|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Apr 29, 2018 22:53:26 GMT
No, the problem with such thought experiments is that they are contrived and usually absurd situations used to prove a point. The scenario is utterly ridiculous.
Also, it's flawed because you're not even saying that the fertilized eggs DON'T have value or aren't human beings. But that's the claim you have to defend.
|
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Apr 29, 2018 22:55:03 GMT
Let me repeat: when a human being becomes unconscious, does it cease to be human?
If not, why not?
You tried to evade this by making the point that the adult's usual state is consciousness. But that's just a dodge. Does the adult cease to be human AS LONG as it ceases to be conscious? If not, why not?
|
|
|
|
Post by Tomas on Apr 30, 2018 6:28:29 GMT
Additional note: Naturally it´s important to not be judgemental, and the mother who is directly concerned may presumably in many cases not be aware of the full concept of the conception (if one can say so despite the child in being) yet there´s no need to fall in the other ditch and say that different lives can be given different value and different right to live. Every life matters.
|
|
|
|
Post by unfortunately on Apr 30, 2018 8:03:08 GMT
You seem to be proceeding from an axiom that consciousness is the defining feature of human life. Where do you get this? Why should anyone agree with this? It seems like a purely ad hoc position to justify abortion. It isn't ad hoc, I'd argue it's an underline assumption we all make about morality (maybe not everyone). Consciousness means that there is some inner subjectivity, there is a light on vs being "dead" matter. Most would say it is worse to take a hatchet to a cat than a tree. Why? Both are complex living things. Most would agree it's because the cat can feel and suffer, trees can't. Before the development of animal rights we thought animals were nonthinking automata and therefore it didn't matter what you did to them. Once you admit they can feel, have awareness etc then they enter the realm of morality. The fundamental axiom I suppose is suffering is bad. It is unpleasant, we have an aversion to it. We would like not to suffer. I think everyone would agree to this even the most extreme masochist. Therefore we would like to minimise suffering (+certain caveats). Only conscious beings can suffer so those are the things we should consider. A rock cannot suffer, a daffodil cannot suffer, a single sell cannot suffer. |
|
|
|
Post by unfortunately on Apr 30, 2018 8:11:30 GMT
No, the problem with such thought experiments is that they are contrived and usually absurd situations used to prove a point. The scenario is utterly ridiculous. Also, it's flawed because you're not even saying that the fertilized eggs DON'T have value or aren't human beings. But that's the claim you have to defend. All thought experiments are contrived - as they are impractical/unethical in real life. I'm thinking of the madman who ties people to railwaytracks. They are contrived to remove all the irrelevant factors to get down to one choice or principle. Say the box was full of bananas. Is it such a hard choice now? Just a clarification on the terms like human and human being. A foetus is human, my skin cells and kidney cells are human but is my kidney a human being? - no, it does not have an inner subjectivity - there is no 'being'. |
|
|
|
Post by unfortunately on Apr 30, 2018 8:20:52 GMT
Let me repeat: when a human being becomes unconscious, does it cease to be human? If not, why not? You tried to evade this by making the point that the adult's usual state is consciousness. But that's just a dodge. Does the adult cease to be human AS LONG as it ceases to be conscious? If not, why not? When I say conciousness, I mean a wider definition than awake vs sleep. It's more alive vs dead. So unconscious people still have consciousness I.e subconciousness. But to answer: a sleeping or dead human is still human (in terms of species). A sleeping human is a person, a dead human is not a "person" - in that there is no subjective experience going on. No person feeling. I don't want to dodge the question, we are coming from different assumptions and defintions so there is going to be some missed points. Hopefully we can work through |
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on Apr 30, 2018 8:50:53 GMT
Your kidney is a part of you, whereas a fetus is a whole from the very beginning, even if he or she is dependent on his mother.
"When I say conciousness, I mean a wider definition than awake vs sleep. It's more alive vs dead. So unconscious people still have consciousness I.e subconciousness. But to answer: a sleeping or dead human is still human (in terms of species). A sleeping human is a person, a dead human is not a "person" - in that there is no subjective experience going on. No person feeling."
I'm sorry, it really does seem that these are ad hoc and question-begging arguments tailored to justify abortion. You posit consciousness but you then refine the definition further to exclude sleep or other forms of unconsciousness.
Also, the "person feeling" and subjectivity that the person feels is entirely dependent on their not being killed before it is developed. Your argument seems to me that only conscious suffering or loss counts. As a matter of fact I think you have put your finger on why so many people think abortion is OK today. It is because they are thinking in terms of subjectivity or feelings rather than the objective fact of the matter. It's a kind of utilitarianism, reducing good and bad to pleasure and pain (pain including fear). But my view is that the human being, the fetus, suffers a real (indeed, a catastrophic) loss even if he or she never actually suffers pain or even knows what he or she has lost, or indeed knows anything at all. It is not the same as uncreated human beings-- the human beings HAVE been created.
|
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on Apr 30, 2018 14:06:48 GMT
You say ....br] The Church refers to the Roman Catholic Church? That may be your faith but non-members don't have to follow those rules. .... and appreciate? Something that might be just worth noting here:I read an article many years ago about a traditional Shinto shrine in Japan dedicated to those who died as children and/or a god who looked after deceased children. It was experiencing a revival, largely from women who were suffering after an abortion who would leave votive statues there. I can clearly remember the photos of these votive offerings. 80% of the Japanese are culturally followers of Shinto but it's estimated that only 16% of these believe in deities. Many people would suggest that Japan can basically considered a godless society. Many women from all cultures suffer greatly following pregnancy termination and certainly not exclusively because they are Catholic or Irish or surrounded by anti-abortionists. There was a famous case in Australia where a Maori lady later asked the private abortion practise for the foetus so that she could bring it back to her country and bury it at her ancestral ground, as Maoris often wish to do. I certainly don't believe that this is the effect of expelling some unwanted cells or tissue. |
|
|
|
Post by unfortunately on Apr 30, 2018 15:53:17 GMT
Your kidney is a part of you, whereas a fetus is a whole from the very beginning, even if he or she is dependent on his mother. "When I say conciousness, I mean a wider definition than awake vs sleep. It's more alive vs dead. So unconscious people still have consciousness I.e subconciousness. But to answer: a sleeping or dead human is still human (in terms of species). A sleeping human is a person, a dead human is not a "person" - in that there is no subjective experience going on. No person feeling." I'm sorry, it really does seem that these are ad hoc and question-begging arguments tailored to justify abortion. You posit consciousness but you then refine the definition further to exclude sleep or other forms of unconsciousness. Also, the "person feeling" and subjectivity that the person feels is entirely dependent on their not being killed before it is developed. Your argument seems to me that only conscious suffering or loss counts. As a matter of fact I think you have put your finger on why so many people think abortion is OK today. It is because they are thinking in terms of subjectivity or feelings rather than the objective fact of the matter. It's a kind of utilitarianism, reducing good and bad to pleasure and pain (pain including fear). But my view is that the human being, the fetus, suffers a real (indeed, a catastrophic) loss even if he or she never actually suffers pain or even knows what he or she has lost, or indeed knows anything at all. It is not the same as uncreated human beings-- the human beings HAVE been created. I'm not being precise in my language, when I use conciousness/awareness/feeling/subjectivity/sentience I mean there is something that it is "like" to be that thing. Something that can have an experience. A single fertilised cell is human, like a skin cell. But it is not a person (there is no-one there). In killing a cell I don't see who is suffering the loss. If you wait several months and kill a foetus that's more developed then I would agree they have suffered a loss. There is no person created when the sperm enters the egg the person develops later I would argue. "Your argument seems to me that only conscious suffering or loss counts" - conscious suffering - what other type of suffering is there? - suffering implies an inner experience. We do not consider the feelings of things which do not feel. |
|
|
|
Post by unfortunately on Apr 30, 2018 15:57:43 GMT
You say ....br] The Church refers to the Roman Catholic Church? That may be your faith but non-members don't have to follow those rules. .... and appreciate? Something that might be just worth noting here:I read an article many years ago about a traditional Shinto shrine in Japan dedicated to those who died as children and/or a god who looked after deceased children. It was experiencing a revival, largely from women who were suffering after an abortion who would leave votive statues there. I can clearly remember the photos of these votive offerings. 80% of the Japanese are culturally followers of Shinto but it's estimated that only 16% of these believe in deities. Many people would suggest that Japan can basically considered a godless society. Many women from all cultures suffer greatly following pregnancy termination and certainly not exclusively because they are Catholic or Irish or surrounded by anti-abortionists. There was a famous case in Australia where a Maori lady later asked the private abortion practise for the foetus so that she could bring it back to her country and bury it at her ancestral ground, as Maoris often wish to do. I certainly don't believe that this is the effect of expelling some unwanted cells or tissue. As I said, no-one does it lightheartedly. Nobody is callous. Humans are sentimental and have strong feelings. If someone dies I might believe that there body is just lifeless matter, just cells and atoms but I am not going to throw it away like I would waste food. I would bury them too. |
|
|
|
Post by Séamus on May 2, 2018 6:40:36 GMT
Something that might be just worth noting here:I read an article many years ago about a traditional Shinto shrine in Japan dedicated to those who died as children and/or a god who looked after deceased children. It was experiencing a revival, largely from women who were suffering after an abortion who would leave votive statues there. I can clearly remember the photos of these votive offerings. 80% of the Japanese are culturally followers of Shinto but it's estimated that only 16% of these believe in deities. Many people would suggest that Japan can basically considered a godless society. Many women from all cultures suffer greatly following pregnancy termination and certainly not exclusively because they are Catholic or Irish or surrounded by anti-abortionists. There was a famous case in Australia where a Maori lady later asked the private abortion practise for the foetus so that she could bring it back to her country and bury it at her ancestral ground, as Maoris often wish to do. I certainly don't believe that this is the effect of expelling some unwanted cells or tissue. As I said, no-one does it lightheartedly. Nobody is callous. Humans are sentimental and have strong feelings. If someone dies I might believe that there body is just lifeless matter, just cells and atoms but I am not going to throw it away like I would waste food. I would bury them too. But nobody usually experiences grief at the removal of, for example, an appendix or gall bladder- it's generally recognized, even by those on the liberal end of the spectrum, that an embryo is not the same cells-and-atoms-thing as an removed appendix, it's something different and distinct from (even if dependant on) it's mother. |
|
|
|
Post by Maolsheachlann on May 2, 2018 8:41:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by cato on May 2, 2018 11:48:40 GMT
The latest health scandal in Ireland involving the HSE may involve the deaths of up to 17 women due to what looks like ineptitude. This is a common theme with Ireland's inefficient and costly dinosaur health service headed by former Irish Family Planning Association head Tony O Brien , who is leaving his job early to take up another family planning role in the private (but state subsidised) sector.
The pro abortion lobby posters decorating Irish lamp posts are refusing to use the word abortion and are highlighting care compassion ( Sinn Fein - not much compassion shown to alledged informers or those the IRA blew to pieces) and women's health.The Irish Health service looks like it is responsible for 17 deaths. Imagine the hysteria there would be if those deaths were as a result of the 8th ammendment. Yet this same health department is lobbying for abortion to save women's lives.
There has also been a recent report of a post abortion death of a foreign born Irish national in the UK . Pro abortionists will either ignore this or suggest travel was a cause. There has been a small but significant number of women who do die after legal abortions over the years ,due to poor hygiene or medical carelessness. These cases never become the focus of media outrage.
The only pro repeal poster I saw that mentions abortion is one by some far left group that claims 170,000 women were "forced" abroad to have an abortion. It is interesting the repeal campaign has largely avoided the abortion word and is concentrating on abstractions like care choice and compassion.
|
|
|
|
Post by cato on May 18, 2018 22:59:03 GMT
I was watching the pro repeal leader of Ireland's biggest pro life party on RTE getting the usual sympathetic interview when the thought occurred to me would Micheal Martin ever been able to defend a prolife position against a hostile media?
Was his conversion to the media/political consensus partially motivated by a fear that by going along with the majority of the party and defending it he would end up as the focus for repeal ridicule and hostility? Perhaps this is overly cynical on my part but no major political heavy weight has been willing to take on the leadership of the pro life case. I greatly admire Ronan Mullan, Mattie Mc Grath Peadar Toibin etc but they are all relative outsiders.
Martin's conversion journey is, I believe primarily motivated by cold political calculations and ambition but it also helps him avoid taking on a deeply unfashionable and even worse, uncool public stance. Courage is not one of the more prominent political virtues nowadays. His stance also divided the biggest pro life political party weakening the opposition even further. No one forced him to take a public stance. Surely out of respect for the majority of his party he could have made a statement of his voting intentions and left it at that?
Micheal obviously believes the stripping of equality from the unborn and the legalising of deliberately destroying them will eventually gain him the Taoiseach's chair. Some souls sell themselves for knockdown rates.
|
|
|
|
Post by Antaine on May 24, 2018 0:25:59 GMT
Well,
I have a Facebook account that I practically never use, and will actually deactivate it when not using it, but I just discovered tonight that an old college friend has deleted me due to a simple and fairly innocent comment I made. He was commenting on a CNN article talking about some young Americans coming here to support the Pro-Life side, and apparently they had lied about their intentions for being here to do it. I suppose my friend's point was that he didn't want foreign elements coming into the country to influence our politics (which is something I completely agree with.) However, when I commented on his comment, rather than reply to me he just cut me off instead. The comment in question:
"So did Amnesty ever give back that money then?"
The irony is that every time I checked my newsfeed, there would always be at least one comment from said friend obnoxiously talking about how right and brilliant his side were, and the exact opposite for the Pro-Life side. Earlier today he even remarked about Pro-Lifers "have a spine lads" in response to a woman who pulled out of a debate (sorry, not to sure of all the big names in the referendum.) It's that kind of arrogance and hypocrisy that really riles me up against people.
|
|
