SubJeff on 3/7/2013 at 20:41
Read my last post.
Vivian on 3/7/2013 at 20:42
Um. Human thought forms? Did I miss out on a lot of science somewhere? I thought we were still on behaviour as the main arbiter of intelligence, not just measuring surface electrical activity.
Phatose on 3/7/2013 at 20:52
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Read my last post.
I understand the appeal of viability as the measure. It's simple to understand and quantify, and relatively straightforward.
But it ties personhood to the available life support technology. I see that as opening a direct line of assault on the principle. They'll say "What we're really dealing with isn't that you're not a person if you can't survive, it's that you are a person and we don't have the technology to save you if we take you out." Plus, you end up with situations where a 6-month fetus is a person in developed countries with high levels of care for premature babies, and a non-person in places where they don't have that. Denying personhood because your local medical establishment is poor sounds like a fucking terrible idea to me.
It looks like a slippery slope and I'd rather not stand on it if it's at all avoidable.
Quote Posted by Vivian
Um. Human thought forms? Did I miss out on a lot of science somewhere? I thought we were still on behaviour as the main arbiter of intelligence, not just measuring surface electrical activity.
We skipped a lot. If anyone would like to have the whole discussion, I'm game. Last time this came up there wasn't anybody interested though.
june gloom on 3/7/2013 at 20:56
Quote Posted by faetal
You're 99% of the time making good points eloquently, but this "you disagree because you hate women" knee-jerk is patronising and tedious.
That is
not what I am saying and you have fundamentally misunderstood my point. Again.
SubJeff on 3/7/2013 at 21:04
Phatose - that's just as arbitrary and tech dependant point as my suggestion.
Which was my point.
You may not be saying that dethtoll but it kind of comes across that way, what with your THERE IS NO DISCUSSION ON THIS POINT.
If you feel that way then don't discuss it. See you next debate. Bye bye.
faetal on 3/7/2013 at 21:05
Dethtoll, in this thread, and a lot of others, you get very tetchy with anyone not agreeing with you when it comes to matters of sexism / patriarchy / gender chauvinism etc...
Discussion is good, but it's irksome when you have to wade through a lot of highly strung character referencing just to get the part where you can contribute.
We're all more or less agreeing in this thread anyway, we're just quibbling over some peripheral Venn diagram overhangs.
[EDIT] As far as time limiting goes, I think it should be treated like the display date on food. Use the available data to determine where the process most likely becomes questionable in terms of what you are killing (I think SubjEff's viability idea might suffice) and then cautiously shave some more time off to distance it from edge cases. The more the science advances, the closer we can move the limit to the point where consensus is that you are killing a person.
Obvious exceptions for cases where there are medical reasons to terminate very late (as with the case I linked earlier in Rep. of Ireland).
What I really take issue with is:
* - People trying to shorten the term arbitrarily because religion
* - Those who interfere with contraception programs by preaching abstinence because religion
* - People making the process humiliating for women by making them jump ever higher hurdles and have intimate invasive procedures, e.g. transvaginal ultrasounds prior to abortions - this one is particularly harrowing for rape victims
It genuinely does look like some right wing fuckjobs are basically just trying to fuck with women's rights over their bodies for some kind of weird kick. Don't forget that among these people are also the likes of Coulter, Backmann etc...
I most of all hate the right wing religious notion that because they think that every foetus houses a soul from the get-go, that reduces a pregnant woman to the role of being an incubation unit for another of god's precious souls.
june gloom on 3/7/2013 at 21:07
[edit] Screw this, I'll do a more focused response later, I'm not in the mood for this nonsense right now
Chade on 3/7/2013 at 21:41
Quote Posted by faetal
The key word there is
ascribing. Individual experience of the indecipherable behaviour of a foetus in the womb isn't something which can be clearly defined by anyone, since there is no way to confirm or prove, you just interpret in way which satisfies you. I'm not saying it isn't possible that foetuses have a personality, I'm just not sure that the interpretation of the foetus behaviour by the people who are obviously invested in it emotionally should be the basis for the termination options of strangers who may have no such investment in their foetus.
Certainly agree with issues of bias and so forth. That said, actual experience with an unborn baby is worthwhile data in this discussion.
It's not
completely accurate to say that 1) prior to being born we can't confirm or prove anything about the babies personality, while 2) immediately after birth, all of a sudden everything gets a lot clearer.
All I can do with anyone, even adults, is observe their behavior and interpret in a way that satisfies me. We do the same basic thing with babies in the womb. We can observe patterns in their movement, observe how those patterns change with respect to different stimuli. Of course adults perform a much wider range of actions and we get more feedback about those actions, so it is easier to get a more accurate picture. But then, we can't do all those things once the baby is born either. Birth certainly makes a big difference, but it's not a black and white line. It's a matter of degree.
Quote Posted by everyone else
gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender gender
The subtext of many of these later posts seems to be that this is a gender issue where overbearing men are ganging up on women and ramming abortion legislation down their throats.
Going back to those opinion polls I linked earlier, this just isn't true. Yes, there's a difference between men and women on the issue, but it's small and very much overshadowed by the difference between political parties and religion.
This is NOT a "men taking away women's rights" issue, and you shouldn't use all that emotional fodder to discredit the other side.
Harvester on 3/7/2013 at 22:20
Quote Posted by faetal
It genuinely does look like some right wing fuckjobs are basically just trying to fuck with women's rights over their bodies for some kind of weird kick. Don't forget that among these people are also the likes of Coulter, Backmann etc...
I most of all hate the right wing religious notion that because they think that every foetus houses a soul from the get-go, that reduces a pregnant woman to the role of being an incubation unit for another of god's precious souls.
Yeah, I think I get that. I'm a Christian, but I really hate these underhanded tactics Republicans use of getting a bill approved that's seemingly supposed to make abortions safer, but is secretly meant to shut down abortion clinics. That's not the way I think Christians are supposed to do politics, with these schemes and hidden motives. I think if you want, you can propose a bill that limits or stops abortions, out in the open you say that's what that bill is supposed to do, and if that bill doesn't pass, too bad, that's how the democratic process works. But you don't use these subterfuge tactics, that's not appropriate behavior for Christians.
I also get you guys' whole argument about the Christian right caring about unborn fetuses but leaving actual children to fend for themselves. Politics are way different from where I live, if I lived in the USA I'd have voted for Obama. If the Christian party I vote for in Holland operated like the Republicans do, I'd vote for a secular party. I've even heard that in some churches in the States, the minister tells you from the pulpit to vote Republican as good Christians should, and that disgusts me. Of course, here some Christian publicists and bloggers also tell you to vote for a Christian party and that's fine, but if the reverend in our church did so in one of his sermons, I'd consider going to a different church.
I could write a whole essay about how the Republicans' policies are often not at all in line with Jesus' teachings, but I don't have the time, and fett already beat me to it on his blog a while ago, so you should read that.
Phatose on 3/7/2013 at 23:40
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Phatose - that's just as arbitrary and tech dependant point as my suggestion.
Which was my point.
I see an important difference in that a viability test is a test of the medical support system available, while a brainwave test is a test of the properties of the fetus itself.
That said, I'm not entirely opposed to using viability as a metric because it's useful, but I'd want any laws made to have a note to the effect of "We're trying to test whether or not it's a person, but we're not entirely sure how to do that. This is the best we've come up with, but if technology or philosophy evolves to give a better test of whether or not it's a person, please use that instead." Spelling out our intent is important since it will end up used as precedent.
