The Third Wheel On Abortion

Discussions that deal with moral issues. Key questions in ethics include: How should one live? What is right (or wrong) to do? What is the best way for humans to live?

Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby Serpent on January 5th, 2019, 3:40 am 

edy420 » January 5th, 2019, 1:59 am wrote:Because our Catholic male friend in the scenario has an unequal authority, on their mutually verbal contract of procreation.

What makes you think it's an unequal contract? He was as free to breach the contract as she was. You made up a story of late term abortion; I can make up a story of non-compliance where the husband gets a vasectomy and the good Catholic wife is stuck married to him with no hope of kids.

So what? These crazy fictional people don't really tell us much about real life.

I don’t accept current law as a good moral foundation.

We understood that already, without dragging in the Jews.

The position you advocate, provides no safe guards for the termination of a biological mass against a Mothers will.

Huh? The safeguard is that nobody else has the right to make her have a baby or make her have an abortion. What's so hard to grasp about :Her body, her decision?


On the topic of law, consider the One-Child policy responsible for more than 400million terminations. Just because it’s legal, it is not morally just.

You mean China? That wasn't about justice; it was about overpopulation. They needed to do something to prevent mass starvation. I don't care for the draconian measures, and I'm sure empowering women to control their bodies is a better approach to population control, but given their culture and their situation, maybe they couldn't wait till that would make a difference.
You cite the number of abortions as if it should be shocking, but I'd be a lot more shocked by that many hungry babies with no hope, just as I would gladly trade a few thousand suffering and dying children in Africa for the same number of unborn.

On the topic of non evasive sergical lasers, there is no crime in a forced termination at the will of the Father (Operating while the Mother sleeps).

Where do you keep getting this laser fantasy?
Nobody lasered any fathers.

It’s easy to include this [we're not sure he's the father] in the scenario. The Mother comes forward as an adulteress. Now we have a potential for three Fathers. How do we know who is the Father? A DNA test. Well at least we could, if we admit that DNA is relevant.

So? DNA isn't relevant unless somebody contests the paternity of an existing infant.
It doesn't affect the no-more-ness of a terminated pregnancy. There are three men who are not fathers. At least two of them are relieved.

You don't approve of abortion? Fine.
You won't be convinced? Fine.
I'm not dealing with absurdity anymore.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3236
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby -1- on January 5th, 2019, 7:29 am 

edy420 » January 4th, 2019, 5:47 pm wrote:When a Father says my child, he’s delusional somehow?

As a Father, I will protect my child at all costs. If someone tries to terminate my child, I will terminate them first. It would be legally and morally just, due to my rights and responsibilities as a Father.

If a male can not own his child, then nor can a mother. This position is meaningless. It’s not her baby? It’s not her child? It’s not her biological mass? Who’s is it then. (Don’t say it’s the babies, that’s anti pro-choice).

The biological mass is not her body part. She’s free to do with her body as she pleases. But the biological mass has its own DNA, of which is a combination of the potential Mother and Father.

I have MY country. Do I own this country?

I have MY prime minister. Do I own him?

I have MY soul. (If I'm a Christian.) Do I own my own soul? No, god owns it, I'm just borrowing it from Him.

So... what is it that you can't understand about the difference between "belonging" and "ownership"? If you someone is so impoverished in thinking, what can you expect of them to understand pertaining to life?

--------------------------


Let's try it another way. You eat a soup in a restaurant. You carry your saliva to the soup every time you put the spoon in the soup from your mouth. The soup now has your DNA. Do you have the right and the obligation to kill anyone who wants to take YOUR soup away from you?

When you impregnate a woman, you donate your DNA to her. It's less, much less in mass, than the DNA you left in a soup. Why do you claim ownership over something, to which you donated a minuscule amount, with no effort, no pain, no expense? You are trying to cheat your way into ownership. What if I give you a penny, you build a house, and I claim 50% part ownership of the house after you build it? How does that work on a moral ground, on which THIS house has been built?
User avatar
-1-
Member
 
Posts: 221
Joined: 21 Jul 2018


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby edy420 on January 5th, 2019, 4:41 pm 

Serpent,

My ultimate point about the lasers is that you have no provisions for protecting a Mothers child, if that child can be killed without hurting the Mother.(whilst in her womb of coarse).

But your happy to amplify the consequence of harming a pregnant woman, in compensation. (5000 years imprisonment for carrying a harmless inanimate object into a maternity ward?)

I boiled down my equation the wrong way. My silly bias and prejudice getting in the way again..

Assault (female+BM) > assault (male+T)

From the position that yes, BM = T, then it’s the sexist equality that is disproportionate. When removing all the common denominators, we are left with

Female > Male.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby edy420 on January 5th, 2019, 5:23 pm 

-1-,

I have MY country. Do I own this country?

I have MY prime minister. Do I own him?

I have MY soul. (If I'm a Christian.) Do I own my own soul? No, god owns it, I'm just borrowing it from Him.


I don’t own my country, but I may demand justice in its defence. To the extent that I may cut open another mans throat if, he’s a soldier attempting to attack MY Country.

I don’t own my President but I may demand justice in his defence. Such that I may take the life of an assassin.

Satan wouldn’t attack my soul, but in the event that he did, you can guarantee justice would be served.

Property rights has nothing to do with it. In any case that I may use the term my, it’s generally accepted that I may defend it or demand justice.

A Father can and will defend his child. It’s not just his right and responsibility, it is his duty.

But Serpent is the first pro-choice advocate I’ve heard allow the term child. (Most only accept, nonhuman foetus)

I define child as, an equal human being, born or not. But the case can be made that, it’s just my religious prejudice talking.

If I tear down my dogmatic religious prejudice, and bias beast, I am left with a free thinking self aware individual. Now I define child as, a being who requires nurturing into adulthood. This definition holds truth consistently regardless of being born or not.

Serpents definition will change when the child is born, and I don’t understand why.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby davidm on January 5th, 2019, 5:29 pm 

edy420 » January 4th, 2019, 8:44 pm wrote:I have my own personal view on abortion, of coarse. Even before I became Catholic, I was pro-life. I do not use the term biological mass. I use the term, my baby. If I were a dictator, I would rule out all abortions. But I understand that I am not a dictator, I am an individual with my own individual views, of which are possibly wrong. Therefore I choose to not enforce my views on others.


So there you go. You just admitted you are against all abortions (even if necessary to save the life of the mother?), and you are against them even if both the mother and the father are in favor of an abortion. So why do you raise the so-called man’s rights aspect at all? Why not just straightforwardly argue that abortion is immoral, period? (I notice, too, that you completely ignored my point about property. I guess if you were a dictator, you’d completely override people’s “property” rights, eh?)

I can only speculate about why you argue this way. One guess is that, perhaps even if subconsciously, you wish to establish your bona fides as a believer in the ideology of a centuries-old nihilistic death cult founded on patriarchy and misogyny, and overseen by a vast gang of pedophiles. Note that I am not accusing you of being a pedophile, or in any way supporting it. I am just accurately characterizing some of the most prominent leaders of your Catholic Church. And I characterize Catholicism, and Christianity in general, as a nihilistic death cult, because as Nietzsche pointed out, it ascribes no value to real life, only to a non-existent afterlife.

But patriarchy and misogyny is clearly at the core of your beliefs, whether you accept this or not. You think abortion is wrong even if the father assents to it. But in addition to that, in case the father does not agree with the mother’s decision to abort, you want to give the father veto power over the woman’s decision. That is patriarchy and misogyny.

Putting all that aside, the reason why people like you and I can never see eye to eye on this (and so many other issues) is because of a profound difference in our metaphysics. These differences, of course, is why philosophy is so important, and why so many people, many of them scientists, who disparage philosophy, are wrong to do so. Philosophy is at the root of everything. Metaphysics matters.

I don’t know why you need to make up terms like “biological mass.” There are perfectly good terms already. A fetus is the entity eight weeks after gestation until birth. Before that it is an embryo. Before that a zygote. And so on.

The Catholic Church teaches that humans have souls. Now when do humans acquire souls? After birth? As a fetus? As an embryo? As a zygote? As sperm? When? But if you believe that a human is ensouled before birth, and that all souls are sacred, then I can understand why you might oppose abortion. The problem is, you see, that you Catholics give us no evidence whatsoever that God exists or that souls exist, and even if you could provide such evidence, you would need to provide further evidence that humans are ensouled before birth, to support your claim that abortion is wrong because it kills souls. Needless to say, you can’t do this either. Nor can you address the issue of miscarriages. Under your apparent theory of souls, each miscarriage, through no fault of the woman, terminates a soul. Why would your God, who you say values souls so much, permit miscarriages? For that matter, why would your bishops and priests, who say they value souls so much, sexually abuse children?

Food for thought, not that I think you’ll taste it.

But let’s move on. My views on abortion are more ambiguous than I have let on. In my (correct) metaphysics, there is no God and there are no souls. These are fairy tales. In my metaphysics, which is supported by science, reason, rationality and evidence, as opposed to your magical-thinking metaphysics, a person is a mind. And minds do not begin to develop until after birth. You can only murder a person. Therefore a fetus can never be murdered.

What must give a person like me pause, however, is that it must a be acknowledged, under my own metaphysics, that abortion is the termination of an entity that would become a person, if left to be born. So I worry about the moral implications of that, as well as the pragmatic ones, such as: How many future Einsteins were aborted? Future Newtons? Future Martin Luther Kings? And so on.

Of course, it cuts both ways. How many future Jack the Rippers were aborted? Adolf Hitlers? Donald Trumps?

But if you believe, as I do, that all persons have innate value, regardless of what they do in life or their life circumstances, then even the termination of persons-to-be is troubling.

Yet, one can run an illuminating reductio on this concern of mine. Every time a guy jerks off, should we worry that he just squandered a future Einstein? And, of course, there are far too many people in the world as it is. Overpopulation, in conjunction with climate change and resource depletion, will destroy civilization in this century, and no, Jesus will not step in to save us, because Jesus does not exist.

Yet I see nothing to be done about my concerns. Perhaps we should stick to the path articulated years ago, that we should strive to make abortion safe, legal, and rare. This of course would involve plenty of sex education, easy access to contraceptives, and so on — things also opposed by your Catholic Church and the motley collection of grifting right-wing dirtbags who have outsize influence in the U.S.
davidm
Member
 
Posts: 468
Joined: 05 Feb 2011


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby Serpent on January 5th, 2019, 8:48 pm 

edy420 » January 5th, 2019, 4:23 pm wrote:Serpents definition will change when the child is born, and I don’t understand why.

I didn't define "child", before or after birth.
You have consistently misconstrued my position and refused to engage the real-life situations that typically raise the question of whether to terminate a pregnancy.
I've explained to the best of my ability; have nothing to add.
Now I ask only that you stop referring to me.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3236
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby edy420 on January 5th, 2019, 9:57 pm 

Davidm,

Do you suggest that the Police force, parliament and pre schools do not have pedophiles or rapists. Why do you emphasise rapist culture, as if it’s unique to Christianity? My priest is not a pedophile. If he were, I’d like him to be arrested and subjected to the judicial system. Your approach here, is a needless dogmatic attack on something of which you have no measureable statistics to quantify your claim, as a comparison to other cultures. I’d appreciate it if you provide evidence, or digress.

As I clearly stated, I am not a dictator. I do identify with Christianity. But I am not Christianity. As I demonstrated, I am an individual with my own three thinking views.

At what point does the zygote become the next. And at what point does the foetus become Sentient baby. If you say 12 weeks, I will ask, are sure it’s not 12 weeks and 5 minutes. Or are you sure it’s not 11 weeks 6 days 23 hours and 30 minutes. These scientific terms are only guestimations at best. My term covers all of them, right up until birth.

The danger, is saying I can kill a foetus but not an unborn baby. When you killed a foetus at 11 weeks, are you so certain it was not a baby? No. The science is insufficient.

For that matter, why would your bishops and priests, who say they value souls so much, sexually abuse children?
proof please. I’m quite certain my Bishop doesn’t abuse children. Show me the evidence that he does, then I’ll comsider it food for thought.

As for the souls aspect, that comes down to when we have a biological mass that contains its own human DNA. Take me for example. When my DNA was first provided biological mass by my Mother, that is when I obtained my soul. (It was before I was born)

Yet, one can run an illuminating reductio on this concern of mine. Every time a guy jerks off, should we worry that he just squandered a future Einstein?


It is ignorant to think that we get to choose how long we live. Some people die at 110. Some at 80, 60, 5, 3,2,1 and even before birth. Even before entering the womb. Why is this a concern of yours? Do you have control over how long you live. Do you suggest we should concern ourselves with how long a biological mass lives?(miscarriage) Generally, humans tend to try and extend their lives as long as possible.

Perhaps we should stick to the path articulated years ago, that we should strive to make abortion safe, legal, and rare. This of course would involve plenty of sex education, easy access to contraceptives, and so on — things also opposed by your Catholic Church and the motley collection of grifting right-wing dirtbags who have outsize influence in the U.S.


I agree with most of that, but I don’t appreciate the insults. Non Catholics don’t have to worry about our guidelines, so why does it bother you so much?

TBH, I’m beginning to wonder if this is the right place for philosophical debate. When insults are slung so freely, and people use terms in a fashion that contradicts its general use without explaining, I really do wonder. I came here to explore the possibility of sexist equality. Instead I once again find myself defending my faith. I have never imposed my Catholic opinion on anyone, so why the disdain?
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby edy420 on January 6th, 2019, 12:59 am 

Doogles,

The net conclusion from this is that the Ethics of any situation cannot be regarded as an absolute in its own right. Ethics can be seen as the will of the majority of representatives in any given culture -- based on a democratic vote. In fact the Ethics of any given democratic culture are reflected in all of the Rules -- Bylaws and Regulations of Local Government and Acts of Parliaments.

In this particular case, let's say a law was passed that fathers have an equal say with the mother on whether she can have an abortion or not. Picture a real-life situation wherein a father insisting on his rights (perhaps religiously-influenced) denied the abortion of an early pregnancy that did not fit in with the wife's plans for her own future (regardless of the reasons).


I haven’t thought that far ahead. My focus has been the principle of sexist equality. Practical application it seems, devalues the principle, in the case that a Father is able to force an abortion. I don’t support that at all.

In your scenario, it comes down to consequence of actions. A male has life long plans, that involve him keeping most of his money. Unfortunately if he gets someone pregnant, he must pay child support. Here the general consensus is, he should have kept it in has pants. Therefore, If the male refuses to sign the abortion papers, yes she should keep it.

At this point, the Father has acknowledged that he has rights and responsibilities. He must support the child, at the very least, financially.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby edy420 on January 6th, 2019, 1:37 am 

Say two college students who meet at a party, are attracted to each other, have a little too much to drink and wake next morning in the same bed. They're barely acquainted, both planning professional careers and have no immediate desire to be in a committed relationship. Yet they've had unprotected sex; there is a possibility of pregnancy.

What should each of them do -
1. This morning
2. next week
3. in three months
4. next year - ?


I thought my position clear on this. In the event that they both agree to terminate, they terminate. In the event that either one of them wants to keep it, they keep it.

As long as neither of them consider it as their child, no murder has been committed.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby Serpent on January 6th, 2019, 2:40 am 

Whoa, whoa, whoa! What happened to one step at a time?

edy420 » January 6th, 2019, 12:37 am wrote:What should each of them do -
1. This morning
2. next week
3. in three months
4. next year - ?

I thought my position clear on this. In the event that they both agree to terminate, they terminate. In the event that either one of them wants to keep it, they keep it.

Your position is anything but clear. Keep what? Whose murder?
1. It's Sunday morning. The students have nothing in common except a half-remembered experience of fumbling in the dark. They don't even know each other's last names.
What should the boy do?
What should the girl do?
What are they likely to do?
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3236
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby edy420 on January 6th, 2019, 3:15 am 

Whoa, whoa, whoa! What happened to one step at a time?

You say you’ve answered my scenario for me. I’m returning the favour. TBH, I could have answered earlier, but I refused to read your scenario due to my brain already being in a state of overload, whilst trying to make time for my family. To answer your further points more clearly,

The boy must decide if he’s ready to be a Father or not.
The girl must decide if she’s ready to be a Mother or not.

They are most likely to evaluate the bigger picture. Consider how they quantify the value of life. The important question I present, is, does either one of them consider this biological mass to be their child?

As I have repeatedly stated, I can not, and will not tell them what it is. When a baby is in my wife’s womb, it is my child. If anyone wants to point a ray gun at her belly, I’d most likely develop an urge to snap their neck.

When someone else’s biological mass is in someone else’s womb, it has nothing to do with me.

Terminating a biological mass, is Not murder.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby Serpent on January 6th, 2019, 3:36 am 

You've been carrying on about equality (though calling your version of it 'sexist equality' isn't helping your case very much).
So: It's Sunday morning. Nobody has a mass; nobody has a laser.
It is highly unlikely that they're in any condition to reflect on the value of hypothetical life or decide about parenthood - for which they're most definitely not ready, as they're preparing, on large amounts of borrowed money, for their careers. (I did say!)

What is the immediate responsibility of each?
and what will they probably do?





(They'll probably find their clothes, have some embarrassed, mumbled conversation, search for orange juice and aspirin, and go to their respective homes.
What they should do is: exchange names and phone numbers, in case.
What he should also do is apologize for being thoughtlessly unprepared. And later, get tested for STD's.
What she should also do is get a morning-after pill and be tested for STD's.
If they follow my advice, nothing further needs to happen. They may never meet again, or may start dating; it doesn't matter which.)
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3236
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby PaulN on January 6th, 2019, 1:46 pm 

I still can't grasp how tissue that is part of, and dependent on, a woman's body "belongs" to anyone else. Until the third trimester there is no sentient or independent being. As for DNA contributions - think about it. Do I own my children? They have some of my DNA, but they became independent adults at age eighteen.
PaulN
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 30 Dec 2018
Location: Albuquerque


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby Serpent on January 6th, 2019, 2:17 pm 

PaulN » January 6th, 2019, 12:46 pm wrote:I still can't grasp how tissue that is part of, and dependent on, a woman's body "belongs" to anyone else. Until the third trimester there is no sentient or independent being. As for DNA contributions - think about it. Do I own my children? They have some of my DNA, but they became independent adults at age eighteen.

Not to mention the logistical difficulty of claiming all the DNA one may have left in sheets, shower-stalls and disposable tissues. If it's in a condom, the Father gets to keep it: that is clearly his property.

What I've been trying to lead up to is the consequences for each participant in a potentially reproductive act, and their possible courses of action, at each stage of possible outcomes, and how their decisions would affect those outcomes.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3236
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby edy420 on January 6th, 2019, 11:53 pm 

Serpent,

I wouldn’t use the word should. If that’s what they decide to do, I have no objections.

What they really should do, is consider the fact that alcohol abuse does not excuse someone of their actions. It doesn’t work for domestic violence, driving accidents or self harm. Every action has a consequence.

PaulN » 07 Jan 2019, 06:46 wrote:Until the third trimester there is no sentient or independent being.


This is a game changer. If you can provide the scientific evidence to support this propaganda, I would most likely change my position on abortion pre-third trimester. As I understand, the science is insufficient. This claim is bogus.

As for DNA contributions - think about it. Do I own my children?


As I pointed out to -1-, I don’t own my country. But I at least have the right to defend it against those who would attack it. The same is true for my children. As a Father, I can admit that I don’t own my children, but I do have the right to defend them as if they are my most valueable possession.

They have some of my DNA, but they became independent adults at age eighteen.

This highlights my issue with using terms like zygote, first trimester, second, third, foetus etc. they are all just different stages of the one being.

Consider words like child, teen and adult. In my country your are a child until you turn 13. Your a teen until you turn 21. Now your an adult. These are broad, unscientific guesstimates on the different stages of personhood. I started producing sperm and growing pubic hair at age 11, not 13. By 19 I had a full time job, my first child and rented a house. Clearly I was an adult before 21.

Saying it’s non-sentient requires scientific measure. If you can pin point the exact moment it becomes sentient then great, now we know when we can terminate safely. Until then, this claim is lies and misinformation.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby PaulN on January 7th, 2019, 10:48 am 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... ess-arise/


The Road to Awareness

But when does the magical journey of consciousness begin? Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester....


When a statement is called "bogus, " I provide evidence. I welcome any attempt of yours, Edy, to try that approach.
PaulN
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 30 Dec 2018
Location: Albuquerque


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby PaulN on January 7th, 2019, 10:53 am 

Per the CDC (USA), 89% of abortions are performed in the first trimester.
PaulN
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 30 Dec 2018
Location: Albuquerque


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby Serpent on January 7th, 2019, 12:19 pm 

edy420 » January 6th, 2019, 10:53 pm wrote:
What they really should do, is consider the fact that alcohol abuse does not excuse someone of their actions.

Obviously.
All right, then.
They didn't take my advice.
One week later, neither one came down with any symptoms; they're leading their ordinary lives, just as if nothing had happened, because, as far as they're concerned, nothing has.
So, probably, they do nothing.
What do you think their actions ought to be?




This highlights my issue with using terms like zygote, first trimester, second, third, foetus etc. they are all just different stages of the one being.

my bold. Stages of foetal development are not "just"; they are definitive. They describe biological states and can be used by legislators to frame reproductive law - which, gods know, is difficult enough!
The legally determined stages of child development are less precise, if only because there can be more variation in larger span of time - you get a margin for error of +/- 2 years, rather than weeks. In the legal application, that error margin can be taken into consideration, as can other factors, to make the law responsive to individual cases.

Saying it’s non-sentient requires scientific measure. If you can pin point the exact moment it becomes sentient then great, now we know when we can terminate safely.

You don't need a single moment, only an approximation within a week either way. Set the limit on the lower margin - say, end of first trimester - and you're safe. But even then, I would leave a couple of loopholes for severe malformation or accidental damage. (That's just me: I don't care what that sadist in the sky has to say; I think it's wrong to force sentient beings into a life of suffering. )
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3236
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby edy420 on January 8th, 2019, 2:00 am 

PaulN » 08 Jan 2019, 03:48 wrote:https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-does-consciousness-arise/


The Road to Awareness

But when does the magical journey of consciousness begin? Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester....


When a statement is called "bogus, " I provide evidence. I welcome any attempt of yours, Edy, to try that approach.


We’re slipping back into pro-choice/life discussion, but it seems sentience is the piece of the puzzle I am missing. I have reasons for excluding it from the pro-choice model.

My evidence is in the OP. We have a Mother, and a Father. We have a child that is born with less than 12 weeks development. What does sentience have to do with it? Do you propose that they were not parents, simply because their child was still 12 weeks away from becoming sentient? They disagree, as do I. Even by law, the child had human rights.

Serpent,

Stages of foetal development are not "just"; they are definitive. They describe biological states and can be used by legislators to frame reproductive law


I ask for scientific proof, case by case. You present the next best thing. An interpretation and approximation of scientific study, that imposes a blanket rule.

I agree that the biological stages of development are definitive. Where we disagree, is what defines these various stages. It should be defined by biological markers, case by case.

The legally determined stages of child development are less precise, if only because there can be more variation in larger span of time - you get a margin for error of +/- 2 years, rather than weeks. In the legal application, that error margin can be taken into consideration, as can other factors, to make the law responsive to individual cases.


A margin of error, does not cover each case. It tries to minimise the number of cases where it’s wrong, but if just one sentient child is terminated using this nonbiological parameter, then the blanket rule is unfit for determining sentience.

Another example of case by case biological markers vs blanket rule can be observed in the transition between child and teen. There are biological markers that differentiate a child and teenager. Hormone imbalance, associated with reproductive organs, for example. A magic number has been chosen as the point of transition, 13. Based on your margin of error +or- 2 years, we can assume the transition occurs on average at the ages 11-15. Sounds good. Accept, I personally know woman who developed the biological markers of teenagers at age 9. Now the margin of error is insufficient for assuming the definitive biological state of a subject.

Some people just make a larger margin of error, but how big should it be? The youngest Mother to give birth was age 5. That’s 4 times the original margin of error. Do we just take the sentient margin of error and multiply it by 4?( I suspect we just look the other way, if one is sentient before the margin of error)

I think it's wrong to force sentient beings into a life of suffering.


An interesting tangent. My suffering made me stronger, I wouldn’t trade any of it in for Margherita on the beach. Do you mean no one should be born? According to PaulN’s link, being born is suffering.

The dramatic events attending delivery by natural (vaginal) means cause the brain to abruptly wake up, however. The fetus is forced from its paradisic existence in the protected, aqueous and warm womb into a hostile, aerial and cold world that assaults its senses with utterly foreign sounds, smells and sights, a highly stressful event
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby edy420 on January 8th, 2019, 2:41 am 

Serpent,
I revised your scenario,

Say two college students named John and Jane who meet at a party, are attracted to each other, have a little too much to drink and wake next morning in the same bed. They're barely acquainted, both planning professional careers and have no immediate desire to be in a committed relationship. Yet they've had unprotected sex; there is a possibility of pregnancy.
.....
It is highly unlikely that they're in any condition to reflect on the value of hypothetical life or decide about parenthood - for which they're most definitely not ready, as they're preparing, on large amounts of borrowed money, for their careers.
.....
One week later, neither one came down with any symptoms; they're leading their ordinary lives, just as if nothing had happened, because, as far as they're concerned, nothing has.
So, probably, they do nothing.
What do you think their actions ought to be?


Let’s stress test the idea of equality using your scenario. Rather than asking what ought they do, I propose the question what can they do. They have the option of facing up to the consequence of their actions, but because they are mutually responsible, they have mutual opportunity. This mutual opportunity has 4 possible outcomes. Once the outcome is determined, only then can we decide on what they “ought” to do.

Outcome 1.
John and Jane are both not ready to become parents. They prioritise money.

Outcome 2.
John and Jane are both ready to become parents. They prioritise the baby.

Outcome 3.
John is not ready, but Jane is ready to become a parent.

Outcome 4.
John is ready, but Jane is not ready to become a parent.

In 1 and 2, everyone can get what they want.

In outcome 3 and 4, we are now dealing with the oppression factor. Either way, one will be oppressed. Under the current model, John has no choice. If wants to face the consequence of his actions, acknowledges that he is in fact a Father, too bad for John. If instead he decides he doesn’t want to face the consequence of his actions, too bad for John.

What ought John do, in outcomes 3 and 4?
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby Serpent on January 8th, 2019, 11:59 am 

Let’s stress test the idea of equality using your scenario. Rather than asking what ought they do

No, we're not letting responsibility go.

, I propose the question what can they do.

That, too, of course. 'Should' necessarily assumes 'can'.

They have the option of facing up to the consequence of their actions,

At one week post-fact, there are no consequences.
She may be a little anxious. He is not grieving over his wasted DNA.

4 possible outcomes. Once the outcome is determined, only then can we decide on what they “ought” to do.

You're jumping to an unwarranted conclusion. They are definitely not ready to be parents, as already stated. They do not wish to be parents for some years yet, and have no reason to share parenthood, or any relationship, with each other.

Okay. Next.
A month later (I shouldn't have skipped this step; it's crucial)
She's had the terrible five days of suspense and dismay when she missed her period, got a testing kit at the drugstore, and discovered the worst. The boy is unaffected.
Equality is already gone. The mistake was made by two but it's borne by her alone.
She's throwing up several times a day, feels bloated and queasy most of the time, missing classes and worried sick what her parents will say. She needs to make a hard decision, soon.
If she goes through with the pregnancy, she can give the baby away. In that case, she'll miss part of the year, but can continue her education. If she decides to raise the baby, her career is probably gone forever: all the work she's put into her studies, the money spent on courses, wasted; hopes and ambitions, dashed.

Should she let the "father" know? What for?
It was only half his fault and it's not his choice. He's happy not knowing.
OTH, why should she suffer alone?
Well, would her difficulty be relived by sharing it? No: she'd feel exactly the same. So what's the point?
If she decides to carry through the pregnancy, only then does he need to be informed.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3236
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby TheVat on January 8th, 2019, 12:45 pm 

Equality is already gone.


The fulcrum of this debate.

When Aldous Huxley's vision comes to life, and both parents contribute genetic material (fully planned) to a laboratory which grows a baby in a bottle, then some concept of equality might be more relevant. Here, it's a red herring.
User avatar
TheVat
Forum Administrator
 
Posts: 6939
Joined: 21 Jan 2014
Location: Black Hills


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby Serpent on January 8th, 2019, 1:49 pm 

Yes, that's the avenue I was ever-so-slowly exploring.

If she tells the boy, then she should include him in the decision. It would be unfair - and spiteful - to inform him but not consult him.
In most cases, he would be all in favour of abortion; might volunteer to escort her to the clinic and give whatever aid he could. (In the olden days, he would be expected to pay for the procedure and any other medical costs, but in those days, the girl would not have had access to birth control, so the onus was unequal.)

Or, he may suddenly spring a paternal instinct. (This does happen.) There is no way [as yet - pretty soon, maybe] that he can take it over. All he can do is ask her to carry the baby to term.
She should consider the request.
The cost to her:
- physical hardships (Dunno about you, but from what I've seen of it, I'd hate the delicate condition!)
- physical risk - hemorrhage, blood clot, miscarriage, complications, premature labour, delivery (low, but present also - psychological risk: anxiety, depression)
- loss of study time and class time; maybe the year
- social handicap (no student life! shunned by her parents' church) possible domestic backlash
The cost to him: negotiable.
Can he adopt the baby when it's born? Or make arrangements for it that don't involve the girl? What support is he willing to offer during the pregnancy? How realistic is his expectation of being able to care for an infant?
Remember, the girl owes the boy nothing.
The boy owes the girl nothing.
But if they agree to make a baby, they both owe the baby something.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3236
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby -1- on January 8th, 2019, 5:12 pm 

Dear Edy420, please consider the following when you are desperately trying to establish rights for the father to stop an abortion.

You eat a soup in a restaurant. You carry your saliva to the soup every time you put the spoon in the soup from your mouth. The soup now has your DNA. Do you have the right and the obligation to kill anyone who wants to take YOUR soup away from you? If your DNA's presence does not entitle you, why are you entitled to kill anyone who wants to take the unborn child from the woman you impregnated? The soup and the lady both had your DNA, and your contribution to both was, on a measurement scale, almost nothing. One set of molecules. Both the soup and the fetus. You think this is enough to claim ownership and right to kill others who want to kill your soup or your unborn baby?

When you impregnate a woman, you donate your DNA to her. It's less, much less in mass, than the DNA you left in a soup. Why do you claim ownership over something, to which you donated a minuscule amount, with no effort, no pain, no expense? You are trying to cheat your way into ownership.

What if I give you a penny, you build a house, and I claim 50% part ownership of the house after you build it, because in the beginning I gave you a penny? How does that work on a moral ground, on which THIS house has been built?
User avatar
-1-
Member
 
Posts: 221
Joined: 21 Jul 2018


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby edy420 on January 9th, 2019, 1:02 am 

-1-,
I agree. Take my DNA and dispose of it as you please. But if you make a baby out of it, don’t expect me to support it. Remember, you took it. We both admit it’s no longer mine. Agree?

Serpent,

Should she let the "father" know? What for?
It was only half his fault and it's not his choice. He's happy not knowing.
OTH, why should she suffer alone?
Well, would her difficulty be relived by sharing it? No: she'd feel exactly the same. So what's the point?
If she decides to carry through the pregnancy, only then does he need to be informed.


In this instance, her choices are whether or not she tells the would be Father. He does not consider himself a Father, therefore there is no child.

But I would expect some curtesy. She should consult him first and they decide together. If she does not inform him but decides to have the baby, then it is her baby only. She does not owe the biological Father anything but on that note, he does not owe her anything.

If she doesn’t tell him, and aborts the child, there is no murder. No one has decided that it is their child. At worst she is decieptful, inconsiderate and manipulative, but not a murderer.

Let’s say the child is born. Now she decides to tell the Father and demand he pay financial support. He never considered himself a Father. He opted to not be accountable for his drunken mistake (Remember she had this option too). He did not want a child, he is free to prioritise money. Had she consulted him first, she could have asked if he was prepared to support a baby. At that point he would have told her, I’ve got study, money to make, and I don’t love you. From here she knows that if she keeps it, she needs to do it on her own.
Last edited by edy420 on January 9th, 2019, 1:39 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby edy420 on January 9th, 2019, 1:33 am 

TheVat » 09 Jan 2019, 05:45 wrote:
Equality is already gone.


The fulcrum of this debate.

When Aldous Huxley's vision comes to life, and both parents contribute genetic material (fully planned) to a laboratory which grows a baby in a bottle, then some concept of equality might be more relevant. Here, it's a red herring.


Interesting idea. But let’s say one person decides to terminate. They do it without the consent of the other. Is this murder?

We all agree that a woman has full control over her body. Where is disagree is that she does not have full control over a Mans child. She has good reasons. She has the right and authority etc

My point is simply that, if an individual has authority over the decisions of another, then they are not equal.(regardless of whether or not they have good reasons)

My conclusion: men and woman do not and can not obtain equality of choice. Therefore they are not equal.

There’s plenty of evidence to support this, abortion being one of the most obvious. The UFC, Boxing, wrestling etc. men and woman are not equal. These enterprises separate sex to obtain equality. If they weren’t separate, Rhonda Rousey would have never became champion. Against only woman, she was elite and had equal equality at becomeing champion. But against the top 20 men, she had no chance. The only way to obtain equality is to keep the sex’s separate. But that is not possible with abortion, until we have birthing vats.

My argument is based on the idea that male and female can have equal choice. A baby in a vat would definitely solve the problem of equality. Until then, the woman’s choice will have more authority than a mans. This is evidence of a hierarchy and is the basis of my conclusion.

Men and woman are not equal. Evidently, woman are superior when it comes to choice.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1250
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby Serpent on January 9th, 2019, 1:52 am 

edy420 » January 9th, 2019, 12:02 am wrote:In this instance, her choices are whether or not she tells the would be Father. He does not consider himself a Father, therefore there is no child.

His knowledge has no effect on whether there is a child. It's the other way around: if there is a child, he's a father, whether he knows it or not; if there is no child, he's not a father.

The question of murder or not murder does not hang on what either party wants. It's a legal matter for the state to determine. Let's leave it separate from equality and responsibility.

But I would expect some curtesy.

Now, there, we have a conundrum. Which is more courteous - to not tell him and let him off free to go on living his carefree life, or tell him and force part of the burden on him? Each girl in this position has to use her own judgment, not yours or mine.

She should consult him first and they decide together.

Only if she hasn't already decided to abort. Remember, her choice at the moment is whether to go through a pregnancy or not, and that's entirely personal. If she has decided to abort, there is no point in consultation.

