toldailytopic: Were you for or against your mother's right to terminate you?

[gcthomas]

It's old enough from the moment it exists as its own being, which is when new DNA comes into existence. Do you know when that is?

Why do you pick the formation of fresh DNA, instead of the formation of a fresh nervous system? The mind is certainly situated in the brain and not the in the DNA, so why the DNA fetish?

The law disagrees with you.

Not in my country.

How is the existence of brand new DNA not self evident?

Trivially, it is. But you are again deliberately misreading my comment, which was not about the existence of the DNA, but the choice of that moment instead of other moments.

And why are you so foolish to admit it might be correct and still not err on the side of caution?

Misrepresenting my comments again. I suggested that reasonable people might pick other dates and have reasons for that choice, not that it would be the 'correct' date.

You have not set out your reason, and except for hurling insults, you have added nothing of value to the discussion.

Insisting there are shades of grey is intellectually dishonest.

Stating that there is no decision to be made and there can be no shades of grey just reveals a very specific, nasty character flaw.

And if you want to claim there are nuances you better start laying them out or you'll be remembered as nothing more than a troll.

Please, if you can, explain WHY picking the formation of a functioning nervous system as the start of any possible human mind function and the beginning of personhood is 'intellectually dishonest.

In my experience, the first person to start hurling insults is usually the one with the weakest arguments. Prove me wrong with arguments if you have any.

 

[Lighthouse]

Why do you pick the formation of fresh DNA, instead of the formation of a fresh nervous system? The mind is certainly situated in the brain and not the in the DNA, so why the DNA fetish?

A mind is not what makes a person; they don't suddenly come into being once they have a mind.

Not in my country.

So a person who kills a child in the womb in any manner other than legalized abortion isn't charged with fetal homicide?

In the states people who kill a pregnant woman are usually charged with double homicide.

Trivially, it is. But you are again deliberately misreading my comment, which was not about the existence of the DNA, but the choice of that moment instead of other moments.

No, you are assuming that I mean something other than I do simply because I have truncated to argument to make it more concise.

Let me reiterate it for you, since you're too ignorant to get it without more words: How is the moment new DNA comes into existence not self-evident as the moment a new life has come into existence, and in the case of humans a new human, thus a new person?

Misrepresenting my comments again. I suggested that reasonable people might pick other dates and have reasons for that choice, not that it would be the 'correct' date.

You said it "might be the best date," which means "might be the correct date," in English. You do speak English, don't you?

You have not set out your reason, and except for hurling insults, you have added nothing of value to the discussion.

The insult is prove correct in that you declare I have not set out my reason when I clearly have to anyone who can read.

Stating that there is no decision to be made and there can be no shades of grey just reveals a very specific, nasty character flaw.

We're speaking life and death, how are there shades of grey?

And what character flaw would that be?

Please, if you can, explain WHY picking the formation of a functioning nervous system as the start of any possible human mind function and the beginning of personhood is 'intellectually dishonest.

That isn't what I said.

Insisting that you are correct while at the same time admitting I could be correct, and that we cannot truly know, and then not erring on the side of caution in matters of life and death is intellectually dishonest.

In my experience, the first person to start hurling insults is usually the one with the weakest arguments. Prove me wrong with arguments if you have any.

Because I called you foolish?:yawn:

 

[gcthomas]

A mind is not what makes a person; they don't suddenly come into being once they have a mind.

They certainly stop being a person when their mind fails completely. Why not the reverse? (And I was talking about gradual changes with shades of grey, it was YOU who introduced 'suddenly')

So a person who kills a child in the womb in any manner other than legalized abortion isn't charged with foetal homicide?

No. An early foetus is not considered an independent person until about 21 weeks.

Let me reiterate it for you, since you're too ignorant to get it without more words:

I understood and answered, but you are not interested in my answer, apparently. Ho hum.

How is the moment new DNA comes into existence not self-evident as the moment a new life has come into existence, and in the case of humans a new human, thus a new person?

Because, simply, there are MANY things that come into being between conception and birth, and you could choose any one or combination of them for your definition. Forming DNA, as I wrote already, is but one possibility, so you should decide which to use. Decisions are far better when they are reasoned decision. What reasons do you have fo choosing conception? I know you claim to have said already, but I just re-read the thread and can't find what you said on the matter. Help me out and repeat it, for the sake of the discussion.

You said it "might be the best date," which means "might be the correct date," in English. You do speak English, don't you?

I said 'might' because people have different opinions on the matter, and I wouldn't be so arrogant to say my choice is certainly the only answer. You however do assert complete correctness.

The insult is prove correct in that you declare I have not set out my reason when I clearly have to anyone who can read.

Please link to them, as I cannot find a clear answer from you.

We're speaking life and death, how are there shades of grey?

And what character flaw would that be?

I was dividing personhood from non-personhood. I wasn't talking about life. Read my comments, unless English is not your first language.

Insisting that you are correct while at the same time admitting I could be correct, and that we cannot truly know, and then not erring on the side of caution in matters of life and death is intellectually dishonest.

See above.

 

[Lighthouse]

They certainly stop being a person when their mind fails completely.

No they don't.

Why not the reverse?

See above.

(And I was talking about gradual changes with shades of grey, it was YOU who introduced 'suddenly')

You're the one who suggested they weren't a person until they had a nervous system. At what point do they become a person? If it's gradual at which point is it complete?

No. An early foetus is not considered an independent person until about 21 weeks.

By whom?

I understood and answered, but you are not interested in my answer, apparently. Ho hum.

That wasn't an answer. Yes, or no? Did you ever know Christ?

Because, simply, there are MANY things that come into being between conception and birth, and you could choose any one or combination of them for your definition. Forming DNA, as I wrote already, is but one possibility, so you should decide which to use. Decisions are far better when they are reasoned decision. What reasons do you have fo choosing conception? I know you claim to have said already, but I just re-read the thread and can't find what you said on the matter. Help me out and repeat it, for the sake of the discussion.

You argue that we cannot know for certain, and thus cannot reason an exact, and argue against me for choosing to err on the side of caution [according to your terms] by choosing fertilization?

When new DNA comes into existence a new, separate, being has thus come into existence. As there is a new being then it stands to reason a new person, in the case of humans, has come into existence.

If it was not a new being then how could anyone argue a need for abortion? Even PP admits abortion ends a life.

I said 'might' because people have different opinions on the matter, and I wouldn't be so arrogant to say my choice is certainly the only answer. You however do assert complete correctness.

Liar.

Please link to them, as I cannot find a clear answer from you.

Blindfolds allow no vision.

I was dividing personhood from non-personhood. I wasn't talking about life. Read my comments, unless English is not your first language.

If it's a new life how is it not a new person?

See above.

:yawn:

 

[gcthomas]

Lighthouse, it is the gradual change from single cell to a baby with full moral recognition that makes judgements difficult. The older the foetus, the more it's welfare counts more when balanced against the mother's welfare. Why should I pick a 'completion' date when I am arguing for nuance?

Did I know Christ? No. Not beyond a character in a book.

If it's a new life how is it not a new person?

In the same way that eating an apple is not the same as cutting down a tree. The apple has a fertilised seed, but is not yet an independent plant. My arm is living, but is not a person, as it has no independent life or beliefs or sensation or Swansea or thoughts, even though it has human DNA.

Finally, erring in the side of caution requires you to decide which way to go. Erring on the early side risks causing real harm to a living, breathing, reasoning and scared woman when there is a problem with the pregnancy. It risks death when an abortion could have removed the risk (a woman died in this sort of circumstance in Ireland recently), it risks psychological damage to a woman carrying a the result of a violent rape. Erring on the side of caution needs you to pick a side: foetus or mother.

Are you happy for women to die, or be injured or otherwise harmed,for the sake of your 'caution'?

 

[Lighthouse]

Lighthouse, it is the gradual change from single cell to a baby with full moral recognition that makes judgements difficult. The older the foetus, the more it's welfare counts more when balanced against the mother's welfare. Why should I pick a 'completion' date when I am arguing for nuance?

You've already picked one; you said when there is a nervous system.

But if you believe it is nuanced then you must, logically, conclude that it could be a person at any point and therefore it is never okay to take its life, because you don't know.

