, well, I understand that some people hold them, not that they are actually rational. They should not be part of the solution as far as the legality of it goes as most of them are just bat-s
t crazy. AJL308 said:
It's generally accepted (so I believe) that it is impossible for there to be any consciousness prior to 12 weeks as there is no brain or nervous system prior to that. If there is no possibility of even the most basic level of consciousness then it cannot be a person.
If we set it at the point of viability of survival upon premature birth then we are essentially saying that our moral/ethical limit is the limit of our current technology and not that of any basic human dignity or potential of suffering. If the objection to abortion is the moral one then taking the attitude of we probably couldn't save you anyway so you're basically expendable is somewhat perverse, surely?
I understand the religious beliefs on the issue, well, I understand that some people hold them, not that they are actually rational. They should not be part of the solution as far as the legality of it goes as most of them are just bat-st crazy.
Get the point about viability being earlier with medical progress. Not sure am totally convinced about effect of that on morals-lots people now alive who were 'expendable' in previous centuries.If we set it at the point of viability of survival upon premature birth then we are essentially saying that our moral/ethical limit is the limit of our current technology and not that of any basic human dignity or potential of suffering. If the objection to abortion is the moral one then taking the attitude of we probably couldn't save you anyway so you're basically expendable is somewhat perverse, surely?
I understand the religious beliefs on the issue, well, I understand that some people hold them, not that they are actually rational. They should not be part of the solution as far as the legality of it goes as most of them are just bat-s
t crazy. If that same medical progress altered the point at which consciousness was demonstrably present (later or earlier) then presumably that would alter the moral status of a foetus for you.
So for you a person has to be conscious and human?
Just conscious-allowing for non human persons?
Anything else?
standards said:
AJL308 said:
It's generally accepted (so I believe) that it is impossible for there to be any consciousness prior to 12 weeks as there is no brain or nervous system prior to that. If there is no possibility of even the most basic level of consciousness then it cannot be a person.
If we set it at the point of viability of survival upon premature birth then we are essentially saying that our moral/ethical limit is the limit of our current technology and not that of any basic human dignity or potential of suffering. If the objection to abortion is the moral one then taking the attitude of we probably couldn't save you anyway so you're basically expendable is somewhat perverse, surely?
I understand the religious beliefs on the issue, well, I understand that some people hold them, not that they are actually rational. They should not be part of the solution as far as the legality of it goes as most of them are just bat-st crazy.
Get the point about viability being earlier with medical progress. Not sure am totally convinced about effect of that on morals-lots people now alive who were 'expendable' in previous centuries.If we set it at the point of viability of survival upon premature birth then we are essentially saying that our moral/ethical limit is the limit of our current technology and not that of any basic human dignity or potential of suffering. If the objection to abortion is the moral one then taking the attitude of we probably couldn't save you anyway so you're basically expendable is somewhat perverse, surely?
I understand the religious beliefs on the issue, well, I understand that some people hold them, not that they are actually rational. They should not be part of the solution as far as the legality of it goes as most of them are just bat-s
t crazy. If that same medical progress altered the point at which consciousness was demonstrably present (later or earlier) then presumably that would alter the moral status of a foetus for you.
So for you a person has to be conscious and human?
Just conscious-allowing for non human persons?
Anything else?
AJL308 said:
I haven't read the full thread but my thoughts are they we have it about right. The one thing which I think is a bit of a red herring as regards the time limit is that people seem to be of the opinion that it should be set at the point of viability. I'd disagree with that reasoning (although not necessarily at the limit, per-se). If the decision is a moral one then why is it that the point of viability is the determining factor? Logically, it should be the point at which the foetus could be said to be a "person". That, from what I have read, seems to be around 12 weeks. This, I believe is where Ireland has set the limit. If a foetus has no central nervous system nor anything resembling a brain then, to my way of thinking it is not a human being. It is simply a collection of human cells and I cannot see any moral objection to discarding some cells. It's little different to cutting your nails - nail clippings are "human" but they are not a human.
Poor analogy, toenails do not naturally grow into human infants if left unclipped, nor do cancerous tumours, unfertilised eggs, sperm, or any other collection of disposable cells you choose to name.If humans reproduced by budding from cancerous tumours or toenails then yes, removing them would present just as much of a moral quandary as abortion.
BritishBlitz87 said:
AJL308 said:
I haven't read the full thread but my thoughts are they we have it about right. The one thing which I think is a bit of a red herring as regards the time limit is that people seem to be of the opinion that it should be set at the point of viability. I'd disagree with that reasoning (although not necessarily at the limit, per-se). If the decision is a moral one then why is it that the point of viability is the determining factor? Logically, it should be the point at which the foetus could be said to be a "person". That, from what I have read, seems to be around 12 weeks. This, I believe is where Ireland has set the limit. If a foetus has no central nervous system nor anything resembling a brain then, to my way of thinking it is not a human being. It is simply a collection of human cells and I cannot see any moral objection to discarding some cells. It's little different to cutting your nails - nail clippings are "human" but they are not a human.
Poor analogy, toenails do not naturally grow into human infants if left unclipped, nor do cancerous tumours, unfertilised eggs, sperm, or any other collection of disposable cells you choose to name.If humans reproduced by budding from cancerous tumours or toenails then yes, removing them would present just as much of a moral quandary as abortion.
AJL308 said:
It makes no difference as to what they might become. If there is no brain and it has never been conscious it is not a person. It has no awareness of anything nor has it ever. To equate it with murder - which lots of Americans and other religious loons often do - is ridiculous.
By that measure, if someone stole my Spitfire project car, it makes absolutely no difference than if they'd stolen the pile of crap down the side of the house. After all, they're both collections of non-functional metal and plastic.BritishBlitz87 said:
AJL308 said:
It makes no difference as to what they might become. If there is no brain and it has never been conscious it is not a person. It has no awareness of anything nor has it ever. To equate it with murder - which lots of Americans and other religious loons often do - is ridiculous.
By that measure, if someone stole my Spitfire project car, it makes absolutely no difference than if they'd stolen the pile of crap down the side of the house. After all, they're both collections of non-functional metal and plastic.The point being the pile of crap is not a Spitfire, it's a pile of crap with potential. The point you can legitimately call it a Spitfire is what we're debating. Perhaps when the body shell is on the chassis and the wheels are on? Maybe further down the road than that. I don't know. But I'm pretty content that 5000 bits of crap is not a Spitfire.
BritishBlitz87 said:
By that measure, if someone stole my Spitfire project car, it makes absolutely no difference than if they'd stolen the pile of crap down the side of the house. After all, they're both collections of non-functional metal and plastic.
No, it'd make no difference to anyone else what you chose to do with either, both are yours to make a decision on.Someone else taking either from you without your agreement is a problem in both cases.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
BritishBlitz87 said:
AJL308 said:
It makes no difference as to what they might become. If there is no brain and it has never been conscious it is not a person. It has no awareness of anything nor has it ever. To equate it with murder - which lots of Americans and other religious loons often do - is ridiculous.
By that measure, if someone stole my Spitfire project car, it makes absolutely no difference than if they'd stolen the pile of crap down the side of the house. After all, they're both collections of non-functional metal and plastic.The point being the pile of crap is not a Spitfire, it's a pile of crap with potential. The point you can legitimately call it a Spitfire is what we're debating. Perhaps when the body shell is on the chassis and the wheels are on? Maybe further down the road than that. I don't know. But I'm pretty content that 5000 bits of crap is not a Spitfire.
HM-2 said:
Not to go all Peter Singer, but doesn't that mean someone in a PVS (IE no higher brain activity) is no longer "life", or at least life deserving of rights?
I believe that what some in that 'camp' do think.Personhood needs (typically) consciousness, capacity to communicate and the ability to carry out a plan. Other criteria have been suggested but can't remember what they are!
Only persons have rights is the argument-not human beings incapable of the above.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff