Peanut Gallery Thread for Discussion of wiploc and thatguysnephew on the morality of abortion

[Jimmy Higgins]

I take birth to be our natural notion of what it is to come to this world and become a person. Going beyond that can only result in ideological posturing.

I don't think birth is the starting point of procreation.

That's nice. I don't think a woman should be required to endure a pregnancy, birth, and the consequences of both for the remainder of their life based on your (and the "Pro-Life" movement's) opinion on when life "starts".

 

[Speakpigeon]

I take birth to be our natural notion of what it is to come to this world and become a person. Going beyond that can only result in ideological posturing.

I don't think birth is the starting point of procreation.

I take birth to be our natural notion of what it is to come to this world and become a person.
EB

 

[Lion IRC]

I take birth to be our natural notion of what it is to come to this world and become a person. Going beyond that can only result in ideological posturing.

I don't think birth is the starting point of procreation.

That's nice. I don't think a woman should be required to endure a pregnancy, birth, and the consequences of both for the remainder of their life based on your (and the "Pro-Life" movement's) opinion on when life "starts".

Pretty sure science validates the pro-life 'opinion' that unborn human beings are;
a) Human
b) Alive

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I skimmed through, but missed the part where the existence of a thing people are calling a "soul" is established as real, and not simply imagined.

It seems a critical point of contention as to the "value" and the "rights" of a clump of undifferentiated cells.

When does a fertilized egg become something that falls under legal protection? The obvious answer, to me, is "at birth" - a nice clean, clear line that works for every known entity on Earth.

I think something about neurobiology would be necessary. I think when you are born in Korea you are already one year old, by the way they keep records.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

I don't think birth is the starting point of procreation.

What do you think is the starting point, and why?
For example, if Bob and Alice decide to have a child, isn't that the starting point of their procreation? At least, it seems reasonable to say that, though arguably their previous relationship counts. Now, if embryos are made in a laboratory with the purpose of doing some experiments, that does not seem to be the start of any procreation - though, of course, if one stipulates that procreation has already happened when there is an embryo of a species, then I guess the researchers' decision to make embryos for experimentation might be reasonably considered a starting point.
At any rate, this seems to be a matter of preference, and not relevant to the morality of abortion.

But I would like to ask: what do you think the starting point is, why do you call that the starting point, and why do you think it is morally relevant? (the post of Speakpigeon you were replying to was not talking about a starting point of procreation).

Pretty sure science validates the pro-life 'opinion' that unborn human beings are;
a) Human
b) Alive

The use of "unborn human being" to refer to embryos and/or fetuses implies that "human being" in the usual sense of the term, includes them. Science does not validate that (at least, the semantic issue), it seems to me. But leaving that aside, of course human embryos and human fetuses are human, and many of them are alive - though also clearly, many others are dead.
Also, human ova are also clearly human, and many of them are alive, even though many are dead. And the same goes for human sperm cells.

 

[fromderinside]

I take birth to be our natural notion of what it is to come to this world and become a person. Going beyond that can only result in ideological posturing.

I don't think birth is the starting point of procreation.

I take birth to be our natural notion of what it is to come to this world and become a person.
EB

Tea Party wins!

Why is/is not birth the starting point of personhood?

Without rationale and argument all either of you are doing is warming up flamethrowers for shame of one sort or another.

 

[Speakpigeon]

I take birth to be our natural notion of what it is to come to this world and become a person.
EB

Tea Party wins!

Why is/is not birth the starting point of personhood?

Without rationale and argument all either of you are doing is warming up flamethrowers for shame of one sort or another.

You say that but it must be because you are so very pessimistic about human nature. And, sure, I say what I say because I'm doltishly more optimistic. I said what I said not to signal I had some impregnable (not to confuse with"impregnatable", a word which doesn't seem to have ever been procreated before in English anyway) position but in the foolishly optimistic hope that a few people could be swayed, if not dissuaded (not "disswayeded", which doesn't seem to English in Brexit).

Anyway, if you have any actual argument showing that most people don't take birth as the process by which a human fetus comes to this world and becomes a human person, I'd like to hear it.

And, by the way, what I said was an argument and a rationale. Nothing scientific, in my view. Nothing like a metaphysical truth either. Just a pragmatic argument, the sort of thing people, humans, just do to try and live together in society.

Also, I'm curious for you to explain why you should feel like you want to single me out in a crowd like that? Is this love of what?
EB

 

[fromderinside]

You were not singled out. Both of you are accused.

Natural isn't what appears it is what is. Birth is not the the beginning of personhood, it is the culmination of within mother development of person. Much of what is to be later seen as expressed personality is already in place at birth. Personhood is what a person has it is not what others see.

Perspective sir, perspective.

 

[Lion IRC]

I don't think birth is the starting point of procreation.

What do you think is the starting point, and why?

Conception. Because it's a more definite event on the timeline of life.

...For example, if Bob and Alice decide to have a child, isn't that the starting point of their procreation?

Thinking about "it" isn't quite as definitive an event as biologists would want.
Did they both decide simultaneously? Are they both fertile?

...At least, it seems reasonable to say that, though arguably their previous relationship counts. Now, if embryos are made in a laboratory with the purpose of doing some experiments, that does not seem to be the start of any procreation - though, of course, if one stipulates that procreation has already happened when there is an embryo of a species, then I guess the researchers' decision to make embryos for experimentation might be reasonably considered a starting point.

Destroying human embryos is not an act of creation - it's the opposite.

...At any rate, this seems to be a matter of preference, and not relevant to the morality of abortion.

Pro-abortion activists frequently dismiss the religious basis for biblical pro-life arguments but happily invoke the word morality themselves whenever they want. That's hypocrisy.
Is it moral for a pregnant woman to smoke? To drink alcohol?

...But I would like to ask: what do you think the starting point is, why do you call that the starting point, and why do you think it is morally relevant? (the post of Speakpigeon you were replying to was not talking about a starting point of procreation).

Pretty sure SpeakPigeon did say birth was the starting point. I disagree.
When is a chicken 'born'? When the egg is laid or when it eventually hatches?
As you know, the viable age of embryos to survive outside the womb is getting 'younger' all the time and it's now the case that the physical act of passing down the birth canal does not confer anything 'special' in terms of human rights.

Pretty sure science validates the pro-life 'opinion' that unborn human beings are;
a) Human
b) Alive

The use of "unborn human being" to refer to embryos and/or fetuses implies that "human being" in the usual sense of the term, includes them. Science does not validate that (at least, the semantic issue), it seems to me. But leaving that aside, of course human embryos and human fetuses are human, and many of them are alive - though also clearly, many others are dead.

I'm not arguing for the (post-mortim) rights of non-living things.

Also, human ova are also clearly human, and many of them are alive, even though many are dead. And the same goes for human sperm cells.

When a human sperm or unfertilised egg can autonomously/spontaneously become an embryo then I will revise my position about conception being the event which marks the starting point in the life of a human being - the point at which human rights begin.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Conception. Because it's a more definite event on the timeline of life.

What do you mean by "more definite"?
Fertilization of an ovum by a sperm cell is a gradual process, as is the formation of the ovum that is later fertilized, as is birth itself, or the split of an embryo to form twin embryos, or the formation of an embryo from an ovum without fertilization in rare cases. Depending on your time scale, you can split it in many subprocesses.

Thinking about "it" isn't quite as definitive an event as biologists would want.
Did they both decide simultaneously? Are they both fertile?

There is no absolute simultaneity, so I guess not (by the standards you seem to have in mind). But that's not the issue. Suppose that Alice decides on her own to get pregnant using frozen sperm from a sperm bank. Isn't that the starting point?
As for biologists, I'm not sure what they want, but you said the beginning of procreation, not the beginning of the existence of an organism.

Destroying human embryos is not an act of creation - it's the opposite.

I did not say that. I mentioned their decision to make human embryos, even if they're intended to be destroyed later.

Pro-abortion activists frequently dismiss the religious basis for biblical pro-life arguments but happily invoke the word morality themselves whenever they want. That's hypocrisy.
Is it moral for a pregnant woman to smoke? To drink alcohol?

You seem to be changing the subject. Whether it's morally acceptable for a pregnant woman to do that depends on the circumstances. For example, does she intend to abort? Are there other people who might be hurt (e.g., passive smokers, etc.)? Does she know or should know about the consequences of smoking, drinking, etc., or her embryo or fetus?

Pretty sure SpeakPigeon did say birth was the starting point. I disagree.

Of personhood, not of procreation.

When is a chicken 'born'? When the egg is laid or when it eventually hatches?

As I understand the words, the latter.

As you know, the viable age of embryos to survive outside the womb is getting 'younger' all the time and it's now the case that the physical act of passing down the birth canal does not confer anything 'special' in terms of human rights.

Why do you think viability at an earlier stage (given sufficient tech) affect the moral issue?

When a human sperm or unfertilised egg can autonomously/spontaneously become an embryo then I will revise my position about conception being the event which marks the starting point in the life of a human being - the point at which human rights begin.

Someone might mirror that and say "when an embryo can autonomously/spontaneously become a toddler, I will revise my position about conception being the event which marks the starting point in the life of a human being - the point at which human rights begin."
The fact is that embryos do not become toddlers or newborns autonomously/spontaneously. They need to be kept in special conditions for many weeks. Similarly, ova do not autonomously/spontaneously become embryos. They usually do so only after they are fertilized, though that is not always so, since ova also become embryos without fertilization in very rare cases (afaik, only confirmed in laboratories using special methods, but there is no impossibility of it happening in the wild, even if it's extremely improbable). But again, why do you think this is morally relevant?

 

[Juma]

I take birth to be our natural notion of what it is to come to this world and become a person.

You dont become a person by exiting a womb.
The reason to not kill is not the harm made to the victim, if properly done the victim wouldnt notice, but the harm made to those that remain.
How is a society effected by killing featuses? Neely borns? Five year olds?

 

[Speakpigeon]

You were not singled out. Both of you are accused.

Natural isn't what appears it is what is. Birth is not the the beginning of personhood, it is the culmination of within mother development of person. Much of what is to be later seen as expressed personality is already in place at birth. Personhood is what a person has it is not what others see.

Perspective sir, perspective.

Absolutely, perspective.

I take birth to be our natural notion of what it is to come to this world and become a person.

Anyway, if you have any actual argument showing that most people don't take birth as the process by which a human fetus comes to this world and becomes a human person, I'd like to hear it.

Anyway, that's my perspective and what I think is the perspective of most people because it's the natural perspective to have.

Thanks for sharing your own perspective.
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I take birth to be our natural notion of what it is to come to this world and become a person.

You dont become a person by exiting a womb.
The reason to not kill is not the harm made to the victim, if properly done the victim wouldnt notice, but the harm made to those that remain.
How is a society effected by killing featuses? Neely borns? Five year olds?

And how does the mother of an unwanted baby feel? And how does the unwanted child feel?

This is, as I said, a very difficult issue. Different people will disagree. I already said why I think the mother is the one person who is the most directly affected. She should therefore be the one to decide.
EB

 

[4321lynx]

I take birth to be our natural notion of what it is to come to this world and become a person.

You dont become a person by exiting a womb.
The reason to not kill is not the harm made to the victim, if properly done the victim wouldnt notice, but the harm made to those that remain.
How is a society effected by killing featuses? Neely borns? Five year olds?

And how does the mother of an unwanted baby feel? And how does the unwanted child feel?

This is, as I said, a very difficult issue. Different people will disagree. I already said why I think the mother is the one person who is the most directly affected. She should therefore be the one to decide.
EB

The two debaters have real problems:

1. "Morals", "God", "right and wrong", "religion", "faith", are all human constructs IMO, perhaps having their beginning in our far-off animal origins when the definitions were unconciously decided and their obedience enforced by the dominant animal(s) in the family, goup, tribe, herd, breed, nation, "race", or whatever. There will be opposition to this statement from the faithful believers of most religions, but arguing that is not my purpose here. My purpose is to point out that all those words need definitions before the debate even begins, or at least during the debate.
You can already see the disagreement over the entirely human construct of "personhood" and the question of its significance.

2. It seems that the whole purpose of rules, at least in the three Abrahamic religions, is to ensure stability and force of society by supporting the idea and stable forceful practice of "the family". And we see that the religions and their supporting "moral" laws have been successfull in this endeavour for quite a few centuries. Whether this is a "good thing", or not, is a matter of opinion.

3. The question of faith in the "fact" that Jesus Christ is God in human form merely shows me that the capacity for irrational thought is hard-wired into human brains and is much more powerful, and more commonly met with and used, than the capacity for rational thought.

4, I will follow with interest the progress of this civilised and courteous discussion, but with no expectations of any resolution of the problem set forth, i.e. "The Morality of Abortion." For the record I do not think it is immoral to seek, counsel, facilitate or perform an abortion, provided it is the desire of the pregnant woman/girl capable to form, understand, and voice her opinion. And any group that can be identified as a cult or religion (what's the difference, anyway) should not be allowed to voice its opinion on, or in, any particular case or occurence.

 

[southernhybrid]

I know this will sound very weird to some people but I will say it anyway. I was raised by Baptist fundamentalists. I believed what I had been taught as a child, but I always had reservations. One thing that I sometimes thought as a child is the following. If an infant is too young to be held accountable regarding the belief in Jesus as the savior, wouldn't it be better to die before one became accountable? After one reaches the age where god would consider the individual able to either reject or believe that Jesus was savior, that person might not be able to believe and according to what I had been told, would be doomed to an afterlife of eternal torture.

So, it really didn't make sense to me that the short life we have in this world was worth it, if one believed in the wrong god. ( as a young child, the concept of atheism never even entered my immature mind ) It sometimes seemed to me, as a child, that it would be better to die while a very young child or never be born at all. I mean. I didn't obsess about this or it would have probably made my rather happy childhood a very miserable one. Still, what was the value of living about 80 years on earth if you knew that you were going to live forever, either in paradise or in hell all depending on which god you accepted as the savior? That was the beginning of my skepticism regarding religion or at least literal Bible believing Christianity. While I did attempt and often thought I believed all of this nonsense during my childhood, it became a lot more difficult as I reached adulthood.

So why is the nephew in the debate worrying about the souls of the unborn? Are the unborn going to be punished by his loving god because they never reached the age where they were able to understand the concept of god? And, why are the fetuses that are aborted at the direction of the mother any worse off then the fetuses that are aborted by nature, or I assume by god, if you hold the believe that a god controls everything. Does any of that make sense to anyone?

 

[fromderinside]

One might choose the option that leads to best overall health result of relevant group. One probably has to decide that tribe nature gives way to overall health outcome as well.

 

[Rhea]

Tone note: By the way, all following is conversational and friendly. I’m not very good at writing out ideas and having it convey that i’m leaning back drinking wine and smiling at you, so picture that as you read, please.

While I am concerned for the life of those aborted babies, I'm not concerned for their souls. I'm concerned for the souls of those who allow them to be murdered, or who do the murdering.

It seems to me that acording to your bible you should not worry at all.
1. The person could repent later and all will be fine
Or
2. Even if they go to hell and burn forever, you, in heaven will not care. Your bible promises you that you will have no cares or worries. So clearly God doesn’t want you to be concerned over them.

Objectively, by the way, is most usefully defined as that which is measureable or observable by anyone who approaches regardless of their involvement. Ice is _objectively_ colder than water. A three story building is _objectively_ taller than a one-story. Whereas it might be _subjectively_ better looking.

So using that word with its useful definition, you were comparing things that were subjective (opinion) not objective (fact, measurable, not disputable)

Fetus’ happiness:
You’ve talk somewhat about happiness and why it should drive things. Fetuses don’t have a brain to be happy or not. Not for most of the pregnancy. And nearly 100% of abortions after that point are done for extreme medical rescue or compassion reasons.

So talking about those early ones: if there is no brain formed, what happiness is being harmed? What cells, _exactly_ are being used to experience unhappiness?

The arbitrariness of the moment of birth:

Now here’s a thing that neither of you _men_ have touched on. The existence of the woman whose body is being used to host the fetus.

Are we so disposable to you? Are we worth so little?

The objective truth is (the _fact_ is) in no case anywhere in America is it acceptable to force a person to donate any part of their blood or body against their will, for any reason, under any circumstances. Ever.

You are saying that your religion would like to make the exception, but only for women, that if another being needs her body to stay alive, she is REQUIRED by your religion, to give it.

An astute observer will note that none of those in your religion seek similar laws to require bone marrow or kidney testing to force all people who are able to save a life to, in fact, donate a piece of their body whether they want to or not, whether their future is harmed or not, whether their health is at risk or not.

So ask yourself whether you are comfortable discussing the “morality” of enslaving certain people in the population to the whim of your church to do something that you will not do? This is always an interesting thought exercise, to suddenly think about the implications of forcefully enslaving women to be organ donors when you haven’t even established that their enslavement is even to a viable human. To suddenly realize there is a human at stake besides the fetus. (Believe me, _we_ know!)

Ask yourself if you are comfortable with the arbitrary decision to force only women to be these organ slaves when you yourself could have already donated kidneys, skin, liver, bone marrow or more? Do you fear now for your own soul - as a murderer - for witholding the organs others needed for life?

It is interesting to think of how long you debated without realizing there is a woman there, with a right to say “no,” whether the fetus has personhood or not. And that the matter of minutes before birth vs minutes after birth, that is, enslaving her or not enslaving her is to you “just arbitrary” when it fact it is everything to her; her life, her health, her future.

 

[Rhea]

Hope you two have more time for the debate! <3

 

[Lion IRC]

I was going to write something incisive about the current state of their 'debate' but I forgot what I wanted to say. Maybe it will come back to me in the coming days, weeks, months....
������

 

[Rhea]

Glad to see you able to come back, nephew. Looking forwrd to reading when you have time to post.