Did I know Christ? No. Not beyond a character in a book.

So, according to the Biblical definition of "Christian" [one who is in Christ and in whom Christ is] you never were one. Correct?

In the same way that eating an apple is not the same as cutting down a tree. The apple has a fertilised seed, but is not yet an independent plant. My arm is living, but is not a person, as it has no independent life or beliefs or sensation or Swansea or thoughts, even though it has human DNA.

1. A tree is not a person; neither is an apple.
2. Your arm does not have unique DNA.

Finally, erring in the side of caution requires you to decide which way to go. Erring on the early side risks causing real harm to a living, breathing, reasoning and scared woman when there is a problem with the pregnancy. It risks death when an abortion could have removed the risk (a woman died in this sort of circumstance in Ireland recently), it risks psychological damage to a woman carrying a the result of a violent rape. Erring on the side of caution needs you to pick a side: foetus or mother.

How often in abortion is the woman's life actually in danger because she's pregnant?

You also need to look further into the Ireland story. There was a lot of misinformation there and things came to light about a week or two later.

And psychological damage isn't exacerbated by the existence of a child. They are not better, or worse, off either way regarding the psychological trauma of the rape. They can, however, very well suffer further when they realize they've killed an innocent child because of something in which it had no part.

I know a few people who are the product of rape. Are you saying I should tell them they should have been murdered in the womb, for their mother's mental health?

Are you happy for women to die, or be injured or otherwise harmed,for the sake of your 'caution'?

:yawn:

Your hyperbole is worn out and tired.

 

[gcthomas]

You've already picked one; you said when there is a nervous system.

No, I didn't pick a completion date. I picked a 'can't be completed yet' date to be on the safe side.

But if you believe it is nuanced then you must, logically, conclude that it could be a person at any point and therefore it is never okay to take its life, because you don't know.

No, that doesn't follow, and nuanced doesn't mean lack of decision, just that there are things to consider. You seem to believe that since the foetus might eventually become a walking talking human then it must be considered as on as soon as the bundle of cells starts to diferentiate from the mother. I'm saying that the potential to become a person is not the same thing as being a person.

1. A tree is not a person; neither is an apple.
2. Your arm does not have unique DNA.

The tree-apple thing was an analogy, not a description.

How often in abortion is the woman's life actually in danger because she's pregnant?

Not often. But then you're not arguing for abortion to be restricted to women whose lives are at risk, you are arguing that those at risk women should not be able to end a lethal pregnancy. I've known two women who died from their pregnancies.

And psychological damage isn't exacerbated by the existence of a child.

Tell that to a suicidal fourteen year old rape victim.

They can, however, very well suffer further when they realize they've killed an innocent child because of something in which it had no part.

At last, some nuance! This is an argument for the case by case assessment of the likely balance of harm.

I know a few people who are the product of rape. Are you saying I should tell them they should have been murdered in the womb, for their mother's mental health?

If you still think this is an accurate description of my views then you've not read what I have written.

So, forgetting the likelihood for the sake of clarity, I have a single question to ask you:

If a mother's life is at real and present danger from a pregnancy, would you err on the side of caution and require the mother AND the foetus to die rather than allow the abortion and save the mother? In other words, if the mother was dying from the pregnancy, would you expect the medics to save her life? It is a yes/no morality question.

 

[Lighthouse]

No, I didn't pick a completion date. I picked a 'can't be completed yet' date to be on the safe side.

How can you justify that?

No, that doesn't follow, and nuanced doesn't mean lack of decision, just that there are things to consider. You seem to believe that since the foetus might eventually become a walking talking human then it must be considered as on as soon as the bundle of cells starts to diferentiate from the mother. I'm saying that the potential to become a person is not the same thing as being a person.

There is no such thing as a potential person; it either is or it is not.

The tree-apple thing was an analogy, not a description.

It was a poor analogy; because it doesn't compare, in the least.

Not often. But then you're not arguing for abortion to be restricted to women whose lives are at risk, you are arguing that those at risk women should not be able to end a lethal pregnancy. I've known two women who died from their pregnancies.

Can you think of any way possible to save them without actively, intentionally, killing the child in the womb? I can.

Tell that to a suicidal fourteen year old rape victim.

Extremist.

At last, some nuance! This is an argument for the case by case assessment of the likely balance of harm.

lain:

If you still think this is an accurate description of my views then you've not read what I have written.

You don't have a view. You're apparently incapable of coming to a firm decision on anything.

So, forgetting the likelihood for the sake of clarity, I have a single question to ask you:

If a mother's life is at real and present danger from a pregnancy, would you err on the side of caution and require the mother AND the foetus to die rather than allow the abortion and save the mother? In other words, if the mother was dying from the pregnancy, would you expect the medics to save her life? It is a yes/no morality question.

I'd go for a third option. Can you guess what that is?

 

[gcthomas]

I thought that you'd avoid the simple challenge. I hoped you come to a firm judgement, but expected you to try to fudge he issue.

So, on the hypothetical yes/no morality question, make a moral judgement. Yes or no?

 

[Lighthouse]

I thought that you'd avoid the simple challenge. I hoped you come to a firm judgement, but expected you to try to fudge he issue.

So, on the hypothetical yes/no morality question, make a moral judgement. Yes or no?

You honestly can't think of another option? One where you try to save both as best as possible? One in which if one, or both, die no one was intentionally killed?

 

[gcthomas]

You honestly can't think of another option? One where you try to save both as best as possible? One in which if one, or both, die no one was intentionally killed?

I am truly amazed by your answer!

You claim the situation of abortion is black and white, but you refuse to countenance a positive decision? Is it moral to allow someone to die by inaction then? (I am hoping that I have misunderstood your comment here, so please correct this impression.)

Ok. To clarify the hypothetical case, try this simpler case for your 'black and white' morality:

The Christian physician in charge determines that the mother will certainly die if her pregnancy continues. An abortion may save her. What should this physician do?

(I know that this is an extreme case, but in a black and white world with no shades of grey, that should be no problem for you. Extreme cases do, of course, actually happen.)

 

[Sherman]

I am truly amazed by your answer!

You claim the situation of abortion is black and white, but you refuse to countenance a positive decision? Is it moral to allow someone to die by inaction then? (I am hoping that I have misunderstood your comment here, so please correct this impression.)

What is so not black and white about intentionally killing a baby? This is something that abortion advocates never get. They come up with excuses to justify it.

Ok. To clarify the hypothetical case, try this simpler case for your 'black and white' morality:

The Christian physician in charge determines that the mother will certainly die if her pregnancy continues. An abortion may save her. What should this physician do?

An extreme case indeed to justify the murder of a child. Cases like this are rare--kill one or both die. The only cases I can recall are ectopic pregnancies--in these cases the child cannot be saved. It isn't an easy choice, but hypotheticals like this abortionists trump out to justify murdering a child for the sake of convenience.

"Oh the baby will ruin my figure".

"I can't finish my schooling if I have this child".

"He's the product of rape".

"I can't afford to have this child".

"He adds to an already overpopulated world".

"She isn't the right gender".

"He has a birth defect".

None of these are a valid excuse for murdering a baby before he's born. In fact there is no excuse for murdering a pre-born child.

 

[gcthomas]

Hypotheticals are good for establishing where someone actually stands, as opposed to where they say they stand. The lack of clear answers here are answers themselves.

Secondly, I am not an abortionist: I have never carried out an abortion.

Finally, I would agree that murder is usually wrong, but I disagree that abortion is necessarily murder. The law in the US and here agrees with me, and since murder is usually defined as illegal killing that should cover it. It is instructive that Lighthouse avoids answering the thought experiment situations, as it stops the light shining on the more awkward parts of his position.

It is instructive that you wish to keep calling it murder for rhetorical reasons as an alternative to giving reasons for your conclusion that abortion is immoral. Who could possibly disagree with the idea that murder is wrong? But that begs the question.

I had expected someone on this thread to say: stuff physical reasons, it is an article of faith. At least I could respect that position. Instead, despite giving my reasons for my position, all I have received in return is unreasoned assertions and the occasional insult.

Enjoy your positions. You are welcome to them. But you missed the opportunity to actually persuade anyone to change their mind.

 

[Lighthouse]

I am truly amazed by your answer!

You claim the situation of abortion is black and white, but you refuse to countenance a positive decision? Is it moral to allow someone to die by inaction then? (I am hoping that I have misunderstood your comment here, so please correct this impression.)

Ok. To clarify the hypothetical case, try this simpler case for your 'black and white' morality:

The Christian physician in charge determines that the mother will certainly die if her pregnancy continues. An abortion may save her. What should this physician do?

(I know that this is an extreme case, but in a black and white world with no shades of grey, that should be no problem for you. Extreme cases do, of course, actually happen.)

:bang:

You do everything you damn well can to save both mother and child, and if you your unable to and there is a death at least you tried to save them rather than killing one or just letting them die.

It's sad that you were incapable of reasoning that out. Your mind couldn't think any further than, "Abortion's the answer." Your programming clearly took.

 

[gcthomas]

:bang:

You do everything you damn well can to save both mother and child, and if you your unable to and there is a death at least you tried to save them rather than killing one or just letting them die.

It's sad that you were incapable of reasoning that out. Your mind couldn't think any further than, "Abortion's the answer." Your programming clearly took.

Thank you for you clarity.

You had two outcomes likely. Save the mother, or kill the mother. You have chosen the path that would cause TWO deaths instead of one.

Kill the mother by inaction to avoid the moral stain of an abortion.

Interesting.

 

[Lighthouse]

Thank you for you clarity.

You had two outcomes likely. Save the mother, or kill the mother. You have chosen the path that would cause TWO deaths instead of one.

Kill the mother by inaction to avoid the moral stain of an abortion.

Interesting.

That is not at all what would happen.

Can you still see dial-up or is it too far ahead of you, at this point, to be visible?

In order to save the mother in such a situation you will need to remove the baby; that doesn't mean you need to kill it.

I already knew you hadn't really given this much thought; you made that clear days ago, but this is ridiculous!

 

[gcthomas]

That is not at all what would happen.

Can you still see dial-up or is it too far ahead of you, at this point, to be visible?

In order to save the mother in such a situation you will need to remove the baby; that doesn't mean you need to kill it.

I already knew you hadn't really given this much thought; you made that clear days ago, but this is ridiculous!

If that was as option it would be obvious to the doctor (and to me).
In the hypothetical situation I did not give that as an option, assuming that it was before the 20 week point I have described before. Before this age the foetus cannot be expected to survive, so extracting it would kill it.

Still make the same choice?

 

[Lighthouse]

If that was as option it would be obvious to the doctor (and to me).
In the hypothetical situation I did not give that as an option, assuming that it was before the 20 week point I have described before. Before this age the foetus cannot be expected to survive, so extracting it would kill it.

And why is it that there is no way to keep it alive when removed from the womb that early? Why is it we haven't advanced far enough in medical science to have a way to keep the child alive that early if it cannot survive in the womb? Is it because abortion is legal, so most doctors are just willing to kill the child thus no one seems concerned with finding a way to save it.

Still make the same choice?

It dying because you can't save it vs. killing it directly? What do you think?

 

[gcthomas]

And why is it that there is no way to keep it alive when removed from the womb that early? Why is it we haven't advanced far enough in medical science to have a way to keep the child alive that early if it cannot survive in the womb? Is it because abortion is legal, so most doctors are just willing to kill the child thus no one seems concerned with finding a way to save it.


It dying because you can't save it vs. killing it directly? What do you think?

Doctors have been trying to lower the age at which babies can be born prematurely and survive. Survival rates have improved a lot and saved a lot of babies, but little progress has been made on the earliest viable dates. It still hovers around 20 weeks. You do doctors a disservice by your suggestions.

 

[Angel4Truth]

Doctors have been trying to lower the age at which babies can be born prematurely and survive. Survival rates have improved a lot and saved a lot of babies, but little progress has been made on the earliest viable dates. It still hovers around 20 weeks. You do doctors a disservice by your suggestions.

A new born infant cannot survive on its own either for years and years, should we be able to kill them too since they are unable to sustain their own life yet?