If she does not inform him but decides to have the baby, then it is her baby only.

This is an option. I think that in this case, the father should be informed, because many teenagers go looking for their biological fathers and the news can blind-side him seventeen years later.

She does not owe the biological Father anything but on that note, he does not owe her anything.

This the negotiable part. She may ask him for child support; he may ask for visiting rights; they may agree on an arrangement that suits everyone. It would be better for the kid, anyway, to know its father.

If she doesn’t tell him, and aborts the child, there is no murder.

I'm glad you agree.
No one has decided that it is their child. At worst she is decieptful, inconsiderate and manipulative, but not a murderer.

How do you figure deceitful'? She hasn't lied to anybody; she just didn't bother to track to down some guy she met one time and barely remembers. How do you figure 'inconsiderate' when she's spared him the worry and guilt? How do you figure 'manipulative', when she didn't get anybody to do anything for her?

Let’s say the child is born. Now she decides to tell the Father and demand he pay financial support.

This can happen; does happen. Sometimes because the girl meant to give her baby up; didn't know until it was born that she would want to keep it. Sometimes because she finds it a lot harder to cope than she imagined it would be.

He never considered himself a Father. He opted to not be accountable for his drunken mistake

No; if he didn't know, there were no options.
He did not want a child, he is free to prioritise money. Had she consulted him first, she could have asked if he was prepared to support a baby.

That's true. It would be thoughtless. But then, they're kids: thoughtlessness goes with the territory - or they wouldn't be in this predicament.

At that point he would have told her, I’ve got study, money to make, and I don’t love you. From here she knows that if she keeps it, she needs to do it on her own.

Yes, that should have been made clear at the time she decided to go through with the pregnancy.
But things do go wrong. At this point, they'll just have to negotiate again; come to some agreement that works for the baby. If she can't support it alone, and he can't help, she may have to give it up after all. This also happens.

What I know is, one of the worst possible resolutions is for two young people to marry because of an accidental pregnancy. Very few happy endings to shotgun weddings.
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3236
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby PaulN on January 9th, 2019, 1:33 pm 

Interesting idea. But let’s say one person decides to terminate. They do it without the consent of the other. Is this murder?

We all agree that a woman has full control over her body. Where is disagree is that she does not have full control over a Mans child. She has good reasons. She has the right and authority etc

My point is simply that, if an individual has authority over the decisions of another, then they are not equal.(regardless of whether or not they have good reasons)

My conclusion: men and woman do not and can not obtain equality of choice. Therefore they are not equal.
- EDY

A woman has full control over her body, which includes anything growing in it and connected to her blood supply. That growing embryo (let's stick to early term here) is not "a man's child." Your calling it that presumes a truth you have completely failed to establish here. He doesn't own or have any sovereignty over her uterus, any more than she would have sovereignty over his testicles and the sperm in his testicles and where they should or shouldn't be ejected. They have equality before the law (or should, if the constitution is fairly applied) and that is the equality that we are discussing when we talk about ethics as the foundation of our laws. You are still chasing around after your feelings about an embryo is someone else's body. The importance of everyone having sovereignty over their own bodies massively trumps any feelings you have about knocking up little Susy. Get over it and, if you don't want to get anyone pregnant, then use a fricking contraceptive or keep it in your pants.
PaulN
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 28
Joined: 30 Dec 2018
Location: Albuquerque


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby -1- on January 9th, 2019, 3:40 pm 

edy420 » January 9th, 2019, 1:02 am wrote:-1-,
I agree. Take my DNA and dispose of it as you please. But if you make a baby out of it, don’t expect me to support it. Remember, you took it. We both admit it’s no longer mine. Agree?


Well, in the example I gave you, you gave your DNA, and it wasn't taken from you. So you now widen the rights to your baby on the grounds on which you were formerly reluctant to give up the baby. Whether you give your DNA, or it is taken from you, you agree to not kill anyone who wants to kill "your" baby, and you are not going to oppose by any means all and any attempts at aborting the baby to which you contributed your very own DNA.

YES, I AGREE.

Yes, we agree then. You give up all your rights as a father to stop the abortion of a fetus which was started with your share of the DNA. That is a final agreement, and as such, it is a good one.

You also give up the right to kill anyone who wants to kill "your" baby. After all, you just admitted that it's not your baby. That is also a final agreement, and as such, it is also a good one.
User avatar
-1-
Member
 
Posts: 221
Joined: 21 Jul 2018


Re: The Third Wheel On Abortion

Postby Serpent on January 9th, 2019, 6:22 pm 

So, here is a possible misapplication of 'father's rights': factory foreman with barren wife wants offspring; seduces, with blandishments or menaces, a young female employee, then vetoes her decision to abort, is backed by courts based on the claim that she's trying to 'murder' 'his child', which he is willing to adopt. Young employee now stuck with 9 month sentence of discomfort and aforementioned risks, social ostracism, shame, the pain of delivery, the emotional wrench of being parted from a baby she's carried through gestation.
Let's not go back there, okay?
Serpent
Resident Member
 
Posts: 3236
Joined: 24 Dec 2011


PreviousNext

Return to Ethics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests