An exchange on abortion

Nov 1, 2017

Richard Dawkins

24 Oct 2017

 

I had tweeted an invitation to attend lectures in various parts of Britain by Saba Douglas-Hamilton, who grew up among wild African elephants while her father, Iain Douglas-Hamilton was conducting his pioneering studies of their ecology and behaviour, and he and his wife Oria were fighting the poachers. Saba’s series of lectures is in aid of Save the Elephants, the charity founded by Iain, devoted to saving these magnificent animals from extinction (https://sabadouglashamilton.com). Among the responses to my tweet, the following two caught my attention, partly because of their irrelevance

 

 

 

 

 

Replying to @RightWingRebel

 

 

 

This little exchange reminded me of how extremely strongly people can feel about abortion, on both sides of the argument. It is a subject whose importance has been inflated out of all sensible proportion. For many it is the dominant issue that sways their vote, eclipsing things that really matter such as defence policy, economics, social welfare, health care, poverty, global warming and, indeed, conservation.

I have redacted the name of the second tweeter because it seems to be her real name and I don’t wish to embarrass her. I have no such compunction with “RightWingRebel”, who hides behind a pseudonym. But both tweeters seem to me misguided.

I’ll briefly consider the second tweeter and her reply to RightWingRebel. Her argument is the commonest one offered by the pro-choice side. The embryo, she says, is “part of a woman’s body”? Well, it’s a point of view but not one likely to influence “pro-lifers.” They will simply disagree with her presumption, and the question cannot be settled by any objective test. It depends what we mean by “part of.” She’s right if we define an individual as that which is enclosed within one body. But if we define an individual in other ways, the embryo is most definitely a separate individual. Much better to oppose “RightWingRebel” and his type by deploying a different set of arguments which, it seems to me, nobody could thoughtfully disagree with.

So, let me turn to RightWingRebel’s reply to my tweet. It reeks of speciesism. An elephant is a mere “animal” while an unborn person is human. But the elephant has a highly developed nervous system and is beyond reasonable doubt capable of feeling pain. Indeed there is no reason to think an elephant feels pain any less acutely than adult humans do, let alone human embryos. There is even suggestive evidence that elephants feel grief, mourning the death of friends and relatives.

We don’t know whether human embryos can feel pain. But it’s safe to say an early embryo before the nervous system develops can no more feel pain than a pumpkin or a beetroot. If later embryos with nervous systems can suffer, the level of pain of which they are capable must be far less than that of a full-grown elephant with its massive brain. Presumably not even RightWingRebel thinks an embryo can mourn like an adult elephant; or like a human mother who had longed for a baby and is grief-stricken when she spontaneously miscarries, as happens distressingly often; or suffer like a woman forced to give birth to a baby that she never wanted.  

What other arguments might RightWingRebel, or someone of similar intellectual calibre, deploy? The embryo may not be capable of much yet, but it has potential. By killing it you are depriving a potential person of future life. Yes, and in exactly the same way a woman is depriving a potential person of future life every time she refuses unprotected sexual intercourse when fertile. So much for the “potential person” argument.

The “slippery slope” argument has a little more going for it. If we allow the killing of embryos, mightn’t some logic-chopper pop up and say the following: “The baby immediately after it is born is indistinguishable from immediately before it is born. So if you allow abortion, are we not on the slippery slope to infanticide?”

It isn’t hard to answer the slippery slope argument. Pro-choice advocates aren’t talking about late abortion. The question only arises if the life of a mother is imperilled and doctors have a straight choice between saving her and saving the baby. Only a more than usually dogmatic Roman Catholic would ask a doctor to kill a mother to save her baby. All decent people were shocked when, in 2012, Savita Halappanavar died in an Irish hospital because Catholic doctors refused her husband’s pleas to save her life by ending that of her baby (although they knew the baby was going to die anyway). Even the collective of Irish bishops had second thoughts in the wake of Savita Halappanavar’s tragic death.

By the way, Catholic insistence on “personhood” beginning at conception can be demolished by an amusing tease. Confront your Catholic bishop with a pair of identical twins (they split after conception, of course) and ask him which one got the soul: which twin is the “person”, which one the zombie.

The abortion issue bulks too large in many peoples’ minds. Voters have gone so far as to declare that the only reason they voted for an otherwise unconscionable candidate was his opposition to abortion. Otherwise decent people have gone so far as to murder a doctor because he performs abortions. Such murderers sincerely believe in their own righteousness. They go to their punishment rejoicing in the expectation of a great reward in heaven.

You can sort of see how these people could come to their warped conclusion. They honestly and sincerely believe that abortion is murder. The right way to answer them is not to say that a woman has a right to do what she likes to a part of her own body. They will simply deny the premise and accuse her of murder. The right response to people like “RightWingRebel” is show them they are being illogical, speciesist and – oh dear – really rather stupid.

239 comments on “An exchange on abortion

  • @OP – This little exchange reminded me of how extremely strongly people can feel about abortion, on both sides of the argument.

    This is the comment which shows the false dichotomy of the two tweets.

    There are only “two sides to the argument”, when anti-abortionists polarise the issues into theological dogmatism verses medical services offering abortion!

    People like “RightWingRebel” are just parroting the indoctrinated ignorance, characteristic of “faith-thinking”, as a substitute for education and rational investigation.
    Ignorant priests posing as “authorities” have told them about ensoulment at conception, so now they “know-better” than the doctors and clinic medical staff!

    As long as undeserved respect is maintained for the “authoritative” ignorant assertions of priests, in the minds of such people, their minds will remain closed to reason, evidence and expert advice!

    Any rational approach to abortion, has numerous sides, facets and conflicting details, which need to be resolved in determining the rights and interests of the (potential) mother, father and prospective infant!

    These involve PREDICTIONS of outcomes, such evaluating the capability of the parent(s) to support the infant, the freedom or not, of the infant from severe disabilities, the general physical and mental health of all parties, and the potential to survive of the embryo/foetus – bearing in mind that numerous sperm and eggs fail to develop, and that the majority of human fertilised eggs naturally abort – especially if they carry defects or the mothers are starving.

    These predictions involve detailed studies of embryology, medical advice, social advice, and economic advice, along with empathy for the various human parties and their interests.
    Gods do not have any recognisable material interests in such matters, although god-delusions or their busy-body representatives, may falsely assert demands that they do!



    Report abuse

  • I’ve been seeing these exchanges for 40 years now. Every time, it reminds me why changing laws in individual states and slowly working up to a national consensus works better (if you disregard the human rights imperative of enacting a law to protect, in this case, the woman).

    For abortion, and more recently gay marriage, we started at the top (the Supreme Court) and worked down. I anticipate roughly the same kind of pushback against gay marriage as we’ve been witnessing for abortion for 40 years.

    I will say this: the single most refreshing moment of the last presidential campaign was Hillary Clinton loudly and proudly declaring her support of a woman’s right to choose.

    Ah well. What the hell do I know?



    Report abuse

  • I saw an interesting scenario posed on another site. So, I am going to steal it and relay it to everyone here.

    It went like this.

    You are running into a fertility clinic that is on fire. You are able to get into a room and you see a 5 year old child cowering in the corner, next to a freezer that contains 10,000 human embryos. You can save one and only one. The child or the embryos. Which do you save?

    The author of this scenario claims that he has never posed this to a person who’d save the embryos. He concluded that although embryos have value, they certainly do not have the same value as a living person.

    He also entertains comments and one thread of comments kept raising the number of embryos in the freezer in an attempt to “find the equivalency”… at no point does a number of embryos — ANY NUMBER of embryos cause me to leave the boy in the fire. Further, the boy could be in end stage cancer and have one day to live and I’d still (and so would everyone else) grab him and get him out.



    Report abuse

  • Vicki #2
    Nov 2, 2017 at 10:46 am

    Ah well. What the hell do I know?

    Quite right missie. Where do you get off pontificating about abortion FFS? That’s old white men territory who know what women need best for them. You just know your place and hush up and daddy will sort everything out.



    Report abuse

  • The issue is so steeped in dogmatic rhetoric, on both sides, it can be very easy to descend into that volatile combination of tautology and syllogistic reasoning to deal with a question of public policy that shouldn’t be public policy at all. But because it has become a public policy, there is no choice but to remind pro-life advocates that the math involved does not deal with universal constants but variables that are too complex for simplistic reasoning to solve. And this would also go for pro-choice advocacy as well. For example, what do we do when a mother-to-be is mentally ill and not capable of making a choice? The question is of course rhetorical and not meant to excite additional debate but to illustrate the issue is too complex for any blanket theory derived from dogma to resolve the matter in any meaningful way.



    Report abuse

  • I saw an interesting scenario posed on another site. So, I am going to
    steal it and relay it to everyone here.

    Crooked, that’s a variation of the famous trolley problem (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem). It recently “went viral” in the form you mentioned after a tweet by comedian Patrick Tomlinson. This was his scenario:

    Whenever abortion comes up, I have a question I’ve been asking for ten years now of the “Life begins at Conception” crowd. In ten years, no one has EVER answered it honestly.
    The question is as follows: Would you save one 5-year-old child from a burning building, or save 1,000 embryos. The point: No one actually thinks that embryos are the same as living children. But an entire movement is based on lying about it, and using that lie to manipulate people, in order to control women like slaves.

    Here’s some more interesting rhetoric from an article I read about this:

    Naturally the obfuscation brigade came forward, with Ben Shapiro at the Daily Wire leading the way. But he didn’t actually dispute Tomlinson’s main point. “Tomlinson is correct that we all have a moral instinct: to save the five-year-old,” he admitted, then going on to argue that it didn’t matter.
    But it clearly does. If it were one 5-year-old vs. 1,000 actual babies, things would be different. “No one believes life begins at conception. No one believes embryos are babies, or children,” Tomlinson wrote. “Those who claim to are trying to manipulate you so they can control women.”




    Report abuse

  • Eric Johnston #5
    Nov 2, 2017 at 3:55 pm

    remind pro-life advocates that the math involved does not deal with universal constants but variables that are too complex for simplistic reasoning to solve.

    While this is true for the simple minded dogmatists who have no understanding of biological, medical or social issues, – and usually make no attempt to educate themselves to address these issues, .. . . . . .

    And this would also go for pro-choice advocacy as well.

    Not really! That is very much a false equivalence!
    This does not apply to the codes of medical conduct which are based on detailed research into those complexities and giving clear guidance on the vast majority of cases.

    Pro-choice is NOT an “anything goes” alternative to doctrinaire dogmatic assertions of “ensoulment at conception”, from people who have no evidence of the existence of “souls”, or in early stage abortions – of the existence of brains!
    Pro-choice is about about a legally regulated system of medical advice and services.

    Pro-life is just a strawman claim from those who usually have no idea what life, cells, zygotes, or blastocysts, are!



    Report abuse

  • Re: Trump and his Agents of Destruction (Moral Monsters) / Dawkins’ fine piece

    See thread: Senate confirms controversial Trump nominee to appeals court

    …But Republicans don’t need Democrats’ votes, and now Barrett, a 45-year-old law professor at the University of Notre Dame, [has been confirmed ] to a LIFETIME post on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit — a court one level below the Supreme Court.

    Barrett is the model judicial candidate for this White House: young, conservative, and opposed to abortion and LGBTQ rights. For all the stories about President Donald Trump using his executive power to roll back civil rights protections — in the past day, his administration axed the ACA birth control benefit and ended workplace protections for transgender people — it is here, on the courts, where his team is working most aggressively to reshape the country.

    Richard Dawkins’ essay is very good. I have always felt frustrated with advocates of pro-choice (and I am, of course one of them) who feel it is enough to say: it’s my right to do what I want with my body. The whole point that these assholes are making is that it is (in their view) someone else’s body we are talking about. If we want to succeed we have to appreciate what they are saying. They think it’s someone else’s body they are defending. We have to address that, not just say it’s women’s bodies. That’s a weak argument, although not meaningless.

    Dawkins is also correct to point out (and I hope I haven’t misconstrued) that the degree of pain that an organism or entity feels generally corresponds to the the degree of wrongness associated with “killing” that organism or entity. Most people feel no compunction about steeping on a bug (although that varies too depending on the insect) but they (assuming they are not depraved) wouldn’t dream of hurting, say, a raccoon or a turtle. This is analogous to the difference between killing a human embryo as opposed to a fully formed person. Only a fanatic would mourn the death of a spider crushed underfoot. And only a psychopath would be indifferent to the suffering of animals or people. A spider is less developed, suffers less.

    The philosopher Schopenhauer said that same thing, made the same ethical point, elaborated on it, and presented the reasons why this is the case. Unfortunately – although I have read all of Schopenhauer – I cannot remember where he says this. I think it may be one of the bette arguments in support of the ethically sound nature abortion that I can think of. In other words, it is not: “is abortion killing?” it is this: it is killing; but when do you terminate the pregnancy? That’s really the crucial point: when?

    As for late term abortions, Dawkins addressed that: “Pro-choice advocates aren’t talking about late abortion. The question only arises if the life of a mother is imperilled [sic] and doctors have a straight choice between saving her and saving the baby. Only a more than usually dogmatic Roman Catholic would ask a doctor to kill a mother to save her baby.”



    Report abuse

  • Note: Wrote this (above) quickly, as I had to rush home and watch Maddow at 9:00 pm. Sloppy. Sorry.

    I think it may be one of the bette arguments in support of the ethically sound nature abortion that I can think of

    Correction:

    I think it is one of the betteR arguments in support of the ethically sound nature OF abortion..



    Report abuse

  • One more thing: Spiders are, of course, “animals”; just less developed than other animals (although highly complex too, I am sure. All relative; bottom line; they don’t suffer as much).

    The idea of killing an elephant as opposed to a spider is roughly analogous to the difference between terminating the life of a newborn baby as opposed to an embryo. The pro-lifers’ failure to recognize this is evidence of their fanaticism.

    (Hate the term “pro-life.” The hard and religious right are clever and notorious manipulators of language.)



    Report abuse

  • I understand where you’re coming from, Alan but I have to respectfully disagree.

    And please understand, I am very much pro-choice, but the issue really is very complex. I really think we need to refine the pro choice argument and exclude any theories of “pain” absence to bolster justification of the right to choose is logically defeated on that supposition because a condition, although it is rare, called congenital insensitivity to pain exists. These are people who don’t feel pain at all and some never have. Are they people? Can I harvest their organs without their consent for science? I mean, I’m not going to hurt them. (I’m being fatuous)

    I think my equivocation was warranted.



    Report abuse

  • Hello, Eric,

    Yes, very complex. But, finally, I am weary of this eternal and infernal debate; it is not infinitely complex.

    You directed your comment to Alan, but I’d like to say this: I was anticipating the “insensitivity to pain” argument. Human beings generally are susceptible to considerably more pain than, say, a worm or a frog. You have to consider the species (or being) in terms of its general level of development. It’s not about isolated cases of individuals within a species that have pain insensitivity; that’s not the point.

    That is precisely why I added and italicized the word “generally” – in anticipation of your argument:

    Dawkins is also correct to point out (and I hope I haven’t misconstrued) that the degree of pain that an organism or entity feels generally corresponds to the the degree of wrongness associated with “killing” that organism or entity.

    Surely you can’t dismiss the general validity of this proposition. Should one refrain from killing vegetables or mosquitos? Now I am not saying that a human embryo is like either, so don’t go there. But a human embryo, like a lower animal, is less developed, feels less pain as a result of that; therefore, as there is less suffering, and as there is nothing that an embryo even experiences – in any meaningful sense of the word experience – terminating that incipient being, is not, in my view, inhumane. What is inhumane is killing people. An embryo is not a person. It is life, but not a person. This is all about not being rigid and dogmatic, but having a sense of understanding and proportion. And motives are important. Women who choose to have abortions are not murderers. Pro-life people are, by in large, twisted terrorists and fanatics.

    If you remove the pain (level of development) theory you have very little left.

    Reagan once said in a debate: “Since we can’t prove that life doesn’t begin at conception, abortions should not be legal.” Something to that effect. I say: there is life at conception and certainly at fertilization: we know that; and abortion is a species of killing; but anyone who says it’s murder is either a religious fanatic or just has no sense of proportion! Quantity, Eric, changes quality.



    Report abuse

  • Eric Johnston #11
    Nov 3, 2017 at 1:11 am

    I understand where you’re coming from, Alan but I have to respectfully disagree.

    My point is that we start from the scientific evidence, not by trying to refute some asserted dogmatic fantasy!

    Dan@ #12 – Reagan once said in a debate: “Since we can’t prove that life doesn’t begin at conception, abortions should not be legal.” Something to that effect.

    The science and medical agenda should be set by evidence from science and medicine – not by asserted denial and ignorance of science and medicine! (Life began with abiogenesis and genomes have been replicating and evolving ever since)

    The fact is, that one cell with a copy of the human genome is very much like any other cell with a human genome, as stem cell research and cloning has shown. It has no more “right to life” than any other human cell!
    I have often made the point to the so called “pro-life” advocates, that I regularly “murder” thousands of human skin cells by brushing my teeth!

    And please understand, I am very much pro-choice, but the issue really is very complex.

    Indeed it is, so we should start from the evidence which is well known, rather than starting from the assertions of the ignorant, which they hide from themselves, and try to confuse others by trying to bury the known details in “unknowable” complexity!

    https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002398.htm

    Fetal development – WEEK BY WEEK CHANGES

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7412118.stm
    ENGLAND AND WALES ABORTIONS

    Under 9 weeks: 54.9%
    9-12 weeks: 34.3%
    13-19 weeks: 9.2%
    20-24 weeks: 1.5%
    ONS figures from 2006

    Abortion: Medical evidence
    Abortions 1971-2006

    I really think we need to refine the pro choice argument and exclude any theories of “pain” absence to bolster justification of the right to choose is logically defeated on that supposition because a condition, although it is rare, called congenital insensitivity to pain exists.

    In the age of modern anaesthetics pre-birth pain is an irrelevant issue, and is only relevant at all to the minority of late stage abortions.

    Potential survivability – free of disabilities is an ethically key factor.

    Prospects for a child to have proper care and upbringing are also important!
    We see despicable cases of deliberate cruelty derived from dogma, in theocratically run refugee camps, where starving women are denied abortions, and either miscarry at a late stage, or produce a baby which dies of starvation or disease a few days or weeks later! (We see similar brutality in the doctrinaire denying of euthanasia to those suffering pain in terminal illness)

    Spontaneous abortion is a perfectly natural process for eliminating defective zygotes, or pregnancies in under-nourished mothers. It illustrates the ridiculousness of claims of “ensoulment at conception” – (with heaven presumable filled with dead zygotes, blastocysts and embryos).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage#First_trimester

    Most clinically apparent miscarriages (two-thirds to three-quarters in various studies) occur during the first trimester.[1][27][42][43] About 30% to 40% of all fertilized eggs miscarry, often before the pregnancy is known.[1] The embryo typically dies before the pregnancy is expelled; bleeding into the decidua basalis and tissue necrosis causes uterine contractions to expel the pregnancy.[43] Early miscarriages can be due to a developmental abnormality of the placenta or other embryonic tissues.

    Chromosomal abnormalities found in first trimester miscarriages

    Description – Percent of total first trimester miscarriage

    Normal 45-55%
    Autosomal trisomy 22-32%
    Monosomy X (45, X) 5-20%
    Triploidy 6-8%
    Structural abnormality of
    the chromosome 2%
    Double or triple trisomy 0.7-2%

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Spontaneous_abortion_in_humans

    Over several trials, this concludes that around 70% of all zygotes fail to be carried to term.

    Due to all those zygotes that get fertilized but fail to implant, women in Virginia will probably need to go to the sheriff’s office to get their tampons examined, as the zygote now has the rights of an adult there.

    In El Salvador if a woman miscarries it is frequently assumed she deliberately induced an abortion or could have saved the baby. Women who did not know they were pregnant or who could not have prevented a miscarriage face long prison terms.



    Report abuse

  • I have often made the point to the so called “pro-life” advocates, that I regularly “murder” thousands of human skin cells by brushing my teeth!

    This is the “pain” argument that I and Dawkins were talking about. Or let me speak for myself. It’s not the pain; it is what the level of pain represents; obviously a cell is alive; but we feel no compunction about killing thousands. Why? Because it is a rudimentary form of life. We don’t go around stepping on cats or dogs (as opposed to bugs). This is not irrelevant; this judgement is deeply rooted in the psyche, is perhaps an instinct. We intuitively understand (unless we are right-to-lifers) that the lower forms of life suffer less, and that is why most of us feel that it’s okay to chop down trees (within reasonable limits) or step on bugs or to go fishing. (It is no coincidence that most humane people wouldn’t think of killing a dolphin but a sunfish is okay to catch.) if we don’t feel the pang of conscience over the idea of aborting a fetus early on in a pregnancy it is, in my view, for the same sound reason why we can go fishing without suffering pangs of conscience. If my analogy sounds callous so be it; I am making a point.

    In the age of modern anaesthetics pre-birth pain is an irrelevant issue, and is only relevant at all to the minority of late stage abortions.

    Anesthesia has nothing to do with this.



    Report abuse

  • Dan #14
    Nov 3, 2017 at 7:03 am

    This is the “pain” argument that I and Dawkins were talking about.

    Pain is a sensation transmitted by nerve cells! Until cells differentiate into separate types and form neural networks, there is no “pain” – (except in the mother)!

    https://www.advancedfertility.com/blastocystimages.htm
    Picture of a high quality expanded human blastocyst embryo 5 days after fertilization
    The clump of cells in the 10 to 12 o’clock area is the inner cell mass (ICM) which become the fetus
    The trophectoderm cells (TE) that will form the placenta surround the fluid cavity
    The fluid-filled blastocoel cavity is in the center

    So in issues such as “morning after pills”, or early stage abortions, “pain” does not arise!

    From a moral viewpoint, both contraception and abortion are about babies being born into nurturing caring environments and avoiding adverse conditions, disabilities and overburdened families living in poverty, so preventing busy-bodies from creating unnecessary delays for those seeking abortions, is the real issue.

    The MAJORITY of fertilised eggs abort naturally, (just as the majority of sperm die), as a process for selecting healthy individuals for further development, so medically and socially optimising the life prospects of those who are born, is a reasonable objective.



    Report abuse

  • Dan #14
    Nov 3, 2017 at 7:03 am

    Anesthesia has nothing to do with this.

    ??????????

    https://academic.oup.com/humupd/article/13/1/37/751686

    Pain management

    By anaesthetizing the nerve plexuses that lie adjacent to the cervix, PCB reduces pain induced by cervical manipulation and dilatation. However, it has less effect on the cramping pain from the fundus of the uterus. Therefore, PCB alone is not effective for pain relief after cervical priming with misoprostol and use of intravenous sedation is needed regardless of whether the local anaesthetic was injected into the cervix or vaginal vault



    Report abuse

  • For sure, Dan. I agree, equating abortions and murder is ridiculous and is a position advanced by a disproportionate sense of morality aka, a pious mind.

    I understand that the debate is tiresome but I still think it needs to go on to avoid reasoning based upon suppositions; the breeding ground of tautological reasoning. The majority of pro-choice arguments are suppositions, which doesn’t mean the arguments is wrong, but vulnerable to attack from other reasoning based upon suppositions from a religious pretext.

    Modern reasoning is not immune to suppositions and there is a fairly good example to this effect. (See the story of Ignaz Semmelweis). He was correct is his assertion but he still reasoned from supposition and his story is a good reason why I think the pro-choice case needs to be more refined to shore up the argument. I think to do this we need a definition of human life beyond what we currently ascribe to it and why making the conjectures and criticisms are still very necessary and valuable on this issue.



    Report abuse

  • Eric Johnston #17
    Nov 3, 2017 at 8:28 am

    For sure, Dan. I agree, equating abortions and murder is ridiculous

    Murder is killing as outlawed by the laws of whatever jurisdiction those involved occupy. Therefore arguing that there should be a law against what is ASSERTED to be “murder” is irrational tautological circular thinking! (“This should be the law because we define it as being the law”)

    The majority of pro-choice arguments are suppositions,

    In order to support that view, it would be necessary to list the suppositions as distinct from evidence backed information. (#13)

    which doesn’t mean the arguments is wrong, but vulnerable to attack from other reasoning based upon suppositions from a religious pretext.

    “Reasoning based upon suppositions from a religious pretext” is “castles in the air fantasy”, when its foundation is only dogmatic assertions, based on the views of some ancient scribe which are written in a book of mythology!

    “Reasoning” without an evidence base is only as valid as the assumptions on which it is based! – In the case of religions – Mythology! – “Some ignorant bronze-age biology illiterate, wrote this down, and we have copied it”, is not a credible scientific or rational argument!

    The Pope – who has created saints by endorsing “supernatural miracles” and fully supported by the official Vatican exorcist, said so! – So it must be TRRRrroooo! 🙂

    Yeah!

    Some priest repeated it and his uneducated followers believed he was an “authority”! – No evidence or reasoning involved!

    Eric Johnston #11
    Nov 3, 2017 at 1:11 am

    And please understand, I am very much pro-choice,

    I hope this information is helping you form better arguments for pro-choice!
    “Pro-Life” is just a false label as a badge of “authority”, put on pro-dogma and pro-ignorance, by interfering busy-bodies who wish to dominate the medical and life choices of other people!



    Report abuse

  • @#18 -“Pro-Life” is just a false label as a badge of “authority”, put on pro-dogma and pro-ignorance, by interfering busy-bodies who wish to dominate the medical and life choices of other people!

    Eric Johnston #17

    We often mention this feature of psychology on this site, but if you are not already familiar with it, this quote and link will help you understand the assertive ignorant!

    https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect

    The Dunning-Kruger effect (also Mount Stupid[1] or Smug Snake[2]), named after David Dunning and Justin Kruger of Cornell University, occurs where people fail to adequately assess their level of competence — or specifically, their incompetence — at a task and thus consider themselves much more competent than everyone else. This lack of awareness is attributed to their lower level of competence robbing them of the ability to critically analyse their performance, leading to a significant overestimation of themselves.

    In simple words it’s “people who are too stupid to know how stupid they are”.



    Report abuse

  • It’s not that suppositions are wrong. Take the common pro-choice argument: “A woman should have the right to choose.” This argument is true but it’s still a supposition and vulnerable to attack.

    Using my previous illustration about Ignaz Semmelweis who was the guy that figured out its a good idea to disinfect your hands before a medical procedure did so on the supposition that playing with cadavers then delivering babies was harmful. Although he was correct, he supposed that bits of cadavers were causing the illnesses that resulted in death. But he also made another supposition: He chose to mix chlorine with water, not because he knew it would kill microbes, but because it would eliminate bad odors. So if we based future medical science on these two suppositions: Dead people and bad smells are harmful we would be in a bit of trouble today.

    So a more robust argument for pro-choice, me thinks, is a statement like this: “A woman should have the right to choose because it’s her body and nature has selected the woman to be the ultimate authority in regards to her reproduction.” I mean until nature naturally selects a government or church 😉



    Report abuse

  • Reagan once said in a debate: “Since we can’t prove that life doesn’t
    begin at conception, abortions should not be legal.”

    Sagan noted in his great essay ““Is it Possible to be both “Pro-life” and “Pro-Choice”?” –

    **”There is no right to life in any society on Earth today, nor has there been at any former time…: We raise farm animals for slaughter; destroy forests; pollute rivers and lakes until no fish can live there; kill deer and elk for sport, leopards for the pelts, and whales for fertilizer; entrap dolphins, gasping and writhing, in great tuna nets; club seal pups to death; and render a species extinct every day. All these beasts and vegetables are as alive as we. What is (allegedly) protected is not life, but human life.

    And even with that protection, casual murder is an urban commonplace, and we wage “conventional” wars with tolls so terrible that we are, most of us, afraid to consider them very deeply… That protection, that right to life, eludes the 40,000 children under five who die on our planet each day from preventable starvation, dehydration, disease, and neglect.
    Those who assert a “right to life” are for (at most) not just any kind of life, but for–particularly and uniquely—human life. So they too, like pro-choicers, must decide what distinguishes a human being from other animals and when, during gestation, the uniquely human qualities–whatever they are–emerge.

    Despite many claims to the contrary, life does not begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain that stretches back nearly to the origin of the Earth, 4.6 billion years ago. Nor does human life begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain dating back to the origin of our species, hundreds of thousands of years ago. Every human sperm and egg is, beyond the shadow of a doubt, alive. They are not human beings, of course. However, it could be argued that neither is a fertilized egg.

    In some animals, an egg develops into a healthy adult without benefit of a sperm cell. But not, so far as we know, among humans. A sperm and an unfertilized egg jointly comprise the full genetic blueprint for a human being. Under certain circumstances, after fertilization, they can develop into a baby. But most fertilized eggs are spontaneously miscarried. Development into a baby is by no means guaranteed. Neither a sperm and egg separately, nor a fertilized egg, is more than a potential baby or a potential adult. So if a sperm and egg are as human as the fertilized egg produced by their union, and if it is murder to destroy a fertilized egg–despite the fact that it’s only potentially a baby–why isn’t it murder to destroy a sperm or an egg?**

    He goes on of course, but I thought this part was pertinent to this conversation.



    Report abuse

  • Eric Johnston #20
    Nov 3, 2017 at 10:47 am

    Using my previous illustration about Ignaz Semmelweis
    who was the guy that figured out its a good idea
    to disinfect your hands before a medical procedure
    did so on the supposition that playing with cadavers
    then delivering babies was harmful.
    Although he was correct, he supposed that bits of cadavers were causing the illnesses that resulted in death.
    But he also made another supposition: He chose to mix chlorine with water, not because he knew it would kill microbes,
    but because it would eliminate bad odors.
    So if we based future medical science on these two suppositions:
    Dead people and bad smells are harmful
    we would be in a bit of trouble today.

    You illustrate a good point about scientific empiricism.

    The suppositions about “bits of dead bodies” and “bad odours” (although both ARE related to the real issues), being wrong in detail, does not matter, because the effect of the change was based on the empirical observation of the result, – not the hypothesised supposed explanation of the cause. Science is “what works in the real world”.

    So a more robust argument for pro-choice, me thinks, is a statement like this: “A woman should have the right to choose because it’s her body and nature has selected the woman to be the ultimate authority in regards to her reproduction.”

    I would put it more simply than that:-
    A woman – with advice from doctors and in consultation with her supporting partner, – has a right to choose, BECAUSE god-deluded ignorant busy-bodies, have no right to interfere in HER choice.
    THEY can make their choices about their own bodies!



    Report abuse

  • @#22 – A woman – with advice from doctors and in consultation with her supporting partner, – has a right to choose, BECAUSE god-deluded ignorant busy-bodies, have no right to interfere in HER choice.

    Religions seem to have an overpowering urge to interfere in everyone’s sex lives!
    I am reminded of this earlier discussion!

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2016/11/i-had-to-take-my-dirty-panties-to-a-rabbi-and-so-has-every-orthodox-jewish-woman/

    The laws of family purity revolve around the color of a woman’s vaginal discharge.

    You see, beginning on the days when she anticipates her period, a husband and wife are forbidden from having any sexual relations until seven days following the end of her period. Considering orthodox law states that a period’s duration is a minimum of five days, this typically spans about two weeks or longer, depending on whether her post-menstrual discharge cooperates. In short, this means that for about half of every month, all aspects of an orthodox woman’s life, relationship, sexuality, and emotional health, are dictated by her vaginal discharge.

    Except for the far left minority, most orthodox sects go even further with their adherence to the ancient laws by completely prohibiting any physical contact. Couples may not sleep in the same bed, or even hand objects to each other directly (even a baby), all to prevent the increase of temptation to have sexual contact.



    Report abuse

  • I think religion is to our morality what cancer is to our anatomy.

    I am curious about religion. Not because I seek a sky fairy to hand out an endless stream of platitudes, but just as a geneticist studies cancer to learn about biologic mututations, I wonder if there was/is any evolutionary benefit to religion?

    For example, what social policies would early mankind institute if the population of a group of humans was 50 people? Sometimes I wonder if religion is a badly mutated set of memes that were once good policies to increase the genetic pool? …random thoughts really and off topic…sorry! Lol



    Report abuse

  • Eric Johnston #24
    Nov 3, 2017 at 12:54 pm

    I am curious about religion.
    Not because I seek a sky fairy to hand out an endless stream of platitudes,
    but just as a geneticist studies cancer to learn about biologic mututations,
    I wonder if there was/is any evolutionary benefit to religion?

    I think there can be little doubt that religions and dependence on leaders and elders, has a unifying effect on tribal cultures in small groups.

    Promoting the breeding of sheeples who mindlessly obey orders is a good source of cannon-fodder for use in attacking other tribes and expanding mini empires! Most armies “have god(s) on their side”!

    If we look at laws of property, marriage and inheritance in theocracies, it is easy to see the propagation of religious memes being linked to the religious control of marriage and breeding children with the “right” religious memes indoctrinated into them!

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2016/05/muslim-mob-in-egypt-strips-70-year-old-christian-woman/#li-comment-204484

    Christian men cannot marry Muslim women in Egypt without converting to Islam first. Sexual relations between people who are not married to each other are taboo among both Muslims and Christians there.



    Report abuse

  • What a long thread.

    Alan, what’s this: ???? You’re talking about anesthesia and that is not relevant.

    My point about “pain” was not really about pain per se; and I wasn’t talking about the pain of the mother. I was saying that generally we hesitate to disturb the existence of an organism depending on the degree of suffering that that organism or entity is capable of experiencing. A tree is alive and is a beautiful thing but we don’t talk about murdering trees or even killing them. That is because we intuitively understand that it does not feel pain. Pain and development are intertwined and we assume that the less an entity experiences in general the less right it has. Trees have no rights. Animals do. They have natural rights. (I believe it is not lawful even to kill a cat or a dog.) You hit a deer and you feel bad but move on. You hit a person and forget it; you’re in trouble. And that is how it should be. Now when we abort a fetus it is not formed. it is not a person; it has no ideas, no experience really. It may feel something but not much. I don’t know the biology, but I believe that it is not wrong to terminate the existence of an advance embryo or a fetus within the first trimester (or beyond – where the life of the mother is at stake); this feeling that “it is okay” is, in my opinion, a feeling based on an intuitive judgment, not a rational one.

    Although reason does play an important role here – and you listed all of the important and valid arguments in your own comments. I hope my argument is clear. This is my third time posting it.

    It is up to the woman. It’s her body. Sorry if I suggested otherwise. Just trying to go deeper.



    Report abuse

  • Dan #26
    Nov 3, 2017 at 4:10 pm

    Alan, what’s this: ????
    You’re talking about anesthesia and that is not relevant.

    My point about “pain” was not really about pain per se;
    and I wasn’t talking about the pain of the mother.

    I see your point about the relative sensitivity of various organisms.

    My point was two fold.
    First: that abortions do involve pain for the (potential) mother, (so should act as a deterrent to anyone using it as an alternative to contraception), but also as far as anyone is making claims about pain for the foetus, any sedation injected into the mother’s blood stream will be passed on to the foetus through the placenta.

    @#16 – use of intravenous sedation is needed regardless of whether the local anaesthetic was injected

    It is however interesting, that many of those making a big song and dance about abortions, have no hesitation in blasting wild-fowl with shotguns, or deer etc. with rifles!



    Report abuse

  • The majority of pro-choice arguments are suppositions, which doesn’t mean the arguments is wrong, but vulnerable to attack from other reasoning based upon suppositions from a religious pretext.

    That’s called a debate. There isn’t anything one has other than suppositions or propositions, along with facts. The arguments here are more than suppositions; they are propositions.

    And you can say the same thing about murder: “maybe murder is okay; why not? All of your arguments make sense and I appreciate them but they are based on ideas. Others have different ideas.”

    Not interested in that type of discussion.

    And you didn’t respond to what I said about why we feel no compunction about killing lower, less developed, forms of life like bacteria or animals that we slaughter. (As for the latter, that is something we should feel bad about; but you see my general point, I hope; not the same as killing a person. You see? Get it? That’s my supposition. Now you can argue that killing a chicken is as bad as wiping out a few hundred thousand people with a bomb; that would be a supposition too. But laws are made by wise and enlightened people, ideally. And wise and enlightened people don’t play games, can judge which supposition is deserving of respect and which is deserving of a lack of respect.)

    Alan 27

    Okay, I see.



    Report abuse

  • I think religion is to our morality what cancer is to our anatomy.

    I think the religious and hard Right is to American life and culture what cancer cells are to a healthy body: it is a revolt, an attack, and it poisons one’s life-blood.



    Report abuse

  • I think most people who are opposed to abortion oppose it on religious grounds. That is why the subject is frustrating, boring and depressing. No laws should be erected on religious grounds. It isn’t a ground.

    Proposition vs supposition

    Not sure I know the difference. I thought I did.

    I read this thread just now. I think I sometimes come across as a touch arrogant.



    Report abuse

  • Correction: I wrote this

    “Now when we abort a fetus it is not formed. it is not a person; it has no ideas, no experience really.”

    Not having ideas is irrelevant. An infant has no ideas and is still as deserving of life as any other human.



    Report abuse

  • I enjoy talking with all of you here!
    Dan, for me, the best way to really distinguish these two terms, at least in logic, is to start with the term; posit. Then to pro-posit is to make a logical proposition, which will be true or false.
    Then I think of the “supplemental” posit as the meaning of supposition.
    I don’t think you come across as arrogant at all!
    Good night all! It’s gin and tonic time here in Arizona!



    Report abuse

  • Dan #30
    Nov 3, 2017 at 5:36 pm

    I think most people who are opposed to abortion oppose it on religious grounds.

    That would apply to those who oppose abortion per-se!
    Their argument is essentially:
    “My god-delusion empowers me to wear its badge of authority as a member of the religious police, and impose its dogmas on everyone else in the name of morality! Priests are my all-knowing commanding officers, and we are above civil law and expertly derived medical codes!”

    That is why the subject is frustrating, boring and depressing. No laws should be erected on religious grounds. It isn’t a ground.

    Quite! “I am selling this bronze age story – and it is all TRRrroo and absolutely correct, because it wears my religion badge”, is not a credible argument to anyone other than those brain-addled by indoctrination!

    The objective reasons why abortions are opposed in some circumstances, are regulatory.

    Those assisting should be competent reputable medics, who respect the interests of the women patients, the baby when it is survivable at near term, and the medical guidance on avoiding and dealing with any complications.
    Medical facilities should be hygienic and properly equipped, both for procedures and for follow-up services. These days the majority of abortions take place early in the pregnancy and are medical rather than surgical.

    Pro-choice people normally accept these limitations, and indeed usually insist that they should in place within their societies.

    As I said earlier their is a host of issues to be debated as to what services and arrangements should be available for particular cases, but it is only the dogmatic ignorant bigots, who polarise the argument into Pro-Choice v Pro-Dogma!
    (I avoid the strawman false badge of “pro-life” – as most of these dogmatic opponents of abortion per-se, are utterly ignorant of the biological workings of life, and have no idea what life is – beyond the nonsensical dogmas they have been taught directly or indirectly by ignorant priests!)



    Report abuse

  • Eric Johnston #32
    Nov 3, 2017 at 9:28 pm

    Good night all! It’s gin and tonic time
    here in Arizona!

    In looking at the practicalities of these issues, there are considerable differences in attitudes world-wide. Abortion is a very different topic in many parts of Europe, than say – in the Bible-Belt of the Southern USA!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-41760959

    Women in Scotland are the first in the UK to be allowed to take the abortion pill at home.

    Scotland’s Chief Medical Officer has written to all health boards to say the drug misoprostol can be taken by women outside of a clinical setting.

    The change brings Scotland in line with other countries such as Sweden and France.

    The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) has been lobbying to change the law in the UK for years.

    Two tablets

    There were 12,063 terminations of pregnancy in Scotland in 2016 and almost three-quarters (73.5%) were carried out at less than nine weeks gestation.

    The vast majority of these early terminations (89.4%) were medical rather than surgical procedures.

    The medical treatment involves taking two different medicines.

    The first tablet, called Mifepristone, blocks the action of the hormone progesterone, which is needed to maintain the pregnancy.

    The second tablet, called Misoprostol, can be given on the same day, or 24, 48 or 72 hours apart.



    Report abuse

  • The situation in Northern Ireland illustrates the dichotomy between bigoted mindless religious opposition to abortion, and having an ethical organised medical service!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-41719365

    Women and girls are subject to “inhuman and degrading” treatment due to Northern Ireland’s strict abortion law, the UK’s highest court has been told.

    It heard women experience “physical and mental torture” as they cannot have legal abortions in cases of rape, incest or fatal foetal abnormality.

    The landmark appeal at the Supreme Court argues the law is incompatible with international human rights.

    Its barrister told the Supreme Court the ban on abortion discriminates against woman and girls on the grounds of gender and amounted to an “unjustified” breach of their personal right to autonomy.

    She also read evidence from three women who were refused abortions in Northern Ireland, despite being told by doctors that their unborn children had fatal foetal abnormalities and would die before, during or shortly after birth.

    The barrister described it as “trauma and humiliation” and claimed the women were forced to go through “physical and mental torture”.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-41724695

    A government offer to help Northern Ireland women access free abortions in England is being extended to cover travel costs in some “hardship” cases.

    Abortion remains illegal in Northern Ireland, except in very limited cases, and hundreds of women travel across the Irish Sea for terminations each year.

    In June, the Westminster government said NI women would no longer have to pay to have NHS abortions in England.

    Since the change came into effect in June, England’s three main abortion providers have not been charging Northern Ireland residents who undergo terminations.

    Those clinics are set to be reimbursed for their expenses to date by the state.

    The government has now invited English clinics to apply for funding under the new grant scheme, which will extend their services to patients travelling from Northern Ireland.

    Ms Greening said: “The cost of this service will be met by the Government Equalities Office, with additional funding provided by HM Treasury.”



    Report abuse

  • There is also a hangover from Catholic theocracy in Southern Ireland!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41452712

    Tens of thousands of people have marched through Dublin to demand change to the Republic of Ireland’s abortion laws.

    The March for Choice is the first major demonstration since the Taoiseach (Irish prime minister) Leo Varadkar said he wanted to hold a referendum on abortion next year.

    The country’s abortion laws are some of the strictest in Europe.

    Terminations are only allowed when the mother’s life is in danger.

    The Eighth Amendment of the Irish constitution, introduced in 1983, gives an equal right to life to a pregnant woman and an unborn child.

    However, thousands of women a year go abroad to have an abortion. The maximum penalty for accessing an illegal abortion in Ireland is 14 years in prison.



    Report abuse

  • In secular areas there is a fight back against ignorant bigots asserting their “right” to harass and obstruct, those seeking abortions!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41577129

    An “unprecedented” ban on protesters outside abortion clinics could be introduced in a London borough.

    Councillors in Ealing overwhelmingly backed a proposal to stop anti-abortion groups protesting outside a Marie Stopes clinic in the borough.

    Binda Rai, who brought the motion, said it would allow women to access “legal healthcare without intimidation”.

    The Good Counsel Network, which holds daily vigils outside the centre in Mattock Lane, denies harassing women.

    “Good Counsel” – of doctrinaire bigoted ignorance, wearing a Dunning-Kruger god-delusion badge of pseudo-competence”!

    The council motion said 3,593 residents signed a petition, delivered by campaign group Sister Supporter, backing the move.

    It said dozens also wrote letters describing “disruption and distress” caused by the protesters.

    Speaking after the vote, Ms Rai said there could be “national implications”, and that Ealing could be the first council to take action against protesters outside abortion clinics.

    “I’m absolutely thrilled that there was such huge support in the chamber for the motion, and right across the parties,” she said.

    “It was really good. And this is really a stand for women, and for women’s rights to access healthcare that is legally available to them.”

    She said the council may use a Public Space Protection Order (PSPOs), which give councils the power to crack down on perceived anti-social behaviour.

    Richard Bentley, managing director of Marie Stopes UK, hailed the decision as “ground-breaking”.

    “We hope that other local authorities will follow this example and act to increase protection for women in their area,” he said.

    A spokesman for the British Pregnancy Advisory Service said it welcomed the vote result and urged the government to introduce legislation banning protests at all clinics.

    “The situation in Ealing is sadly not unique, and women and clinic staff across the country report being followed, filmed, and harassed when trying to access or provide legal healthcare services

    The anti-social harassing people for attending doctors’ surgeries or clinics for other medical treatments would be seen in a true light by most people, but the red-mist-anger, of god-delusions having their damaging intrusive dogmas rejected, is presented as “good” by their doctrine-blinded bigoted ignorant followers!



    Report abuse

  • @#36 – A government offer to help Northern Ireland women
    access free abortions in England
    is being extended to cover travel costs in some “hardship” cases.

    There is also evidence, that as religious bigotry fades, contraception for family planning, is being used more effectively!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-41899715

    Women in Northern Ireland are waiting an average of four years longer before having their babies, new statistics suggest.

    The average age of first-time mothers has increased from 24 to 28 years since 1986, according to the Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency (NISRA).

    A report published on Tuesday suggests that women are also having fewer children.

    In all, 24,076 births were registered in Northern Ireland in 2016.

    About a fifth of those were to mothers aged 35 and over.

    Nearly half of all the births registered – 43% – were outside marriage.

    In England and Wales, the percentage of babies born outside marriage or civil partnership in 2016 was slightly higher at 48%. Two-thirds of those had parents who lived together.

    In Northern Ireland, a total of 791 teenagers had babies.



    Report abuse

  • Alan4discussion #38
    Nov 4, 2017 at 8:12 am

    Further to this comment @#38:-

    An “unprecedented” ban on protesters outside abortion clinics could be introduced in a London borough.

    Councillors in Ealing overwhelmingly backed a proposal to stop anti-abortion groups protesting outside a Marie Stopes clinic in the borough.

    What is really needed, is to simply ignore the assertive bigoted ignorant noisy minorities, and have governments regulate on competent professional advice on medical codes of conduct, along with public order legislation to stop nuisance bigots from harassing patients or medical staff who are attending clinics!
    If they want to protest, they can express their noisy bigotry somewhere else!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-41894244

    More than half of MPs support a council’s decision to introduce “buffer zones” outside abortion clinics to prevent protests, a poll suggests.

    A survey of 101 parliamentarians found 57% supported Ealing Council’s decision to stop anti-abortion groups from protesting outside a local clinic.

    The authority is exploring options to prevent such demonstrations, including a Public Space Protection Order.

    Protestors display graphic images outside the clinic, the council said.

    When asked whether they supported taking action, 24% of MPs said they opposed the decision, according to the poll carried out by YouGov on behalf of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS).

    The remaining said they neither supported or opposed, or did not know.

    The poll was released ahead of a debate in Parliament on the issue.

    “A clear majority of MPs support action on anti-abortion clinic protests,” said Clare Murphy, director of external affairs at BPAS.

    “For years, a tiny handful of individuals have been permitted to cause women seeking legal healthcare services significant distress.

    “As a direct result of the government’s refusal to engage with this issue, these groups have become emboldened and protests have intensified. This cannot be allowed to continue.”

    Rupa Huq, Labour MP for Ealing Central and Acton, will lead a Westminster Hall debate on public order legislation relating to family planning clinics.



    Report abuse

  • Alan4discussion #14

    Over several trials, this concludes that around 70% of all zygotes
    fail to be carried to term.

    This has the interesting outcome that the vast majority of souls in Catholic Heaven are those of zygotes.



    Report abuse

  • @ OP – The abortion issue bulks too large in many peoples’ minds.
    Voters have gone so far as to declare
    that the only reason they voted for an otherwise unconscionable candidate
    was his opposition to abortion.

    I see that Theresa May, with the Trump like aptitude of a brexiteer of convenience, has made an ideological appointment of an unconscionable candidate, supposedly to stand up for women’s rights.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-42608737

    Maria Caulfield: MP’s new women’s role sparks backlash

    Women’s right groups have criticised Theresa May’s decision to appoint an MP who opposed the decriminalisation of abortion to a role representing women.

    Maria Caulfield, new Conservative vice chair for women, said decriminalisation would lead to “abortion on demand”.

    Abortion provider BPAS said the PM’s decision to appoint Ms Caulfield to the role was incredibly disappointing.

    Sophie Walker, Women’s Equality Party (WEP) leader, said Ms Caulfield could “never advocate effectively” for women.

    Currently, women in England and Wales have to prove to two medical professionals that carrying on with the pregnancy is detrimental to their health or wellbeing, before having a termination.

    Without permission, abortion remains a criminal offence under the 1967 Abortion Act.

    In March last year, a Ten Minute Rule Bill called for changes to the law, to prevent the prosecution of women who end their own pregnancies without permission.

    The proposed changes would have meant women who, for example, order abortion pills online and self-administer would not risk prosecution.

    However, Ms Caulfield spoke out against the bill saying the idea would leave young women less safe and “embolden” men who force women into abortion.

    She said it would become a “charter for extreme abortion practices”, including sex-selective abortion.

    Ms Caulfield, a member of the all-party pro-life parliamentary group, said she feared the proposal would fuel “unethical and unsafe” procedures.

    In a statement, BPAS (the British Pregnancy Advisory Service) said it was “shocked” the Conservative Party had appointed an MP “who supports the criminalisation of women who end their own pregnancies”.

    It said Ms Caulfield had been a “leading opponent” of the proposed bill, which did not become law and has not been reintroduced since last year’s general election.

    “That the new Conservative vice chair for women believes that these women should face up to life imprisonment is appalling.
    Maria Caulfield has stated that she wants to be a ‘voice for the unborn child’,” BPAS said.

    “It is profoundly disappointing that the Conservative Party did not think that a better choice for vice chair for women would be someone willing and able to speak up for the one in three women who will have an abortion in their lifetime.”

    In a string of tweets, BPAS added that Ms Caulfield’s views were “out of step with members of the public and her own parliamentary party”.

    Members at the British Medical Association’s annual conference voted to scrap legislation that an abortion without permission was a criminal offence.

    In 2015, Ms Caulfield voted with the government opposing the removal of the so called tampon tax, currently levied on female sanitary products.



    Report abuse

  • This issue strikes me as very much like the debate on Euthanasia. I think like Euthanasia it’s interesting to look at what doctors practice/practiced. An uncle had brought a second hand medical textbook for teaching surgical procedures and I remember as a teenager looking at the instruments and methods used in aborting fetuses at birth. Now for context this was well before ultrasounds which would in the West at least mean these procedures are probably rarely carried out as doctors would know that say the baby had a birth defect that made the head twice the size as normal and therefore impossible for the mother to deliver.

    I won’t go into explicit detail here suffice to say that they were incredibly confronting and would be considered torture and murder if performed after the birth of the child. A couple of things were considered important. Better to save 1 life than loose two, the mothers life always had priority. I think if you were to ask the doctors if they would have preferred on learning the baby was going to have this deformity before say it had developed a nervous system just to save on trauma for the doctors alone this would be the obvious ethical decision. This should form some form of baseline on the debate.

    From there we can go into ethics, rights of a viable fetus to be carried from different points of the term. I just think it is too easy for people to forget that doctors then (and probably even now in some circumstances) are forced to kill an unborn child to save the mother sometimes in brutal surgical procedures. I’d like to see right to lifers acknowledge and address the morality here before they start getting all judgy.



    Report abuse

  • Reckless Monkey #43
    Jan 8, 2018 at 6:59 pm

    I’d like to see right to lifers acknowledge and address the morality here before they start getting all judgy.

    Of course “souls” have no existence in the material world, and “invade the zygote” at conception, so for religious “right to lifers”, no material medical knowledge is required in order to make (pre-conceived dogmatic) judgement!
    The whole process has an objectivity-bypass, although cherry-picked circular material rationalisations may be concocted, and built on top of spiritual fantasies!



    Report abuse

  • 45
    aroundtown says:

    In my day it was 3.4 billion and now it is conservatively 7 billion plus! Keep up the good works boys and girls, were almost there. I think I see some type of light at the end of the tunnel and i don’t think there is a measurement on this one, it just might go void.



    Report abuse

  • 46
    aroundtown says:

    How hard can this be, a woman decides. That is the resolution, and finality, on this question. Women have been subjugated to a artificial lower class all of my life and it is high time this pre-dispositioned view expire in totality. It is a woman’s body and their decision. If, and when, I ever see a man carrying a child to term, and bitching about the experience, then I might give the question equal weight, but until that day comes the male of the Homo Sapien species (the Latin name for “wise man” introduced in 1758 by Carl Linnaeuswhining) will have to take a back seat. Really, just how damn smart are we in this present futuristic age as we continue to discuss this topic.



    Report abuse

  • Abortion has always been a subject where my atheistic pro-life views are challenged by philosophical considerations, and I feel very uneasy. In the same way as all religious people are atheists when it comes to other religions than their own, (nearly) all pro-choice are against abortion very late in the pregnancy, and most would consider it a crime aborting a perfectly healthy foetus in its 37th week, that is when labor could be induced and a perfectly fine baby could be delivered. No woman would claim: it’s my body so it’s my choice. So the question is when does the embryo become a person deserving protection, and this has not clear-cut answer. Religious people have the easy answer which is that life begins at conception and therefore must be protected from then (which is impractical because it’s impossible to determine if fecundation has taken place at the moment it takes place). And in fact this view, while being defended by religious people fanatically, has little religious fundation (and the fact it’s being defended by fanatics has no bearing on its validity – the fact that Nazis thought the Earth was round does not make it flatter). The Bible is silent on when life starts, and if anything it would be birth (authors of the Bible did not have a clue about fecundation, and probably little clue about anything concerning women). And the bible has mixed views about terminating human life (yes, thou shall not kill, but a little genocide or massacre here and there is often fine). On the other hand, if you were to ask a biologist, he would certainly conclude that an embryo is a life form, and if you asked for its species it would reply human. And any atheist would concur that killing human beings is not great. Just to say you don’t need religion to conclude life should be protected from conception. I have also difficulties understanding the argument explaining that, while an embryo could possibly suffer through abortion, that suffering would be inferior to that of an elephant (in” The God Delusion” Richard Dawkins made the comparison with a cow in a slaughterhouse). Fine, but a wife being beaten by her husband also suffers less that a cow in a slaughter house or an elephant maimed to death, and I’m not sure why the later point would make it in any way acceptable. Also, saying terminating life is fine as long as there is no suffering seems dangerous. Would it be ok to kill an adult that is under sedation because he won’t suffer (note that the absence of suffering (and prior sedation) is a yardstick to decide whether death penalty is “humane” in the US ; it’s total rubbish of course because it overlooks the profound psychological suffering caused by knowing that you will be put to death)?



    Report abuse

  • EV #47
    Jan 10, 2018 at 8:13 am

    (nearly) all pro-choice are against abortion very late in the pregnancy, and most would consider it a crime aborting a perfectly healthy foetus in its 37th week, that is when labor could be induced and a perfectly fine baby could be delivered. No woman would claim: it’s my body so it’s my choice.

    These are these are the issues which dogmatic faith-based views generally ignore!

    They are covered by medical codes of conduct and laws in countries where expert medical advice is sought and respected.

    As far as I know, all clinics offering abortions, stress the need for early diagnosis and prompt decision making, in order to avoid late-term abortions!

    It is the religious bigots and their political stooges, who deliberately create obstacles within the process, to wilfully obstruct effective choices and decision making!

    There is still much work to be done to put abortion on a medical science -driven ethical basis!

    http://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j3116

    BMA annual meeting: Doctors who carry out abortions should not face criminal sanctions, says BMA

    Abortion should be decriminalised in respect of health professionals administering abortions in clinical practice and for women who procure and administer their own abortion, the BMA has said.

    Delegates at the BMA’s annual representative meeting in Bournemouth voted on Tuesday 27 June in favour of a motion that also said that abortion should be regulated in the same way as other medical treatments, such as no longer requiring the agreement of two doctors.

    Proposing the motion, GP Coral Jones, said, “Decriminalisation is the removal of abortion from the penal code. Doctors and women will no longer face the threat of imprisonment for procuring or performing abortions.”

    She added, “Following the decriminalisation of abortion, providers will be regulated by the General Medical Council’s standards of good medical practice, including consent and confidentiality.
    Central collection of anonymised abortion data will continue, and health professionals will have a statutory right to conscientious objection.”

    Abortion is a crime under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act. The Abortion Act 1967 creates an exception, making abortion on licensed premises lawful under specific conditions.1

    When two doctors agree that continuing the pregnancy is a greater risk than the abortion to the life or health of the mother or any …

    Medicine really does need to be operating on 21st century science, NOT 19th. century bigotry!



    Report abuse

  • EV #47
    Jan 10, 2018 at 8:13 am

    So the question is when does the embryo become a person deserving protection, and this has not clear-cut answer.

    There are rational answers providing criteria.

    For example, a single fertilised egg containing human DNA is no more a “human being” than the thousands of skin cells we brush out of our mouths when we clean our teeth – so “human being at fertilisation”, is just plain nonsense. Lumps of human tissue without brains are no more “human beings” than amputated limbs.

    Then there is the question of survivability at or shortly after birth.

    . . . . With the further issue of survivability without disabilities due to prematurity, or genetic or developmental defects.

    Then there are social questions of the capability of the mother/family to support the child beyond birth.
    We see this in refugee camps, where starving women are denied abortions by religious “relief agencies”. . . resulting in babies, – malnourished at birth, suffering for a few days or weeks before dying of starvation and leaving their mothers in an even worse state than they would otherwise have been!

    Faith-based dogmatism, makes no useful contribution to human welfare, when it has know-it-all-answers to the big questions about life where evidence of outcomes, should be expertly evaluated!



    Report abuse

  • @ #49 Alan4discussion *

    ” Lumps of human tissue without brains are no more “human beings” than
    amputated limbs.”

    *
    I see what you are getting at here, but you may be over-egging your argument. The fertilised egg is biologically programmed to develop into a fully-formed human being, whereas a random chunk of human tissue such as amputated leg is not (excluding the future possibility of cloning !).
    Nevertheless, the important distinction between potential human being and actual human being needs to be kept as the primary focus of the argument, both from a moral and a pragmatic viewpoint..



    Report abuse

  • rogeroney #50
    Jan 10, 2018 at 11:37 am

    The fertilised egg is biologically programmed to develop into a fully-formed human being, whereas a random chunk of human tissue such as amputated leg is not (excluding the future possibility of cloning !).

    Cloning is a key issue, as while cells which have developed specialist functions in certain organs are not suitable for present-day cloning, various cells which are not fertilised eggs are!
    Human tissue is not necessarily human beings.

    Nevertheless, the important distinction between potential human being
    and actual human being needs to be kept
    as the primary focus of the argument,
    both from a moral and a pragmatic viewpoint..

    There can be no certainty that a fertilised egg will implant or be carried to term.

    Around 50% to 70% of human fertilised eggs spontaneously abort, if they are defective, if the mother is undernourished, or for various other causes.

    http://www.lb7.uscourts.gov/documents/13-272610.pdf

    Around half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant.
    Among women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is about 15-20%.
    Most miscarriages occur during the first 7 weeks of pregnancy.
    The rate of miscarriage drops after the baby’s heart beat is detected.

    So for the religious, their god is the most prolific abortionist of all!!!!

    The risk of miscarriage is higher in women:
    – Who are older, with increases beginning by age 30, becoming greater between 35 and 40, and highest after 40
    – Who have had previous miscarriages.

    A woman would usually know she had missed a period after 4 weeks.



    Report abuse

  • Dear Alan4discussion,
    I would agree with most of your statements, but you have not developed your first sentence “There are rational answers providing criteria” [on when a foetus becomes a person deserving protection]. The case of the small lump of tissue is an easy one among us. What about an 11-week foetus (mentioning 11-week because where I live, in Belgium, abortion is allowed until 12 weeks on demand, and only for medical reasons afterwards – but it is 22 weeks in neighbouring Netherlands). The problem is actually that you can get different answers for very personal reasons, not religious ones. A woman that doesn’t want a baby will undergo abortion and not consider she is killing someone. Another woman who naturally miscarries while she deeply wanted a baby, and had possibly already seen the foetus on ultrasound and heard its heart beating, will genuinely consider she lost her baby, a true person she already cared about. Which one is wrong? Or does personhood depend on whether you are desired? Also, even supporters of abortion or women going through abortion do not help make the case when they claim (probably as a defence) that abortion, even when the pregnancy is totally undesired, is a difficult choice to make, leaving sometimes psychological scars on the woman. But if aborting an unwanted pregnancy is just like removing an unwanted lump of cells (like removing an appendix), why would the decision be difficult or leave psychological scars? Again, I’m not claiming that the view that life begins at conception is the right one, just that there are no obvious answers (abortion until 12 weeks in Belgium, 24 weeks in the UK – and babies have been born prematurely at 21 or 22 weeks and have survived). And in addition I would remark that the view that life begins at conception has in fact little ground in Religion (we call it religious because it’s the view of religious people but I’m not sure from where in the Bible they can deduct that an egg is already a human person – there is clearly another rationale, probably less noble one…).



    Report abuse

  • @Olgun,
    Indeed, but atheism in the UK is about 30-35% only (the numbers I have is atheism BE 7%, NL8%, UK 5%, agnostics BE20%, NL 41% UK 27% eurobarometer 2012). But it’s true Belgium has had a very powerful Christian party, which managed to maintain abortion illegal until 1990 (illegal officially while in practice it was often offered and perfomed quite openly). Quite funnily, it’s the norther Flemish (Dutch-speaking) part of the country, closest to the Netherlands, which was very Christian, while the south French-speaking part is more secular. But looking att all the empty churches in Belgium I have no doubt that few people trully believe anything anymore, despite declaring themselves catholics just because they were baptised and will go twice again to a church, once for their wedding, and once for their funerals.



    Report abuse

  • EV #52
    Jan 11, 2018 at 5:55 am

    I would agree with most of your statements, but you have not developed your first sentence

    It is a complex subject so I will provide a link to an expert information source.

    “There are rational answers providing criteria” [on when a foetus becomes a person deserving protection].

    . . . and of course when the mother needs protection, and if babies are entitled to be born free of disabilities with prospects of a happy, healthy life. (rather than the circumstances of refugee-camps @#49)

    What about an 11-week foetus (mentioning 11-week because where I live, in Belgium, abortion is allowed until 12 weeks on demand, and only for medical reasons afterwards – but it is 22 weeks in neighbouring Netherlands). The problem is actually that you can get different answers for very personal reasons, not religious ones.

    https://medlineplus.gov/ency/article/002398.htm

    Fetal development WEEK BY WEEK CHANGES

    A woman that doesn’t want a baby will undergo abortion and not consider she is killing someone.
    Another woman who naturally miscarries while she deeply wanted a baby, and had possibly already seen the foetus on ultrasound and heard its heart beating, will genuinely consider she lost her baby, a true person she already cared about.

    That is why personal choice, and predicted family provision for the physical and mental welfare of a child and mother are important.

    Which one is wrong?

    Neither is “WRONG”. Dogmatic pronouncements of “one size fits all”, are wrong!

    But if aborting an unwanted pregnancy is just like removing an unwanted lump of cells (like removing an appendix), why would the decision be difficult or leave psychological scars?

    It can be mentally unsettling because of emotional effect of hormones in the mother, and problems can be actively caused, by social negative attitudes (usually religious) in the family or community, which deliberately seek to inculcate dogma-based guilt about medical issues. (There are other similar extreme superstitious issues, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses refusing blood transfusions.)

    Again, I’m not claiming that the view that life begins at conception is the right one, just that there are no obvious answers (abortion until 12 weeks in Belgium, 24 weeks in the UK –

    These are political decisions not medical decisions. Similarly there are political decisions to ban abortions and contraception totally, in some countries, on the same basis of religious dogmas permeating local politics.

    and babies have been born prematurely at 21 or 22 weeks and have survived).

    . . . and due to prematurity, have needed extensive medical support to do so, and even then, have been left with permanent disabilities, due to their underdevelopment!

    That is the problem with dogmatic anti-abortionists – the welfare of the mother or the potential child does not matter to them!
    It is all about some fanciful notion that every fertilised egg is entitled to life (despite the high percentage of spontaneous abortions), and those “all important souls” – which don’t actually exist in the material world, but are asserted to be inserted into zygotes which have not even developed brains!

    In those countries like Ireland, women have died because they were refused abortions of deformed non-viable foetuses!

    If we base our ethics on predicted outcomes in terms of human health and welfare, these matters are best left to the normal systems of regulating medical practice, – and the expert professional bodies which do so, (As is suggested @#48), rather than directly involving religion-besotted politicians, and judges who lack medical training.

    And in addition I would remark that the view that life begins at conception has in fact little ground in Religion

    It is clearly specifically defined and pronounced to be so by the Vatican! – The prime source of this centuries old anti-contraception and anti-abortion, pseudo-scientific nonsense!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_and_the_Catholic_Church

    The Catholic Church opposes all forms of abortion procedures whose direct purpose is to destroy an embryo, blastocyst, zygote or fetus, since it holds that “human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception.

    So they better have a word with their abortionist god, about all those spontaneous abortions! 🙂



    Report abuse

  • @#56 – (There are other similar extreme superstitious issues, such as Jehovah’s Witnesses refusing blood transfusions.)

    Indeed – god-delusions of various brands, and their clerical supporters,
    seem to have obsessive urges to interfere in medical matters which relate to sexual functions, as a way of asserting their god’s authority on populations!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-42652314

    Ghanaian schoolgirls have been banned from crossing a river while they are menstruating – and on Tuesdays.

    The ban, apparently given by a local river god, has outraged children’s activists, especially as girls must cross the river to reach school.

    It means girls in the Upper Denkyira East district, in the Central Region, could miss out on their education.

    Sub-Saharan Africa is already struggling to keep girls in school during their periods.

    The UN’s scientific and education organisation, Unesco, estimates one in 10 girls in the region does not attend school because they are menstruating, while a World Bank report notes that 11.5m Ghanaian women lack the appropriate hygiene and sanitation management facilities needed.

    Unicef’s menstrual hygiene ambassador Shamima Muslim Alhassan told BBC Pidgin that the directive, which applies to part of the River Ofin, violated girls’ right to education.

    “It seems the gods are really powerful aren’t they?” she said.

    “Sometimes I think that we need to ask for some form of accountability from these gods who continue to bar a lot of things from happening, to account for how they have used the tremendous power that we have given them.”

    Many cultures have myths and taboos around menstruation.

    In Madagascar, some females are told not to wash during their periods and in Nepal some women are forced to sleep in huts away from the rest of the family.



    Report abuse

  • Some people do not read their Bible carefully if they think the Bible condemns abortion. I would suggest they read Numbers 5:11-31 where the Bible seems to condone abortion. Also, they can read Exodus 21.22. Also 11 Samuel 12.:15-24.



    Report abuse

  • rogeroney

    I see what you are getting at here, but you may be over-egging your argument. The fertilised egg is biologically programmed to develop into a fully-formed human being, whereas a random chunk of human tissue such as amputated leg is not (excluding the future possibility of cloning !).

    If you are going to say that the program being initiated by fusion of sperm and egg is a potential human life then every egg and every sperm is also a potential human life, in fact every sperm and egg could be combined with every possible combinations of sperms and eggs to form a very great number of potential human lives.

    So unless we are going to store every one of the 300 000 eggs and every sperm, we are not doing right by all the potential human lives.



    Report abuse

  • Alan4discussion#56

    I can again agree on all your arguments, although in some cases I doubt their relevance to draw conclusions (“due to prematurity, [they] have needed extensive medical support“, “dogmatic anti-abortionists – the welfare of the mother or the potential child does not matter to them “), but I’m still uncertain what your opinion is on the matter (although I wish I had your certitude): do you think abortion (I’m talking about abortion by choice, not abortion for serious health issues concerning the mother or the foetus) should be always allowed until birth? Or do you think there should be a term limit? And if so which one? By the way, you are right that the idea that life begins at conception as ground in religion, certainly for Christians; I meant ground in the Bible (Jews and Muslims seem more relaxed about it…)



    Report abuse

  • EV #61
    Jan 12, 2018 at 4:11 am

    I’m still uncertain what your opinion is on the matter
    (although I wish I had your certitude):

    I think like all serious medical and family planning decisions, objective evaluations, and expert financial and medical advice are required, if proper support for the mother and child are to be provided.

    I do not regard the production of large numbers of tithe-donating, deprived, starving, mind-slave believers, as a valid criteria!

    do you think abortion (I’m talking about abortion by choice, not abortion for serious health issues concerning the mother or the foetus)
    should be always allowed until birth?

    No! I think decisions and actions should be as early as possible.
    This involves proper social and medical education of those making choices, and of those advising and counselling them: – (with no ignorant dogmatists allowed to pose as expert professional counsellors).
    It also involves medical services which respond quickly and act in the best interests of the potential mother and family.

    Or do you think there should be a term limit? – And if so which one?

    As I said earlier, I don’t think there is: “one size fits all”! Generally I think the criteria of the woman’s wishes – in consultation with any partner who is providing support, should be the prime factor.
    There should be strong encouragement for early decisions, and probably a legal requirement for a medical prognosis in the case of later stage abortions. (ie. Some medical complication is diagnosed at a late stage.)
    The potential health, quality of life, and lack of disability of any child at and beyond birth, should also be an important factor.

    By the way, you are right that the idea that life begins at conception as ground in religion, certainly for Christians;

    “Rights” are conferred by communities, and enshrined in the local laws.
    No god-delusions are required, and indeed, their dogmatic preconceptions, inherited from the dark-ages of medical ignorance, are generally ill-informed, wrong, and counterproductive.

    Life itself of course, started with abiogenesis and the first cells, about 4 billion years ago.
    They have been self replicating and evolving ever since!



    Report abuse

  • Elsie11 #59
    Jan 11, 2018 at 8:48 pm

    Some people do not read their Bible carefully if they think the Bible condemns abortion.

    Generally fundamentalists don’t read any source material in detail!
    They just listen to, or read, stuff fed to them from other preachers, who also don’t read source material, but just make stuff up.
    They then wave a Bible over their personal opinions, as a badge of “authority”!

    Most of them know little or nothing about the history of the Bible or its origins!

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2015/01/how-can-a-made-up-bible-still-be-gods-word/#li-comment-168939



    Report abuse

  • “They ask thee concerning the Spirit (of inspiration). Say: “The Spirit (cometh) by command of my Lord: of knowledge it is only a little that is communicated to you, (O men!)” Koran surah 17….



    Report abuse

  • Gd says in Koran when the soul is quitting the body ; if we intercept it and force it to rturn in the body then we have right it will be no hereafter….but if could not and what really happen…it will be a judgement..Then why do ye not (intervene) when (the soul of the dying man) reaches the throat,-
    83. فَلَوْلَا إِذَا بَلَغَتِ الْحُلْقُومَ
    And ye the while (sit) looking on,-
    84. وَأَنتُمْ حِينَئِذٍ تَنظُرُونَ
    But We are nearer to him than ye, and yet see not,-
    85. وَنَحْنُ أَقْرَبُ إِلَيْهِ مِنكُمْ وَلَكِن لَّا تُبْصِرُونَ
    Then why do ye not,- If you are exempt from (future) account,-
    86. فَلَوْلَا إِن كُنتُمْ غَيْرَ مَدِينِينَ
    Call back the soul, if ye are true (in the claim of independence)?
    87. تَرْجِعُونَهَا إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ



    Report abuse

  • God exist #65
    Jan 12, 2018 at 5:59 am

    Gd says in Koran when the soul is quitting the body ; . . . . .

    Atheists and most Humanists, don’t believe that there is any evidence that souls or afterlives exist, so are primarily concerned with the welfare of human beings in the real world during their lifetimes.



    Report abuse

  • God Exist,

    first welcome to the site. I’ve heard that Muslims believe the soul doesn’t join the fetus until a couple of months in or something is this wrong or have I been misinformed? If so does this mean abortion is okay until then under Islam?



    Report abuse

  • Further to:-

    Alan4discussion #38 and #40
    Nov 4, 2017 at 8:12 am

    “For years, a tiny handful of individuals have been permitted to cause women seeking legal healthcare services significant distress.

    Action seems to be making progress against the deluded bigots who feel entitled to interfere in other people’s medical services!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-42709679

    A council has moved to ban anti-abortion protesters from outside a Marie Stopes clinic in west London.

    Pro-life campaigners have been accused of “harassing” and “intimidating” women outside the Mattock Lane clinic.

    Ealing councillors backed the ban in October and now the council’s cabinet has voted as part of the next stage in getting the ban enforced.

    Some 3,593 residents have already signed a petition calling for a ban and now an eight-week public consultation will be held from 29 January based on a draft public spaces protection order (PSPO).

    This is likely to prohibit people on Mattock Lane from approaching or monitoring women accessing the clinic, congregating in large groups, displaying distressing images and using amplification equipment.

    Once the consultation has concluded – on 26 March – the council will decide whether or not to implement the PSPO.

    More than 300 people wrote to the authority describing the pro-life protesters as “intimidating and harassing”.

    Council leader Julian Bell said: “Ealing Council is committed to ending the intimidation and harassment faced by those seeking legally available medical support.

    “Since Ealing first raised this issue, it has become clear that behaviour of this kind is happening at clinics across the country.

    “We need ministers to come forward with a national solution to this problem, giving councils and police appropriate powers to prevent intimidation and distress.”

    In a report presented to cabinet, officers concluded that following unsuccessful attempts to negotiate an informal agreement for a “voluntary safe zone” near the clinic entrance, a PSPO was potentially the most appropriate measure.

    The report also states the “continued deployment of policing resources” outside the clinic was an “unusual and unnecessary use of local policing resources that could be deployed elsewhere”.



    Report abuse

  • Alan4discussion #62 Jan 12, 2018 at 5:03 am

    Thanks for these replies, although I believe they are a little evasive (and therefore sometimes contradictory as in: should abortion always be allower until birth: no; should there be term limits: no).
    Form your answer I understand that abortion should be a decision between a women and her doctor, from which we should expect the right decision, and the government should no interfere and abortion should therefore never be prohibited before birth (for after birth, I guess that even you believe there should be laws preventing the termination of the life of a one-week old healthy baby, even if the mother and her doctor decide otherwise). The problem have with this view of course is that I’m not sure I see the difference between terminating the life of a one-week old baby born prematurely at 35 weeks, and a 36 weeks foetus still in the mother’s womb. Unless terminating a 36 weeks pregnency should also be prohibited, but then it becomes a term-limit by law (one size fit all).



    Report abuse

  • EV #69
    Jan 19, 2018 at 6:07 am

    and the government should no interfere and abortion should therefore never be prohibited before birth

    Having the matter regulated like any other medical procedure, (which can involve life and death decisions) by medical codes of conduct run by doctors’ professional bodies, does not mean that legal prosecutions cannot take place AFTER medical disciplinary panels have made rulings.

    What it does, is place decisions in the hands of people who are competent to evaluate likely outcomes.
    Medical codes of conduct do not say “anything goes”, and “nothing is prohibited”!

    (for after birth, I guess that even you believe there should be laws preventing the termination of the life of a one-week old healthy baby,
    even if the mother and her doctor decide otherwise).

    I don’t think that is realistic comparison!
    The marginal decisions and late terminations, are likely to be over unhealthy / deformed foetuses or dying babies, which do NOT have good survival or life prospects. . . . . and yes life support systems are turned off in hospitals – but not when being used by healthy recovering patients!

    As is made clear in #13, #35, and #48, the vast majority of abortions take place in the early weeks of the pregnancy, with only late diagnosis of problems usually leading to later ones.
    Any matter relating to medical diagnosis, is a matter for doctors and professional regulation, rather than people without an understanding based on medical expertise.



    Report abuse

  • Alan4discussion #70 Jan 19, 2018 at 7:00 am

    Thanks again for this reply.
    I would just respectfully disagree. First, if the law is silent on something and there is no prohibition whatsoever in it, I think it is impossible to legally prosecute someone for having failed to comply with… what? Second, I think self-regulation and judgment by your peers is convenient but has its limits. Professional associations (and in particular doctors) have been known to have a favourable bias in favour of their kinds and to aim at protecting their reputation first, rather than being just.

    Again, I know that the cases I mention are extremely theoretical (would a women suddenly decide to abort at 33 weeks just because she suddenly thought a boy would be better than a girl), and I make them just to explain my discomfort at the idea there shouldn’t be regulations. But saying that such cases seldom occur, that most abortions are performed early or that most late abortions are for health reason (you yourself use “likely” “vast majority” “usually”) is a little short to claim that there should be no regulation by the government and that self-regulation is enough. Most people don’t murder other people, less than 1 out of 100000 in the UK, but that’s not a valid argument to claim there should be no prohibition on murder in the UK.

    And of course I also know why people against the prohibition of regular abortion are generally against any regulation whatsoever: it’s mainly the slippery slope argument. If 24 weeks, why not 20 or 12 or 0. But my problem goes the other way, if 24 weeks OK, why not 30 or 38 or 44…. Saying that birth is the benchmark is an answer, but it leaves me with the uncomfortable fact that there are many otherwise healthy babies recovering in an incubator who are less developed than foetuses continuing their growth in their mother’s body, and that the former have personhood deserving legal protection while the latter do not. I have just a problem of finding the right logic for this. And I know that then full control of the mother on her body becomes an argument, but it has also its drawbacks (if a foetus could be extracted alive and healthy to be put in an incubator, could the pregnant mother refuse and still request full abortion?)



    Report abuse

  • EV #71
    Jan 19, 2018 at 9:12 a

    (if a foetus could be extracted alive and healthy to be put in an incubator, could the pregnant mother refuse and still request full abortion?)

    With properly managed and ethically regulated aborting services, these issues do not arise.

    If you are concerned about enforcement (and medical disciplinary bodies can bar doctors from practising{Fitness to Practise Hearings}), there are numerous instances where professional codes of conduct have been made statutory if they were not being enforced competently.

    What is not needed, is a collection of bigots or ignorant amateurs, dictating to the families and the professionals.

    This comes back to social evaluations of the potential infants prospects for a quality of life! – Issues such as if the mother already has a large family of starving kids, or if the child is being born into a refugee camp riddled with disease and starvation.

    if a foetus could be extracted alive and healthy to be put in an incubator, could the pregnant mother refuse and still request full abortion?

    I think most abortion providers would have required a mother to make up her mind long before this stage was reached.
    This seems to be some out-lying and remote hypothetical scenario!

    Doctors and patients have to make life or death decisions on a whole range of medical situations, regardless of if some people would prefer to duck responsibility and leave it all for their god-delusions to see what outcomes happen to turn up.



    Report abuse

  • I wonder who we might find pandering to a herd of banner-waving non-thinking bigots, who might cheer him or vote for him??

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-42752421

    In a 1991 interview with NBC News, the former business mogul said, “I’m very pro-choice”.

    “I hate the concept of abortion, I hate it, I hate everything it stands for. I cringe when I listen to people debating the subject. But I still just believe in choice.”

    When asked if he would ban late-term abortion during the 1991 interview, he responded: “No. No. I am pro-choice in every respect.”

    So;- in 1991 he had no idea what he was talking about, and had no idea how a proper system of regulation works! Not much has changed!

    Trump vows abortion opposition in speech to March for Life

    US President Donald Trump has become the first sitting president to speak live via video to the annual March for Life anti-abortion rally in Washington.

    Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W Bush delivered remarks at the march at least twice during their tenure, speaking via telephone broadcast.

    In a speech at the White House, Mr Trump criticised US abortion laws and vowed to defend “the right to life”.

    Decades before becoming president, Mr Trump said he supported abortion.

    Vice-President Mike Pence, who introduced Mr Trump, called him “the most pro-life president in American history” and added that he would “restore the sanctity of life to the centre of American law”.

    Mr Trump told the thousands of marchers who gathered on Washington’s National Mall on Friday that “under my administration, we will always defend the very first right in the Declaration of Independence and that is the right to life”.

    In his speech, the president touted anti-abortion policies that he has enacted in his first year in office, including this week’s Department of Health and Human Services announcement that it would reverse Obama-era legal guidance discouraging states from defunding organisations that provide abortion services.

    He attacked Roe v Wade, the 1973 court decision that legalised abortion in the US, saying it “has resulted in some of the most permissive abortion laws anywhere in the world”.

    “It is wrong; it has to change,” he said of laws that allow late-term abortions in some US states.

    He also proclaimed January 19 as National Sanctity of Life Day.

    . . . . before continuing to promote lax laws which permit the mentally unstable to buy guns, withdrawing aid to third-world refugees, and trying to deprive US citizens of health insurance!!



    Report abuse

  • http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42754307

    The Church of England has warned the future existence of people with Down’s Syndrome is “under question”.

    I suppose religiosity cannot contemplate a healthy population free of god’s disabling genetic defects!

    It has called for expectant mothers to be given “comprehensive, unbiased information” ahead of the NHS roll-out of Non-Invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) in England and Wales this year.

    The blood test for high-risk women can offer an estimate of Down’s risk.

    But the Church is concerned it could lead to more abortions on women carrying children with Down’s Syndrome.

    The Church’s ruling General Synod will debate “valuing people with Down’s Syndrome” when it meets next month.

    Down’s syndrome is a genetic condition that typically causes some level of learning disability and characteristic physical features.

    NIPT involves taking a blood sample from the woman to look for DNA from the baby circulating in her blood.

    The new test should cut the number of women who need riskier diagnostic tests in pregnancy that can cause a miscarriage.

    That sounds good! It would be very unfortunate if a healthy baby was miscarried because of the test!

    But Rev Dr Brendan MCCarthy, the CoE’s national adviser on medical ethics, said there was “anecdotal” evidence that some women were told there was “bad news” if their unborn children were diagnosed with Down’s Syndrome – and immediately offered terminations.

    Ah! A woo-meister “dogma-ethics” expert, says that needing to bring up a severely disable child, or needing a termination, is NOT bad news!
    That’s “faith-thinking”!

    The NHS test is optional and women who find out their baby has Down’s will get support from health professionals to help make a decision on whether to continue their pregnancy, NHS England says.

    Church of England policy opposes abortion, though recognises that there can be circumstances in which a termination is “the lesser moral difficulty”.

    “There is a problem that if women are not given up to date information with regard to Down’s syndrome, it is possible that it may seem the natural thing to do, the normal thing to do is to go along a pathway that would lead to increased terminations of pregnancy,” Dr McCarthy said.

    The National Screening Committee has said while it is aware there may be an impact on abortion, the voluntary test was there to give women information and it was up to them what happened next.

    NIPT is also offered by private clinics. The Church said these providers should be subject to increased regulation.



    Report abuse

  • @ EV #71

    Most people don’t murder other people, less than 1 out of 100000 in
    the UK, but that’s not a valid argument to claim there should be no
    prohibition on murder in the UK.

    That isn’t a very helpful analogy to make, since murder is a designated crime and abortion is a medical procedure. The medical profession is governed already by various statutes and professional codes of conduct.



    Report abuse

  • @ Alan4discussion #74

    In a speech at the White House, Mr Trump criticised US abortion laws
    and vowed to defend “the right to life”. Decades before becoming
    president, Mr Trump said he supported abortion.

    Trump is making most noise (largely fake, of course) about late abortions, while not expressing outright opposition to early term abortion . I rather suspect that given his well-publicised promiscuous lifestyle going back decades, there were probably a fair few abortions procured and financed by arrangements made through lawyers and limited-liability corporations which he would rather remain under wraps.



    Report abuse

  • Alan4discussion #72 Jan 19, 2018 at 9:43 am
    I think most abortion
    providers would have required a mother to make up her mind long before
    this stage was reached.

    Even granting you already “all” instead of “most”, so what? What if she did not make up her mind, or changed her mind? The proper argument should be “Not a single mother will ever make such request”.

    I grant you that there are cases that will nearly never occur. But of course the argument that cases will never occur is double-edged. If such cases will never occur, why an adament opposition to their prohibition? (retorical question, I know the answer…)



    Report abuse

  • EV #78
    Jan 22, 2018 at 4:46 am

    But of course the argument that cases will never occur is double-edged.

    We cannot run medical services on the basis of the tail wagging the dog! Humans make foolish decisions, waffle in indecision, and make mistakes.
    The world does not stop because someone might make a mistake! – There are plenty of legal actions over medical mistakes in other areas of medicine, where there are life and death decisions!
    There are also many personal and community disasters, caused by waffling dodging leaders, who refuse to take responsibility for making decisions – and who won’t get out of the way to let more competent persons make those decisions instead! !

    If such cases will never occur, why an adament opposition to their prohibition?

    Prohibitions are “one-size fits all” ideologies which do not provide for professional evaluations of actual situations. It is difficult to separate such decisions from other (late diagnosis) decisions which fit the same time-frames.

    It is far better to have professional decisions made on the merits of individual cases, than blanket prohibitions instigated by the ideological ignorant!

    As recently as #75 on this thread, I have pointed out those campaigning to ensure that a proportion of severely disabled children are born into the population, as a result of their imposed delusional anti-abortion “moral” ideology!



    Report abuse

  • EV #78
    Jan 22, 2018 at 4:46 am

    What if she did not make up her mind, or changed her mind? The proper argument should be “Not a single mother will ever make such request”.

    .. . . and even if doctors blindly rubber-stamped such rare decisions without any reference to THEIR medical codes of conduct or disciplinary procedures, – the “saved children” (even if they are seriously disabled), who don’t have parents capable of supporting them, – can then look forward to a life of abuse at the hands of the anti-contraception, anti-abortion, soul-deluded, who smugly believe that (other-people’s) suffering is good for their (imaginary) souls!

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/may/20/irish-catholic-schools-child-abuse-claims

    ‘Endemic’ rape and abuse of Irish children in Catholic care, inquiry finds
    Beatings and humiliation by nuns and priests were common at institutions that held up to 30,000 children, Ryan report states

    Only a sadist or mindless head-in-the-sand sheeple, would condemn children to these sorts of outcomes!



    Report abuse

  • @#79 – It is far better to have professional decisions made on the merits of individual cases, than blanket prohibitions instigated by the ideological ignorant!

    It can be tough having to face reality and take responsibility, rather than pretending that with wish-thinking prevarication, some god-delusion will provide, and absolve humans of responsibility, by taking the decision for them!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-42777224

    An 11-month-old boy at the centre of a High Court life-support treatment fight is “profoundly disabled” and will not improve, a doctor has told a judge.

    King’s College Hospital said giving further intensive care treatment to Isaiah Haastrup is “futile, burdensome and not in his best interests”.

    Isaiah’s mother, Takesha Thomas, and father Lanre Haastrup, both 36 and from London, want treatment to continue.

    Isaiah suffered “catastrophic” brain damage at birth due to lack of oxygen.

    A specialist treating Isaiah told the judge the boy was in a “low level of consciousness”, did not respond to stimulation and could not move independently.

    “I have seen no significant change in Isaiah’s condition,” added the specialist.

    “It is my opinion he will not improve.”

    He described Isaiah as “profoundly disabled” and added that he could not breath independently.

    There was also evidence that suggested he was experiencing pain, the court was told.

    Not only can there be a late diagnosis of disabilities before birth, but there can be serious disabilities diagnosed AFTER birth, which also need tough but responsible decisions to be made – regardless of how much some people WISH it to be otherwise, or refuse to face reality!



    Report abuse

  • @OP – The “slippery slope” argument has a little more going for it. If we allow the killing of embryos, mightn’t some logic-chopper pop up and say the following: “The baby immediately after it is born is indistinguishable from immediately before it is born. So if you allow abortion, are we not on the slippery slope to infanticide?”

    “Infanticide” is just “murder” (illegal killing under the local laws), in terms of infants!
    It is the same question-begging, flawed assertion as “murder”- defined by some human authority on whatever basis they have chosen to pass that legislation!

    . . . . . And as the above @#183 shows, just like late abortions, expert judgements of potential outcomes are required about post-birth life and death situations!
    A long life in pain as a vegetable on life support, is not a reasonable option!



    Report abuse

  • Alan4discussion #83
    Jan 22, 2018 at 10:48 am

    It can be tough having to face reality and take responsibility,
    rather than pretending that with wish-thinking prevarication,
    some god-delusion will provide, and absolve humans of responsibility,
    by taking the decision for them!

    Perhaps unsurprisingly since I said this yesterday, there have been further developments in this court case!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-42787097

    A woman fighting to stop doctors ending life support treatment for her sick 11-month-old son has told a judge that God should decide when he dies.

    Specialists at King’s College Hospital said giving further treatment to Isaiah Haastrup is “futile, burdensome and not in his best interests”.

    They said he is profoundly disabled, but can feel pain.

    Isaiah’s mother, Takesha Thomas, and father Lanre Haastrup, both 36, want treatment to continue.

    Barrister Fiona Paterson, representing King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, told the judge that overwhelming medical evidence showed that stopping treatment was in Isaiah’s best interests.

    Isaiah Haastrup’s mother Takesha Thomas told the High Court “If God wants to take the person, He will.”

    I have to wonder if “decisions are taken by God knowing better”, why they bothered involving hospitals, expert doctors, and modern technology, at all?



    Report abuse

  • Rationalism is gradually prising power from the hands of the Catholic theocracy which has dominated The Republic or Ireland for decades!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42746752

    The Irish Prime Minister has said the country’s laws on abortion are “too restrictive, and need to be reformed”.

    Speaking in Limerick on Friday, Leo Varadkar reiterated his views that the law needs to be “liberalised”.

    The Dáil has been debating the removal of the 8th amendment of the Irish constitution.

    Earlier on Friday, Fianna Fáil leader Micheál Martin said he had changed his mind on abortion law due to the “real damage” it causes to women.

    “Abortion is a permanent and present reality” in Ireland, he told RTÉ radio.

    Mr Martin said in the cases of rape, incest and life-limiting conditions, the 8th amendment was “cruelly inflexible” for women.

    He said he did not see any way to deal with cases of fatal foetal abnormalities under the existing amendment.

    Mr Varadkar said he did not believe Micheál Martin’s stance on the issue put extra pressure on him to clarify his views publicly.

    He added that he had to listen to public opinion before deciding on the wording of any question put to the public.

    “I want to actually know what that question is before asking people to say yes or no,” he said.

    No doubt a lesson learned from watching the antics of fantasist brexiteers, and the shuffling confusion of Europhobic politics! !

    The Fianna Fáil leader’s change of stance could put him at odds with many within his own party.

    The current debate on removing the 8th amendment follows recommendations from a Citizens’ Assembly and a parliamentary cross-party committee.

    Mr Varadkar has said the government will hold a referendum on the 8th amendment in May.



    Report abuse

  • Alan, #86

    A very welcome development. In fact, there are lots of encouraging signs coming out of the Republic of Ireland at the moment. The polls I’ve seen point to a victory for legalising abortion in the referendum. Something that would have been hard to imagine even just 10 years ago.



    Report abuse

  • https://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/how-the-death-of-savita-halappanavar-changed-the-abortion-debate-461787.html

    How the death of Savita Halappanavar changed the abortion debate

    70

    Saturday, October 28, 2017
    The death of Savita Halappanavar five years ago has not yet lead to a transformation of the law on abortion but change will surely happen before much longer, writes Alison O’Connor

    Five years ago today Savita Halappanavar died in an Irish hospital. News of her death spread rapidly bringing our long fought domestic abortion wars on to the global stage.

    ‘Ireland Murders Pregnant Indian Dentist’ ran a headline from the India Times, just one of a multitude in the international media that followed her death’



    Report abuse

  • @#85 – A woman fighting to stop doctors ending life support treatment for her sick 11-month-old son has told a judge that God should decide when he dies.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-42862431

    Doctors can stop life-support treatment to brain-damaged 11-month-old against parents’ wishes, High Court judge says

    At last!!!
    What prolonged suffering for the baby, and what a waste of doctors’ valuable time, and public money, which should have been used for real patients who CAN recover if promptly treated – all done in the name of god-delusions!!



    Report abuse

  • Meanwhile – Science is providing pre-emptive means to avoid disabilities and the need for abortions in the case of inherited disabilities! – with irrational religious opposition to medical progress as usual!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-42918341

    Doctors have received permission to create the UK’s first “three-person” babies for two women at risk of passing inheritable diseases to their children.

    The two cases involve women who have mitochondrial diseases, which are passed down by the mother and can prove fatal.

    Three-person babies involve an advanced form of IVF that uses a donor egg, the mother’s egg and the father’s sperm.

    Doctors at the Newcastle Fertility Centre will carry out the procedure.

    The decision was approved by the UK Fertility Regulator, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA).

    The identities of the women involved in the cases have been withheld, but minutes from an HFEA committee meeting said they both had myoclonic epilepsy with ragged red fibres, or MERRF syndrome, a rare mitochondrial disease.

    In approving both cases, the HFEA said there was a “considerable risk” that any children they had would have the disease passed to them.

    The three-person baby procedure involves the donation of healthy mitochondria from a third person.

    But mitochondria have their own DNA, which is why resulting children have DNA from three people.

    However, everything that defines physical and personality traits still comes from parents.

    The HFEA must approve every clinic and every patient before the procedure can take place.

    In March, the Newcastle Fertility Centre was given the first UK licence to carry out the procedures.

    It anticipates helping 25 couples every year.



    Report abuse

  • Meanwhile the delusional busybodies are repeating their annual nuisance activities in Nottingham!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-43006171

    Anti-abortion activists have begun a 40-day “vigil” next to a Nottingham hospital – despite the trust asking them to stay away.

    The Christian movement, called 40 Days for Life, insists its presence at the Queen’s Medical Centre is “peaceful”.

    However, researchers into this type of activism have said it is a form of street harassment that is “incredibly intimidating and distressing”.

    The hospital said the activists had previously caused “distress”.

    “40 Days for Life is a vigil of prayer, not a protest. We pray – for the unborn, and for their mothers, who are also harmed by abortion,” he said.

    Its amazing how without medical training, the god-deluded become so “expert” on diagnosing harm from medical procedures! 🙂

    The movement claims to help women by showing them an alternative to abortion, and claims many women have been grateful for their presence outside clinics.

    The BBC asked to speak to some of these women but 40 Days for Life has not provided any contact details.

    The activists took part in a “vigil of prayer” at the same hospital in 2016 and in 2017

    Dr Pam Lowe from Aston University has been researching anti-abortion activism in public spaces for nearly three years.

    “All the evidence suggests that women do find this incredibly intimidating and distressing and we think it constitutes a form of street harassment,” she said.

    “It’s all very well for them to say ‘we’re peaceful’, and that might be the case, but women approaching don’t know that, they don’t know who these people are.

    “You have to understand that women generally are nervous about public places, or can be nervous if they see a group of strangers.”

    Dr Lowe said the Nottingham demonstration is unusual because it is at a hospital, while most demonstrations take place outside abortion clinics.

    Before the demonstration began, Tracy Taylor, chief executive of Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust, said:
    “Previous protests by this group have caused very considerable distress to patients, visitors and staff, which we are not prepared to allow to happen again.

    “As such, we do not give permission for any such protest to take place on our site.”

    However, the activists are thought to be just off NHS land, so it is not clear what the hospital can do.

    The trust has said it does not support “any protest, on any matter” that “impacts adversely on our patients, visitors and staff”.

    It has not specified what action it will take, but in a statement said: “We are working closely with partner agencies to protect our patients and staff and have proactively explored a range of options should action be necessary from Wednesday so that we can ensure that all who need to access our services can do so and without intimidation or unnecessary distress.”

    Perhaps a notice at the hospital gate , would be appropriate:-

    “Those who have a delusional psychological need to publicly protest about patients’ personal confidential medical conditions and treatments, should telephone psychiatric services for an appointment to arrange for counselling about their own mental condition!



    Report abuse

  • I see that some countries have that toxic mix of Catholicism and politics!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-43395436

    A 34-year-old woman in El Salvador has been freed after spending 15 years in jail for having an abortion.

    Maira Verónica Figueroa Marroquín was released after her 30-year sentence for aggravated murder was reduced.

    Abortion is banned in El Salvador, a predominantly Roman Catholic nation, in any circumstances.

    Ms Figueroa always maintained her innocence. She said she suffered a stillbirth in a house where she was working as a maid in 2003.

    She was taken to hospital, arrested and eventually sentenced for inducing an abortion.

    Ms Figueroa is the second woman this year to have her sentence for abortion reduced by the Supreme Court.

    Teodora Vásquez, 35, had her sentenced commuted a month ago.

    She spent 10 years in jail after her baby was found dead and she was sentenced for murder.

    El Salvador is one of a handful of countries in the world where abortions are completely banned and carry heavy sentences.

    The punishment is up to eight years in jail but in many cases in which the foetus or newborn has died, the charge is changed to one of aggravated homicide, which carries a minimum sentence of 30 years.

    While El Salvador is not alone in Latin America in having a total ban on abortions, the country is particularly strict in the way it enforces it.

    Doctors have to inform the authorities if they think a woman has tried to end her pregnancy. If they fail to report such cases, they too could face long sentences in jail.

    Human rights groups say this results in a criminalisation of miscarriages and medical emergencies, with more than 100 convicted of abortion-related crimes in El Salvador since 2000.

    Ah! The “benefits” of all-knowing faith-thinkers, giving doctors orders about the management of medical issues! 🙂

    Perhaps if some rational thinkers were in charge of legislation, these Latin American countries could find more constructive uses of public money than imprisoning women for extended periods on the say-so of guilt-ridden Catholic dogma!



    Report abuse

  • This is the main area where Dawkins’ intellect is flawed and where I always preferred Hitchens. Every single one of his pro-choice arguments can be refuted.

    “For many it is the dominant issue that sways their vote, eclipsing things that really matter”
    A pretty arrogant thing to say. A lot of people consider that stopping millions of their fellow citizens from being murdered is the FIRST thing that matters.

    “An elephant is a mere “animal” while an unborn person is human.”
    This is actually true and I can speak from a position of empathy about a fellow Human Being, but not as much for an elephant. But lets say I agree with you on the species ism point. How is that an argument to kill Humans and not an argument to NOT kill elephants or other animals? Of course it would get pretty difficult when dealing with predator animals that kill other animals. Should we stop it? But then what if the Predator animal dies from starvation? There are a lot of nuances that need to be worked out, but I agree some animals should not be killed for the purposes that they are. And CERTAINLY no human should be killed for any other reason, than to save another humans life, or to punish them for taking another humans life.

    “We don’t know whether human embryos can feel pain.”
    So murder should be legal as long as it is painless? I shouldn’t have to go into anymore detail on that point.

    “By killing it you are depriving a potential person of future life.”
    Potential is not an argument that I make or need because the unborn child is already a person. It is already fulfilling it’s own purpose and is already BEING.

    “By the way, Catholic insistence on “personhood” beginning at conception can be demolished by an amusing tease. Confront your Catholic bishop with a pair of identical twins (they split after conception, of course) and ask him which one got the soul: which twin is the “person”, which one the zombie.”

    Okay but I am an Atheist and I don’t believe in the concept of a soul. How are you you going to demolish my insistence that a new and distinct Human Being is created at conception? (Which has been proven time and time again by scientific and medical studies)

    “The right response to people like “RightWingRebel” is show them they are being illogical, speciesist and – oh dear – really rather stupid.”
    Wow, name calling. Very classy Dawkins. You really need re-evaluate your thoughts on this issue.
    For me, Abortion is an issue that defines our Humanity. We are good and bad. But I like to think that we can better. Killing the most defenseless and innocent among us is the worst thing about our species right now. We can do better.



    Report abuse

  • @Devyl, I would urge you to read the essay “Is it Possible to be both “Pro-life” and “Pro-Choice”?” or “The Question of Abortion: A Search for Answers” by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan (easily found via Google search). Sagan and Druyan may be more your cup of tea philosophically regarding this issue. You make a few good points but perhaps we can both agree that it’s a more nuanced situation than either you or RD himself may concede.

    As a man I come at it from this point of view. I do not believe that men should legislate this issue. Period. I think we can argue it, posit things, etc, but I don’t believe we should legislate it. I think there are ample qualified women capable of making these decisions. It’s a unique issue as it affects one sex in ways that are defacto exclusive of the other. And in these ways I believe it disqualifies men from being the decision makers. I trust Alan, if he cares to, will do more of a point by point re: your response.



    Report abuse

  • Devylknyght #93
    Mar 30, 2018 at 10:11 am

    This is the main area where Dawkins’ intellect is flawed and where I always preferred Hitchens. Every single one of his pro-choice arguments can be refuted.

    Really? I have yet to see ANY credible refutation, of the claim that blastocysts and zygotes are not yet human beings! Do you have some evidence of the existence of a sentient brain in these cell clusters, where expert embryologists show there to be none?

    A pretty arrogant thing to say. A lot of people consider that stopping millions of their fellow citizens from being murdered is the FIRST thing that matters.

    “An elephant is a mere “animal” while an unborn person is human.”

    This is actually true and I can speak from a position of empathy about a fellow Human Being, but not as much for an elephant.
    But lets say I agree with you on the species ism point.
    How is that an argument to kill Humans and not an argument to NOT kill elephants or other animals?

    Your problem, is identifying an undifferentiated bunch of cells as “a fellow human being” or “an unborn person”. These are simply semantic shuffles of words which duck the issues and beg the question.
    Cell clusters are not “humans”, they are human tissue!
    Similarly, cultured stem cells which are injected into a patient to cure genetic diseases are not “human beings”! They are human tissue!

    Likewise the claim that “abortion is murder” is simply trying to redefine “murder” in a circular argument with emotional innuendo.
    Murder is “illegal killing”, and within countries with properly regulated guidelines based on medical evidence, the abortions performed are not illegal, and therefore not murder! The claim of “murder” is pure assertion, in the absence of a credible argument.

    The problem is in the psychology of the dogmatist, who is locked into dichotomous black and white thinking! The transition from an egg and sperm into a sentient being is an extended process over a period of months, and with varying rates of development and variable prospects of healthy survivability to birth. The boundaries are unclear but on a progressive scale!
    We therefore need to work on evidence and expert medical advice. NOT views of medically and biologically ignorant dogmatists, spouting indoctrinated bronze age mythology.

    Okay but I am an Atheist and I don’t believe in the concept of a soul.

    The onus of proof of the alleged existence of “souls” is the responsibility of theists making such assertions. So far they are an epic fail at this, having produced no material evidence whatever!

    How are you you going to demolish my insistence that a new and distinct Human Being is created at conception?

    I suggest you re-read this discussion and its links.

    How are you going to demolish my insistence, that a new and distinct Human Being is created at implantation? at the development of a nervous system, at the point at which the embryo becomes a foetus? at the stage where it can survive independently of its mother? or at the stage where it can survive independently of its mother WITHOUT DISABILITIES?
    All of these are arbitrary criteria which could be argued on their merits.

    The FACT based on evidence, is that the majority of fertilised eggs (zygotes) NEVER become independent living human beings!

    (Which has been proven time and time again by scientific and medical studies)

    Err No! It has not!
    On the contrary, it has been proven in various studies, that a VERY small percentage of fertilised eggs reach the stage of being born as a living human baby, with around 70% spontaneously aborting in the earlier stages of pregnancy.

    For me, Abortion is an issue that defines our Humanity.

    I think you need a much better understanding of pregnancy and embryology, before making judgements on such issues.

    70% of conceptions terminating in spontaneous abortions – defining “our humanity”? Hardly?

    Natural spontaneous, or induced abortions, which prevent the birth of impoverished, starving, neglected, or badly disabled infants, having a (short?) life of suffering – perhaps that does define our caring for our fellow humans.



    Report abuse

  • Devylknyght #93
    Mar 30, 2018 at 10:11 am

    “The right response to people like “RightWingRebel” is show them they are being illogical, speciesist and – oh dear – really rather stupid.”

    Wow, name calling.

    The use of accurate terminology is not “name calling”!

    is show them they are being illogical

    Logic is a precise process of deduction or induction. Therefore the criticism of an argument which is not logical as “illogical”, is accurate and legitimate criticism.

    speciesist

    Denigrating the protection of elephants by contrasting an irrelevant argument about human abortions is “speciesist”
    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/speciesism


    1 : prejudice or discrimination based on species; especially : discrimination against animals
    2 : the assumption of human superiority on which speciesism is based

    Again: correct terminology, NOT abusive “name calling”.

    really rather stupid.

    Yep! A stupid and irrational attempt at a forced comparison!

    Very classy Dawkins.

    He IS noted for clear explanations and analysis!

    You really need re-evaluate your thoughts on this issue.

    Even if he does not agree with you!
    Perhaps some deeper thoughts on who needs to re-evaluate their understanding of these issues would be helpful.



    Report abuse

  • Alan4discussion #91
    Feb 14, 2018 at 5:33 am

    Meanwhile the delusional busybodies are repeating their annual nuisance activities in Nottingham!

    Anti-abortion activists have begun a 40-day “vigil” next to a Nottingham hospital – despite the trust asking them to stay away.

    The Christian movement, called 40 Days for Life, insists its presence at the Queen’s Medical Centre is “peaceful”.

    However, researchers into this type of activism have said
    it is a form of street harassment that is “incredibly intimidating and distressing”.

    The delusional harassing patients as they approach hospitals or clinics for medical treatments is simply unacceptable, and in some areas, action is being taken.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-43718927

    A buffer zone will be created at a west London abortion clinic to stop vigils being held outside the building.

    Ealing councillors unanimously voted to implement a safe zone around the Marie Stopes clinic after women complained of intimidation by protesters.

    The Good Counsel Network, which holds daily vigils outside the centre in Mattock Lane, denies harassing women.

    The decision means both anti-abortion and pro-choice campaigners cannot stand within 100 metres of the clinic.

    Applause in broke out in the Ealing council cabinet room following the decision, but a protestor then interrupted the meeting and accused the council of taking away their rights.

    Ah! The asserted “RIGHT” of the doctrinaire god-deluded, to impose their ignorant dogma based views on other people’s lives!

    Richard Bentley, Marie Stopes UK managing director, said: “This is a landmark decision for women.

    “This was never about protest. It was about small groups of strangers choosing to gather by our entrance gates where they could harass and intimidate women and try to prevent them from accessing healthcare to which they are legally entitled.”

    More than 300 people wrote to the council describing the pro-life protesters as “intimidating and harassing”, while those against abortion have said women are not being offered enough alternatives.

    A report presented to the council cabinet concluded that, following unsuccessful attempts to negotiate an informal “safe zone” near the clinic entrance, a public spaces protection order was appropriate.

    It is perhaps unsurprising that the dogmatic dogmatists, are not open to reasoned negotiation on their irrational beliefs!

    The report also states the “continued deployment of policing resources” outside the clinic was an “unusual and unnecessary use of local policing resources that could be deployed elsewhere”.

    The decision could pave the way for other councils to follow suit.



    Report abuse

  • Meanwhile, the sheeple herds of wish-thinkers-knowing-better-than-doctors, are gathering outside a hospital, to assert their “pro-life” stance, – regardless of suffering, lack of the dying child’s prospects, costs to the public health service, inconvenience to other sick hospital patients, or reality!

    Unsurprisingly the futile attempted moves, seem to be associated with Rome and the Vatican!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-43746174

    Hundreds of people have staged a protest outside a hospital in Merseyside where a terminally ill toddler is being cared for.

    A date to switch off the life support for Alfie Evans has been set by a High Court judge following a legal battle.

    Alfie’s parents’ legal fight against the decision ultimately ended in March when the European Court of Human Rights rejected their case.

    Merseyside Police had asked protesters at Alder Hey to be respectful.

    Officers said the “large” and “peaceful” protest in Liverpool on Thursday night “did cause significant traffic disruption and inconvenience for other people trying to access the hospital”.

    Alfie has been at Alder Hey since December 2016 with an undiagnosed degenerative brain disease.

    His parents Tom Evans and Kate James, who are both in their 20s and from Liverpool, have lost cases in the High Court, Court of Appeal, and had their case rejected by the Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights.

    The family told the BBC they had a private ambulance and jet on stand-by.

    They say the court order would end at the point the hospital removes ventilation from Alfie, at which moment they will take over and fly him to Rome.

    Alder Hey say they will not allow that to happen but speaking on Thursday evening Mr Evans said they were confident they would succeed.

    He said: “There’s no court order to say Alfie has to stay in this hospital right now.

    “The truth behind the matter is that me and Kate hold full responsibility and we can take him to our transportation van with full equipment with the doctors who have got full duty of care… and they are not allowing us so we are hoping that my solicitor is going to spin the spoon and get us out.”

    Alfie’s parents want him to be removed from Alder Hey and taken to the Bambino Gesu hospital – which has links to the Vatican.

    In February, Mr Justice Hayden ruled doctors at Alder Hey could stop treating Alfie against the wishes of his parents following hearings in the Family Division of the High Court in London and Liverpool.

    On Wednesday, the judge said what had happened to Alfie was “profoundly unfair”, as the court endorsed an end-of-life care plan drawn up by specialists.



    Report abuse

  • @#98 – Unsurprisingly the futile attempted moves, seem to be associated with Rome and the Vatican!

    It also appears that those fixated on their delusions, have very little regard for anyone else, or other sick children receiving treatment!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-43781041

    A relative of a patient at a hospital treating a terminally ill toddler has described visiting her loved one as “intimidating and scary”.

    The woman claimed she had been verbally abused by supporters of Alfie Evans’ family at Alder Hey in Liverpool and called a protest held there “a circus”.

    The hospital, which won a legal battle to withdraw Alfie’s life support, has urged protesters to show respect.

    Protest group Alfie’s Army has been contacted for comment.

    Alder Hey said noise from hundreds of protesters supporting the 23-month-old, including the sounding of car horns, was affecting its patients and staff.

    The woman, who did not want to be named, said people on her relative’s ward were being made anxious by the presence of police and additional security.

    Visiting was “intimidating and horrendous” and she had even heard chants of “burn it down” from protesters which was “taking it too far”, she told BBC Radio Merseyside.

    She continued: “Alder Hey is an absolutely amazing hospital and the staff are second to none; this should not be happening outside a children’s hospital.

    “Children are passing away there, parents are being given devastating news every day; imagine how it feels when you leave that hospital and you are presented with that scene.”

    She said she respects people’s right to protest peacefully but described Sunday’s demonstration as “out of control” and akin to a “circus” with “a bouncy castle, people drinking alcohol, [and] children running everywhere”.

    She said: “Take it to a neutral ground so there is no impact upon other children, families or staff and they would gain a lot more respect for the cause.”

    However, Alder Hey said in a statement: “Noise from recent protests has unfortunately affected our patients so we would ask that noise levels outside the hospital are kept to a minimum and, for example, car horns are not sounded.

    “Loud noise affects sleep and raises anxiety levels for our patients especially when recovering from procedures, so please bear them in mind.”



    Report abuse

  • @#98 and #99 – It also appears that those fixated on their delusions, have very little regard for anyone else, or other sick children receiving treatment!

    . . . and with wish-thinking faith-delusions, and a chanting crowd, they seem to think that repeating the same question over and over again, is going to eventually produce a different expert answer!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-43788247

    The parents of terminally ill toddler Alfie Evans have lost their latest legal battle.

    Tom Evans and Kate James asked Court of Appeal judges to rule that the 23-month-old should be allowed to receive treatment in Italy.

    Earlier Alder Hey Children’s Hospital urged protesters supporting the parents to show respect.

    Judges said they were “dismayed and concerned” by reports of some protesters’ actions.

    Mr Evans, 21, and Ms James, 20, who are from Liverpool, have lost fights in the High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights.

    On Monday Lord Justice Davis, Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Moylan ruled against the parents at the appeal court hearing in London.

    They also rejected a request for the case to go back to the Supreme Court.

    However, Alfie’s parents have 24 hours to ask permission directly from the court if they wish.

    Appeal court judges said doctors should continue treating Alfie pending a Supreme Court decision.

    Earlier in the hearing, Lord Justice Davis said doctors had agreed that there was “no hope” for Alfie.

    He said: “We cannot have a kind of legal ‘Groundhog Day’ where you come back again and again and again on the same point.”

    Specialists at Alder Hey said life support treatment should stop and Mr Justice Hayden said he accepted medical evidence, which showed further treatment was futile.

    Alfie’s parents say “the state” is wrongly interfering with their parental choice. They want to move Alfie to a hospital in Rome.

    Mr Justice Hayden said flying Alfie to a foreign hospital would be wrong and pointless.

    As with abortion, these faith-thinking deluded people, just cannot grasp the biological reality of life, mortality, and death!



    Report abuse

  • @100 – Mr Evans, 21, and Ms James, 20, who are from Liverpool, have lost fights in the High Court, Court of Appeal, Supreme Court and European Court of Human Rights.

    It is becoming increasingly evident, that the exploiting and encouraging of false hope, is being motivated by star treatment of the deeply delusional, publicity-seeking, miracle-believers!
    How little does the unnecessary suffering of a child matter to the delusional, when there is dogma to be promoted!!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-43807453

    The father of terminally ill toddler Alfie Evans has met Pope Francis, begging him to “save our son”.

    Tom Evans has flown to Rome asking the Pope to intervene in the legal battle about ending 23-month-old Alfie’s life support.

    It comes after the family lost the latest appeal for his treatment to continue at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in Liverpool.

    Mr Evans said: “Your holiness save our son” and asked for asylum for Alfie.

    Mr Evans, 21, and Kate James, 20, have so far had all appeals against a High Court ruling in February to withdraw his life support and take him to Rome for treatment rejected.

    Mr Evans posted on Facebook: “Last night I jumped on a plane and come to Vatican Rome to meet the Pope.

    He met with the Pope before his general audience when he highlighted Alfie’s plight and asked the crowd to pray for him.

    Vatican News reported Pope Francis said “it is our duty to do all that is possible to safeguard life” during his address.

    He said cases like Alfie’s were “very painful and complex” and asked that “every sick person may always be respected in their dignity and cared for in an appropriate way for their condition… and with great respect for life.”

    Earlier this month the Pope tweeted support for the sick toddler and called for all sides to work together for what is best for Alfie.

    Andrea Williams, from the Christian Legal Centre which is representing Alfie’s family, confirmed Mr Evans had asked the Pope for asylum for his son during the meeting at the Vatican.

    She said this “shows the power of a father’s love”.

    “When every avenue has been shut down in this country it shows he won’t give up.

    “He wants his son to be given a chance to live which is being denied when there are places prepared to look after him.”

    Yep! Miracles and wish-thinking prevail among those who think popes can effect cures which the best equipped specialist doctors cannot! – Even when it is modern medicine and specialist doctors who have preserved Alfie’s life until this stage!

    The Court of Appeal judges explained they dismissed the latest challenge because it was the same legal argument – albeit with a different legal term – they made in February and March and moving him to a hospital in Italy was “contrary to his best interests”.

    The judges said: “The application of a different legal label… does not change the fact that the court has already determined the issues which the parents now seek, again, to advance.

    “Their views, [of] their rights do not take precedence and do not give them an ‘unfettered right’ to make choices and exercise rights on behalf of Alfie.”

    The judges said Alfie was not being “detained” in hospital or “deprived of his liberty… the doctrine of habeas corpus.”

    Alder Hey Children’s Hospital has said continuing to treat Alfie, who has an undiagnosed degenerative neurological condition, was “inhumane” and “futile”.

    It said taking him abroad for treatment was “expressly not in his best interests”, adding: “Our priority is to continue providing Alfie with the best care possible.”



    Report abuse

  • @#101 – Mr Evans posted on Facebook:
    “Last night I jumped on a plane and come to Vatican Rome to meet the Pope.

    And as we know Popes, give out “blessing-magic” which is claimed to work MIRACLES – regardless of medical evidence in the world of reality! 🙂

    Vatican News reported
    Pope Francis said “it is our duty to do all that is possible to safeguard life”
    during his address.

    The Vatican motivated sheeple herd, is becoming more assertive of their delusions!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-43867132

    Mr Evans and Alfie’s mother Kate James had lodged an urgent application with the ECHR over the 23-month-old’s life support at Alder Hey Children’s Hospital.

    The Supreme Court has approved a plan for withdrawing treatment and bringing Alfie’s life to an end.

    *Judges said the hospital must be “free to do what has been determined to be in Alfie’s best interests”.

    +X+X+X+X+X+X+X+X+

    A group of protesters supporting terminally ill toddler Alfie Evans have tried to storm Alder Hey hospital.

    About 200 people turned up to protest outside the Liverpool hospital after judges at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) refused to intervene in the case.
    An ECHR spokesman said the family’s application was “inadmissible”.

    Unsurprising, when the European Court of Human Rights has already ruled on the case, and the family are simply repeating the same claim because they do not like the ruling!

    Dozens ran towards the main doors before police officers formed a line to block the entrance.

    After a short stand-off with police the supporters retreated to gather around 100 yards away on the road outside, chanting: “Save Alfie Evans.”

    Earlier the supporters blocked the road outside the hospital for about 15 minutes, with an ambulance becoming trapped as traffic quickly backed up.

    Protesters, who had linked arms, allowed the ambulance to pass before moving to line both sides of the road.

    Alfie’s father Tom Evans briefly spoke to supporters outside the hospital against the treatment of his son.

    He has also been broadcasting intermittently on Facebook from inside, where several groups of police officers have been patrolling the corridors.

    In a statement Alder Hey said it remained open as usual for all visitors and appointments, but warned that visitors may notice an increase in visible police presence as part of “our ongoing security arrangements”.

    It encouraged people to attend appointments, but told patients to contact the hospital about “any concerns you may have attending”.

    Hospitals and police, really do have better things to do than counter disruption from delusional sheeple-herds!



    Report abuse

  • It appears that some people are under the impression that medical conditions are influenced by the citizenship of those affected!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-43872678

    Terminally ill toddler Alfie Evans has been granted Italian citizenship, the Italian foreign office has said.

    The High Court ruled in February Alder Hey Children’s Hospital could stop providing life support for Alfie against the wishes of his parents Tom Evans and Kate James.

    The parents have since lost a series of legal challenges to the decision.

    The Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said it hopes Alfie will be allowed “immediate transfer to Italy”.

    Posting on Facebook, Mr Evans said: “Alfie has been granted Italian citizenship. We await for the [Italian] foreign minister to call Boris Johnson.”

    He then said outside the Liverpool hospital: “I’m stood here now and Alfie is still here. Why? Because I’m still fighting for him, I’m still fighting and so is Alfie.”

    Nope! If he respected Alfie and cared about his best interests, he would listen to the doctors and the judges!

    What he is fighting for, is his god-delusion’s dogma and Brownie-points from woo-brained theocrats!

    Mr Evans said he had been in touch with the ambassador of Italy and his son had been given Italian citizenship, which he claimed would block any planned withdrawal of life support.

    With a whole list of judicial rulings and expert medical recommendations, it seems the level of Catholic delusion is still prominent in Italian politics!

    The Pope previously tweeted his support for Alfie, saying he hoped the “deep suffering” of the toddler’s parents would be heard.

    Apparently in the minds of some, Alfie’s suffering and best interests, are of little consequence when indulging his parent’s delusions or promoting RCC dogma!



    Report abuse

  • Hopefully this will allow the unfortunate child to die in peace, although the “preserve-any-form-of-life-at-any-cost-regardless-of-suffering” brigade, may seek to exploit the grief and wish-thinking of these gullible parents, so as to wring out some more media propaganda for their ignorant delusional views!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-43883865

    The parents of sick toddler Alfie Evans cannot take him to Italy for treatment, a judge has said.

    Tom Evans and Kate James took legal action after the High Court ruled Alder Hey Children’s Hospital in Liverpool could end his care.

    They have lost all challenges and the 23-month old’s life support was withdrawn on Monday.

    Mr Justice Hayden said: “This represents the final chapter in the case of this extraordinary little boy.”

    Mr Evans and Ms James had hoped he could be taken to the Bambino Gesu Hospital in Rome, which has links to the Vatican, where his care could continue.

    It should also make scarce high-cost hospital life-support facilities, available for other children who can actually benefit from their use!

    It does not seem to occur to such people, that the doctors’ opinions and modern technologies, behind the medical expertise, are what has kept Alfie alive so far, so respecting their advice, rather than asking ignorant priests, SHOULD BE the obvious option!



    Report abuse

  • @#102 – Hospitals and police, really do have better things to do than counter disruption from delusional sheeple-herds!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-43900571

    **Alfie Evans parents lose appeal against Italy travel ban***

    The parents of seriously ill toddler Alfie Evans have lost their latest bid to take him abroad for treatment.

    Lawyers for the couple had urged judges to reconsider the case when Alfie kept breathing despite his life support being removed on Monday.

    But the Court of Appeal upheld Mr Justice Hayden’s earlier High Court ruling.

    At the hearing in London, three senior judges rejected all of the appeal grounds raised by his parents.

    Lawyers for Ms James told the court Alfie was “struggling” and in need of “immediate intervention”.

    The couple want to take their son Vatican-linked Bambino Gesu Hospital.

    Mr Diamond told the court a military air ambulance was on standby “at the request of the Pope”.

    On Monday, the Italian government granted Alfie citizenship in the hope he would be given an “immediate transfer”.

    But hours later, his ventilator was switched off and the order preventing him from travelling abroad was put in place.

    So the unfortunate child is not going to be sacrificed to papal stupidity, and parental wish-thinking!



    Report abuse

  • Unsurprisingly, specialist doctors know what they are talking about, and wish-thinking parents, encouraged by opportunist, exploiting, know-nothing, know-it-all-priests don’t!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43933056

    Alfie Evans, the 23-month-old toddler at the centre of a High Court legal battle, has died, nearly a week after his life support was withdrawn.

    The boy from Merseyside, who had a degenerative brain condition, died at 02:30 BST, his father Tom Evans said.

    On Facebook he wrote: “My gladiator lay down his shield and gained his wings… absolutely heartbroken.”

    Alfie’s parents lost legal challenges against a High Court ruling allowing the hospital to withdraw ventilation.

    The boy had his life support withdrawn on Monday after being in a semi-vegetative state for more than a year.

    The legal campaign, launched by Mr Evans and Alfie’s mother Kate James, attracted widespread media attention and saw them clash with doctors over the child’s treatment.

    Alfie, who was born in May 2016, was first admitted to Alder Hey hospital the following December after suffering seizures, and had been a patient at the hospital ever since.

    The hospital said scans showed “catastrophic degradation of his brain tissue” and that further treatment was not only “futile” but also “unkind and inhumane”.

    The court battle between Alfie’s parents and medical staff lasted for four months.

    The couple heavily criticised medical staff, with Mr Evans suggesting his son was a “prisoner” at the hospital and had been misdiagnosed.

    Hospital bosses were backed by the High Court, which ruled in their favour on 20 February, after accepting medical evidence that there was “no hope” for the youngster.

    There has been months of inhumane treatment of a semi-vegitative child, and a vast waste of hospital resources, as a direct result of funded, organised, delusional, incompetent, theist interference, in hospital procedures!



    Report abuse

  • Meanwhile, medical science is working to improve the chances of mothers bearing and raising healthy children!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-43919301

    Pregnant women in Wales are to become the first in the UK to receive a non-invasive test for Down’s syndrome.

    The NHS blood test, available from Monday, is said to be safer and more accurate than existing screenings for Down’s, Edward’s and Patau’s syndromes.

    It will be offered to women with a higher chance of identifying the syndromes in the first three months of pregnancy.

    The Non-invasive Prenatal Testing (NIPT) test will be offered as an alternative to the invasive amniocentesis test currently available, which carries a small risk of miscarriage.

    The Welsh Government said it was expected the introduction of the new test would reduce this risk, as fewer invasive tests would be needed.

    The new test will not offer a complete diagnosis, as only the invasive test can confirm the syndrome, but aims to better inform women of the risks of having a child with the genetic disorder.

    Women who are given a positive NIPT test would not be able to opt for a termination based on that result alone.

    Clearly, avoiding a risk of causing the miscarriage of potentially healthy babies is an improvement on previous methods.

    But some people have raised concerns it could lead to more terminations.

    Or more accurately:-
    But some interfering busy-bodies who like injecting their delusional dogmas into the lives of others, have raised concerns it could lead to more terminations. – Terminations which are none of their business!

    Health Secretary Vaughan Gething said: “Our antenatal screening programme plays an important role in providing expectant mothers with the information and support they need throughout their pregnancy.

    Helen Rogers, the Royal College of Midwives’ director for Wales, welcomed the test.

    She added: “Screening is always an individual choice for women and their partners and midwives in Wales have undergone additional training so they can share clear information on this non-invasive test with women which will support them in their decision making and to make the right choice for them.



    Report abuse

  • I apologize for my ignorance on the protocol of posting on someone’s thread but as a woman I feel that much of the discussions regarding abortion are commented on, rather vigorously by men. I once again apologize if I am incorrect but at least in the US I feel the laws are also passed largely by men. If I am correct, is that not a problem that is largely ignored?



    Report abuse

  • Daveldson #108
    Apr 28, 2018 at 4:23 pm

    I feel that much of the discussions regarding abortion are commented on, rather vigorously by men. I once again apologize if I am incorrect but at least in the US I feel the laws are also passed largely by men.

    You are indeed correct.
    This has been commented on in earlier discussions on this RDFS site – particularly in regard to belligerent biologically and medically illiterate male politicians, and allegedly celibate old men, isolated in theological establishments!

    Indeed some debates are of considerable length.

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2014/08/abortion-down-syndrome-an-apology-for-letting-slip-the-dogs-of-twitterwar/



    Report abuse

  • Daveldson

    I feel that much of the discussions regarding abortion are commented on, rather vigorously by men.

    Hooray! So I’m not the only one who noticed it!

    There’s a dearth of women on this website and it’s depressing. There used to be a few regulars besides myself but now we’re down to only a few. I guess the comments section is slowed down to a crawl compared to what it used to be. Sad.

    I do agree with you that especially on topics of female reproductive strategy, it’s somewhat disturbing to see a whole thread of men commenting and no women at all. Not good.

    Stick around!



    Report abuse

  • LaurieB #111
    Apr 28, 2018 at 7:08 pm

    I guess the comments section is slowed down to a crawl compared to what it used to be.

    It may well be that the trolling theists who were demonstrably incapable of presenting reasoned or evidenced arguments, now post on Twitter – which is sufficiently superficial to meet their needs to assert unevidenced indoctrinated views!

    It is noteworthy that some of the longest threads, involved fundamentalists, climate-change deniers, anti-vaxers, science deniers, and abusive anti-abortionists – and many of these are now removed by moderators !

    Daveldson #108
    Apr 28, 2018 at 4:23 pm

    I feel that much of the discussions regarding abortion are commented on, rather vigorously by men.

    Many fundamentalist opponents of abortion, or those with weird sexual taboos, are sects or denominations which are dominated by men!

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2016/11/i-had-to-take-my-dirty-panties-to-a-rabbi-and-so-has-every-orthodox-jewish-woman/



    Report abuse

  • LaurieB #111

    There’s a dearth of women on this website and it’s depressing.

    Ok, I’ll out myself. I’m a woman – Marco is just a nickname from childhood that I choose to use online sometimes. It is interesting – and depressing and disturbing – to see how differently people react to comments posted in a man’s name rather than a woman’s. Not here specifically: I mean the internet in general.

    But anyway, you needn’t feel quite as lonely here as you did 🙂

    Also: a warm welcome to Daveldson and, like Laurie (and the others, too, I’m sure), I hope you’ll stick around.



    Report abuse

  • HUH?!

    Ok Marco. I’m laughing right now because I realize how stupid the screen name gender thing really is. Yes, I thought you were a guy. Not sure what to think about this. I suspect that what I feel right now is what some other people have felt when I outed myself as an atheist. There is the impulse to go back and review everything about the relationship that came before the outing for the purpose of investigating whether or not there were hints that were missed and to figure out how this important information escaped notice!

    There was someone else here that I had assumed was a female but then discovered I was wrong. Slight momentary disorientation ensued. Weird.

    I think I like the idea of a comment section where people use screen names that give no information about them at all. I wonder how that would work out.



    Report abuse

  • I honestly think that in almost all cases the sex of the commentator should be irrelevant: surely it’s the thoughts and ideas that should count? For me, not using a female-sounding screen name was just about being able to engage without the risk of exposing myself to all the additional aggro that women so often encounter online. But it wasn’t a big deal, not something I really thought about after the 5 minutes it took to set my user account up.

    I do get that it makes a difference on certain subjects, though, and none more so than abortion; and it also makes a difference if other women are feeling outnumbered and therefore perhaps less confident about posting here themselves.



    Report abuse

  • Alan4discussion #106
    Apr 28, 2018 at 6:09 am

    Unsurprisingly, specialist doctors know what they are talking about, and wish-thinking parents, encouraged by opportunist, exploiting, know-nothing, know-it-all-priests don’t!

    Laurie, kindly provided this link on this case on the Open Discussion, but it is relevant here as an example of the sort of exploitation perpetrated on the emotionally disturbed parents by the ruthless delusional propagandists:-

    http://quillette.com/2018/04/28/tragic-case-alfie-evans/

    However, faith-thinking does seem to be a very relevant factor, with the Evans family ignoring the advice of their own medical experts, and in some instances their own legal advisors, and listening the a disreputable law student and a bunch of Xtian nutters who encouraged false hope by telling them nonsensical things they liked to hear!
    Even the rulings of the courts do not seem to have been able to penetrate the the wall of obstructive wish-thinking ignorance and deception in the minds of the parents!



    Report abuse

  • Marco

    surely it’s the thoughts and ideas that should count?

    To me, this is all about the ideas but of course I don’t speak for everyone.

    I’ve enjoyed your comments here no matter what sex you are or any other characteristic you present, for that matter. Keep ’em coming!



    Report abuse

  • Marco! Marca!? Yay!!

    I think back and think back and cannot for the life of me see that it changes anything about your comments here. Always that perfect blend of evidence, reason and compassion.

    But the fact of our unwitting gender blindness makes me happy. Dunno why.

    Oh and a warm welcome to Daveldson!



    Report abuse

  • Back on the subject of abortion, there’s a really important Twitter thread here:

    https://twitter.com/gavinsblog/status/990582509162418176?s=09

    (You don’t need to have a Twitter account to read it.)

    It seems that, after Trump and Brexit, there is now a digital campaign underway to manipulate the outcome of the Irish abortion referendum too. Adverts being placed on Facebook and YouTube, purporting to be objective sources of information but actually – once you dig down through layer after layer of attempted secrecy – the work of anti-abortion Catholic groups in the USA.

    It’s not the advertising as such that’s the concern, though personally I find it worrying that there is overseas interference in what should be entirely a decision for the people of Ireland. It’s the secrecy. The anonymity. And the deliberate attempt to mislead. Potentially also illegality, since I assume that, as with the UK’s Brexit vote, there are limits on how much each of the official campaigns can legally spend and rules outlawing outsourcing any of that expenditure to undeclared third-party bodies.



    Report abuse

  • Marco #121
    Apr 30, 2018 at 7:51 am

    Back on the subject of abortion,

    Yep! Once in power, the woo-brained just can’t stop themselves from incompetently meddling in other people’s sex-lives and medical matters!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-43978510

    Iowa approves ‘most restrictive abortion bill in US’

    The US state of Iowa has approved an abortion law banning most abortions once a foetal heartbeat is detected.

    Republican lawmakers passed the bill in back-to-back votes, sending it to the governor’s desk to sign into law.

    If it comes into effect the bill will ban most abortions after six weeks of pregnancy, and rights groups say it will be the country’s most restrictive.

    Critics argue it makes having an abortion illegal before most women even realise they are pregnant.

    Iowa’s Republican governor Kim Reynolds has not said if she will sign the bill.

    Republican Representative Shannon Lundgren told local media this week that she believes the bill will become law.

    “We’re in the majority for a reason and that includes advancing the pro-life cause,” Ms Lundgren told the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier.

    Last year, Iowa Republicans successfully banned abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy.

    If Ms Reynolds signs the bill into law, it will likely be challenged in court for possibly violating Roe v Wade, the US Supreme Court ruling that legalized abortion in 1973. The ruling states some women have a right to terminate pregnancies until a foetus is viable.



    Report abuse

  • @#122 link – “We are alive when our hearts start beating and our life is over when it stops,” Dawn Pettengil,
    another Republican Representative from Iowa, told CBS News.

    Ah! The profound D-K “knowledge” of the simple minded, uneducated, know-it-all, faith-thinker! 🙂

    https://futurism.com/artificial-organs-entering-era-transplants-obsolete/

    Thus far, scientists have successfully 3D-bioprinted several organs, including a thyroid gland, a tibia replacement that’s already been implanted into a patient, as well as a patch of heart cells that actually beat.
    All of these organs were made possible by refinements to the type of bioink; one of many improvements to the process we can expect to see in the years to come, as there’s now an institution dedicated to advancing 3D bioprinting techniques.

    Other technologies that are making it possible to produce synthetic organs include a method for growing bioartificial kidneys, the result of a study in 2016.

    For his part, Westaby is involved in several projects working to continue improving the process: one uses stem cells to reverse the scarring of heart tissue, which could improve the quality of life for patients undergoing coronary bypass. Westaby is also working on developing better hardware for these types of surgical procedures, including inexpensive titanium mechanical heart pumps.

    Together with 3D bioprinting such innovations could well become the answer to donor shortages. The future of regenerative medicine is synthetic organs that could easily, affordably, and reliably be printed for patients on demand.

    So let’s see if the “brains of the faith-thinking Republicans”, are going to afford human rights to cultured beating heart cells and mechanical heart pumps! . . . . and of course they will need to prosecute their god via his representatives for all those post 6week spontaneous abortions and miscarriages!

    @#122 link – Planned Parenthood released a statement in February, when the bill was first introduced.

    “These extreme attempts to ban abortion fly in the face of both medical and legal standards, as well as common sense and public opinion among Iowans,” said Erin Davison-Rippey, Planned Parenthood of the Heartland’s director of public affairs in the online statement.

    “So-called ‘heartbeat protection’ bills are actually bans on safe, legal abortion, and they threaten to set reproductive rights back by decades.”



    Report abuse

  • So while the opinionated obstructive ignorant are exercising their interfering egos, scientists have been studying the issues around fertility and spontaneous abortions!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43960363

    Dutch scientists have built “synthetic” embryos in their laboratory using mouse cells other than sperm and eggs.

    The stem cell breakthrough, described in Nature journal, is not for cloning people or animals, but about understanding why many pregnancies fail at an early stage – implantation.

    The embryos, made in a dish, attached to the womb lining of live female mice and grew for a few days.

    Studying the process could help human fertility, experts say.

    Many miscarriages occur before a woman is even aware she is pregnant, when the fertilised egg does not manage to implant in the womb.

    Experts do not fully understand why this occurs, although it is likely to be linked to abnormalities in the growing embryo.

    Studying how early embryos develop is tricky both ethically and technically.

    Using stem cells, rather than sperm and eggs, to make model embryos could offer a plentiful supply for scientific research.



    Report abuse

  • Marco #121
    Apr 30, 2018 at 7:51 am

    It seems that, after Trump and Brexit, there is now a digital campaign underway to manipulate the outcome of the Irish abortion referendum too.

    Adverts being placed on Facebook and YouTube, purporting to be objective sources of information but actually – once you dig down through layer after layer of attempted secrecy – the work of anti-abortion Catholic groups in the USA.

    It’s not the advertising as such that’s the concern, though personally I find it worrying that there is overseas interference in what should be entirely a decision for the people of Ireland. It’s the secrecy.

    X=X=X=X=X=X=X=X

    I see that some internet services have recognised this problem!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-44055077

    Google will ban all advertisements relating to Republic of Ireland’s forthcoming referendum on abortion, which takes place on 25 May.

    On Tuesday, Facebook started to block ads relating to the referendum that did not originate from advertisers inside Ireland.

    However, Google said all ads relating to the vote would be blocked.

    Google’s ads appear on millions of websites, including its video-sharing platform YouTube.

    “Following our update around election integrity efforts globally, we have decided to pause all ads related to the Irish referendum on the Eighth Amendment,” the company said in a statement.

    Voters will decide whether to repeal the Eighth Amendment to the Republic of Ireland’s constitution, which states “the right to life of the unborn”.

    At present, the country has a near-total ban on abortion, with terminations very rarely allowed.

    In April, Irish data protection commissioner Helen Dixon said it was possible that foreign organisations could try to sway the referendum.

    Ireland’s electoral laws ban foreign organisations from funding campaign groups in the country. However, social media sites and search engines are not prohibited from carrying foreign-funded advertisements.

    Google said ads relating to the vote would be “paused” from 10 May.



    Report abuse

  • It baffles me why Christians think their bible prohibits abortion or that it says the life of an unborn fetus is sacrosanct. In fact it says the opposite. In Numbers 5:11-31 the bible endorses abortion for unfaithful wives. If a wife is suspected of getting pregnant by another man then a priest shall give her bitter water mixed with herbs and curse her to miscarry if she has been unfaithful. If the child is her husband’s then nothing will happen but if it’s another man’s then her womb will swell and she will miscarry.

    In Exodus 21 if a pregnant woman is assaulted and miscarries then the penalty is just a fine payable to her husband by the attacker. The fetus is considered loss of property rather than loss of life. Only if the woman herself is injured does the penalty become an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth imposed on the assailant.

    God doesn’t give a flying fuck about fetuses or children, especially those of parents who worship another god.

    The best cure for Christianity is reading the bible properly. When you realise how disgusting it is you’ll give it up.



    Report abuse

  • I see that the anti-abortionists are still preoccupied with alleged “foetal rights” while abusing the rights to medical treatment and lives pregnant women!

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-44122556

    “Abortion is the prime cause of femicide in the world,” declare the black-and-white posters that have appeared in several areas of Rome.

    Is stated on posters without a flicker of hypocritical irony!

    Yep! Anti-abortionists are the prime cause of the deaths of pregnant women who urgently need abortions of problematic deformed foetuses, but where empowered to do so, they still threaten doctors to force them to withhold life saving treatments!
    Psychological projection by the liars for popery – going at full blast!

    But the campaign has provoked widespread anger and led to appeals to the mayor to get the posters removed.

    One feminist group condemned the posters as “disgraceful” while others objected to the use of a word often used for the killing of women by men.

    Italy is about to mark 40 years since abortion was made legal.

    Among those protesting against the new campaign was local authority leader Francesca Del Bello, who said the posters were “offensive to every woman, especially for those who had the difficult experience of abortion or violence”.

    Writer and broadcaster Selvaggia Lucarelli went on Twitter to say: “How sad to use the term ‘femicide’ in a vile way with the clear aim of attracting attention to a campaign against abortion.”

    Feminist group Facebook Rebel Network called on Mayor Virginia Raggi to remove the posters immediately.

    Under Law 194, which came into force in May 1978, abortion is legal in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy.

    After that time it is allowed only if the life of the mother is at risk or there is a foetal abnormality or malformation.

    If there is a chance the foetus can survive outside the womb, termination is lawful only if pregnancy or delivery is a serious risk to the woman’s health.

    The deluded clearly care little about the health of actual living women, but like to exercise their fanciful ignorance in attention-seeking public stunts on behalf of their god-delusions!!

    Italy is a predominantly Catholic country and a large proportion of doctors refuse to carry out terminations.

    In 2016, the family of a woman who died after a miscarriage in Sicily accused a doctor of refusing to abort because he was a “conscientious objector”. That case is still going through the courts.

    Only the delusional “conscience” indoctrinated with pseudo-morality, would motivate a doctor to wilfully cause harm to a patient by withholding treatment, while posturing full of self-righteousness!



    Report abuse

  • MOD MESSAGE

    In response to user requests, we have set up a dedicated discussion thread for issues relating to the social and political implications of the Irish abortion referendum result.

    This can be found at https://www.richarddawkins.net/2018/05/discussion-the-irish-abortion-referendum-what-now/

    We have therefore removed all relevant comments posted either here or on the Exchange on Abortion thread and recreated them there.

    All further comments about the referendum itself and the SOCIAL and/or POLITICAL issues connected with it should go on the dedicated discussion thread, please, and not here.

    Comments about the issue of abortion itself should continue to be posted here.

    The mods



    Report abuse

  • Moderator #128
    May 27, 2018 at 7:36 am

    MOD MESSAGE

    In response to user requests, we have set up a dedicated discussion thread for issues relating to the social and political implications of the Irish abortion referendum result.

    Thanks.



    Report abuse

  • Alan4discussion #97
    Apr 11, 2018 at 5:18 am

    Meanwhile the delusional busybodies are repeating their annual nuisance activities in Nottingham!

    A buffer zone will be created at a west London abortion clinic
    to stop vigils being held outside the building.

    I see that the deluded busy-bodies, have had their assertion of an entitlement to harass women seeking abortion advice and treatment, thrown out after the High Court threw out their legal challenge!

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-44682996

    Protesters have lost their bid to remove a buffer zone around an abortion clinic in west London.

    In April, Ealing Council implemented a 100m exclusion zone around the Marie Stopes centre after women complained of intimidation by protesters.

    The High Court found the ban interfered with activists’ human rights, but the council was “entitled” to impose it.

    Mr Justice Turner said: “There was substantial evidence that a very considerable number of users of the clinic reasonably felt that their privacy was being very seriously invaded at a time and place when they were most vulnerable.”

    As such the council is “entitled to conclude that the effect of the activities of the protesters was likely to make such activities unreasonable and justified the restrictions imposed,” he added.

    The council reasonably concluded that the human rights of those seeking medical advice, should take precedence over those busy-bodies who felt they had a right to intrude on personal privacy and medical confidentiality!



    Report abuse

  • Meanwhile, medical technology and facilities move on, while those with bronze-age delusions, fumble around praying to prop up their bigoted circular thinking and ignorant assertions in their own minds!

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-44643459

    29 June 2018 – A decision to allow women to take abortion pills at home in Wales has been welcomed as a “significant” move.

    Until now they have had to take two trips to clinics to take medication to terminate the pregnancy, sometimes miles from home.

    A charity said women had experienced cramping and bleeding, at times on public transport, trying to get home after taking the pill.

    The Royal College of Midwives said it was a “sensible and practical move”.

    The change brings Wales in line with Scotland, where women have been allowed to take the tablet at home since last year, and with other countries such as Sweden and France.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-41760959

    Women in Scotland allowed abortion pill at home
    By Lucy Adams BBC Scotland correspondent 26 October 2017

    Scotland’s Chief Medical Officer has written to all health boards to say the drug misoprostol can be taken by women outside of a clinical setting.



    Report abuse

  • Further to #130:-

    170 MPs are demanding a nationwide roll out of the measures successfully pioneered in Ealing, but as usual, the government is dragging its feet!

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-45169927

    **An announcement on potential moves to protect women attending abortion clinics is expected next month.

    Campaigners want “buffer zones” barring anti-abortion protests outside clinics, similar to one in Ealing, west London.

    A UK-wide review was expected to report in July but Home Secretary Sajid Javid has told cross-party campaigners he now plans an announcement in September.

    A Home Office statement said: “We have conducted an in-depth assessment of protests outside abortion clinics – including looking at the impact of the Public Space Protection Order in Ealing – and will publish our findings in due course.”

    Ms Huq, MP for Ealing Central and Acton, said:
    “I’m not sure how much longer they can string this out. In the meantime, Ealing Council has undertaken a consultation and implemented a Public Spaces Protection Order around our Marie Stopes clinic.”

    “It is a national problem that requires a national solution as 170 MPs demanded in a letter to the home secretary in May.”



    Report abuse

  • Don’t the god-deluded, love trying to inject their uninvited ignorant bronze-age dogmas, into other people’s private lives!

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-45196213

    Scottish women will still be allowed to take abortion pills at home after a legal challenge against the move was thrown out.

    The medical treatment involves taking two different drugs – first misfepristone, which blocks hormones which maintain the pregnancy, and then misoprostol, which can be taken on the same or following days.

    Within an hour of taking the second tablet, women often experience heavy bleeding – usually on the way home from the clinic.

    However, pro-life group SPUC {Society of Pernicious Unqualified Clowns – otherwise self-styled as the “Society for Protection of Unborn Children”} challenged the decision in Scotland’s highest court, arguing that such a move contravenes the 1967 Abortion Act.

    Dismissing the challenge, the judge wrote: “I have concluded that the decision of the respondents to approve a woman’s home as a place where one stage of the termination of pregnancy can be carried out is not unlawful on either of the grounds contended for by the petitioner.”



    Report abuse

  • Latin is logic, you hear the educated ones say. An encounter with the Latin is often the legal. Why is this? Do the legal minded have purchase on language?

    What gives the jurisprudent mind philosophy over me? Well, perhaps it is he or she that understands the argument between Thomas Payne and Edmund Burke, and the idea of POSTERITY. You UK boys and girls understand this better than the US boys and girls in-‘deed’. Yes punctuation was relevant.

    Alan?



    Report abuse

  • Eric Johnston #137
    Sep 21, 2018 at 12:58 am

    Latin is logic, you hear the educated ones say.

    The claim that the grammatical structure of Latin is logical, has nothing to do with any deductions or conclusions from observations, for which the language is used.



    Report abuse

  • @ #142 – A Home Office statement said:
    “We have conducted an in-depth assessment of protests outside abortion clinics –
    including looking at the impact of the Public Space Protection Order in Ealing –
    and will publish our findings in due course.”

    Ms Huq, MP for Ealing Central and Acton, said:
    “I’m not sure how much longer they can string this out.
    In the meantime, Ealing Council has undertaken a consultation and implemented a Public Spaces Protection Order around our Marie Stopes clinic.”

    “It is a national problem that requires a national solution as 170 MPs demanded in a letter to the home secretary in May.”

    It does appear that the government will continue to “string this out” and duck the issue, while pretending the less than adequate existing fragmentary local retrospective arrangements will do!
    Women should not have to be harassed on he streets, before action is taken by under-resourced councils!

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-45509202

    Calls for buffer zones to be introduced outside abortion clinics to stop patients being harassed have been rejected by Home Secretary Sajid Javid.

    He said such protest-free areas around clinics in England and Wales “would not be a proportionate response”.

    A Home Office review found cases of harassment and damaging behaviour but they were “not the norm”, he added.

    In a written statement, Mr Javid said the review had gathered evidence that showed protesters’ behaviour had left patients distressed and caused some to rebook their appointments and not to follow medical advice.

    He said that in some cases, protesters handed out model foetuses, displayed graphic images, followed people, blocked their paths and even assaulted them.

    In April, the west London council of Ealing took matters into their own hands, imposing a 100m protest-free “buffer zone” outside a Marie Stopes clinic.

    But the constituency MP, Labour’s Rupa Huq, said it was a “national problem that requires a national solution”.

    “It seems to be saying there has to be a disproportionate number of women affected before any action takes place,” she added.

    Speaking later to the BBC, she said shoving the burden onto already cash-strapped local authorities was not the best solution, and would leave women running “a gauntlet of a barrage of abuse just to have their NHS procedure done”.

    Clare Murphy, of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, which provides abortion services in the UK, said the charity would seek to work with councils to roll out the Ealing “model” across the country to protect women and clinic staff from protesters.

    The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said Public Spaces Protection Orders could be useful but had not been designed for this purpose. It said new legislation would make sure the approach towards protests was “consistent and effective”.

    Shadow home secretary Diane Abbott said Mr Javid had “given the green light for women to be harassed and abused for exercising their right to choose.

    “This is a disgusting failure to uphold women’s rights over their own bodies. Sajid Javid must urgently reconsider,” the Labour MP said.

    And her party colleague, Yvette Cooper, chairwoman of the home affairs select committee, said: “The whole point of having this review was because existing powers are not working or are proving cumbersome and difficult for councils or the police to use.”



    Report abuse

  • “Abortion issue” are not too large in our minds. This is a hyperbole because our brains are able to handle this decision. I believe that is not so, God gave is a conscience. We justify it right or wrong, but murder is murder in God eyes. So “RightWingRebel” you will have to answer to God for the death of children. If we were to look at this logically and Biblically.
    So let is keep it 100, it’s wrong to murder, The Bible does not specifically mention the word abortion, but it has a number of significant things to say about unborn children. These Biblical statements indicate that the unborn are persons. Therefore, abortion is wrong since it is killing a human being. A simplified form of our argument is the following:
    Premise #1: It is wrong to murder a person.
    Premise #2: The unborn is a person.
    Conclusion: Therefore, it is wrong to murder the unborn.
    Here are some Bible verse to look at: Gen. 9:6; Mt. 15:19; 19:18; Mk. 10:19; Lk. 18:20; Jn. 8:44; Acts 3:14; and Rom. 1:28-29; 13:9.



    Report abuse

  • Johnfaithwalker #138

    A simplified form of our argument is the following:
    Premise #1: It is wrong to murder a person.
    Premise #2: The unborn is a person.
    Conclusion: Therefore, it is wrong to murder the unborn.

    Not only is your argument simplified, it is also simplistic.

    It’s nothing to be proud of.



    Report abuse

  • Johnfaithwalker #138
    Oct 1, 2018 at 6:49 pm

    These Biblical statements indicate that the unborn are persons. Therefore, abortion is wrong since it is killing a human being.
    A simplified form of our argument is the following:
    Premise #1: It is wrong to murder a person.
    Premise #2: The unborn is a person.
    Conclusion: Therefore, it is wrong to murder the unborn.

    It is unfortunate, when those following blind faith in the writings of ignorant bronze-age scribes, accept nonsensical assertions that zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, and early stage foetuses, are” human beings”, or “persons”, – rather than respecting the rights of the potential mother, or using the sort of modern medical information, which is linked earlier in this discussion, – as a basis for real-world decisions which affect peoples, lives and quality of life.

    Your thinking follows the basic principle:
    Simplistic undefined antiquated nonsensical premises in – simplistic nonsensical conclusions out! – even before we look at delusional claims of “voices from god(s)” in the heads of alleged “prophets”!

    Why not read through this discussion and its links (such as this one), to educate yourself about the real issues which affect real people!

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2017/11/an-exchange-on-abortion/#li-comment-229476

    Around 50% to 70% of human fertilised eggs spontaneously abort, if they are defective, if the mother is undernourished, or for various other causes.

    Around half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant.



    Report abuse

  • Johnfaithwalker #138
    Oct 1, 2018 at 6:49 pm

    Here are some Bible verse to look at: Gen. 9:6; Mt. 15:19; 19:18; Mk. 10:19; Lk. 18:20; Jn. 8:44; Acts 3:14; and Rom. 1:28-29; 13:9.

    In your cherry picking you conveniently miss out Exodus 21:22 which makes it clear an unborn child is merely property and the penalty for causing a woman to abort is just a fine payable to her husband. You see in the big book of bronze age filth the unborn child is not even the woman’s property. It’s the husband’s as women are only second class citizens.



    Report abuse

  • Johnfaithwalker #138
    Oct 1, 2018 at 6:49 pm

    “Abortion issue[s]” are not too large in our minds.
    This is a hyperbole because our brains are able to handle this decision.

    . . . or at least, those minds of those who study medicine and biology, and think through probable outcomes are!

    I believe that is not so, God gave is a conscience.

    I think with deeper study, you will find your “god” is an indoctrinated image, and what you call a conscience, is an unthinking, non-caring adherence to indoctrinated dogmas, where promoting gods and religions, is given priority over looking after the well-being of BORN humans.

    We justify it right or wrong,

    We are well aware of the abuses by self-deluding anti-abortionists of BORN humans, – allegedly on behalf of lumps of unborn, or non-viable never-to-be-born, human tissue, and imaginary gods,

    but murder is murder in God eyes.

    Sorry to disillusion you, but gods don’t have eyes – apart from in the imaginations of believers and in statues or pictures created for believers!

    “Murder” is legally defined illegal killing, according to the laws of whatever legal system is operating in a particular locality, so where abortions in accordance with medical codes of conduct, are legal, the claim of “murder”, is simply a sleight of hand to con the gullible with an emotive spurious deceptive re-definition of the word!

    It is “murder”, because we have invented a biased circular argument based on our indoctrinated preconceptions, and arbitrarily redefining the word “murder” to beg the question.
    This has no credibility when rationally discussing real-world outcomes involving human suffering or the human health of actual BORN human beings!



    Report abuse

  • Johnfaithwalker #138
    Oct 1, 2018 at 6:49 pm
    The Bible does not specifically mention the word abortion, but it has a number of significant things to say about unborn children. These Biblical statements indicate that the unborn are persons.

    I looked through all the biblical references you gave and none of them say anything about the unborn being persons. So either you are lying and just picked some random verses you hoped we wouldn’t check or your comprehension of language is not the same as normal people’s.

    I would also reiterate that as any atheists among us who have ever had much debate with theists know very well, theists have very little compunction about “lying for Jesus”. If they can’t find something in their buybull to support what they’d like to say they just make it up.

    As for your case that the buybull says murder is wrong, it actually says murder is not only fine and dandy but it’s even compulsory when it suits your god as in the cases of homosexuals, witches, children who curse their parents or who do not obey them, anyone who doesn’t worship the god of the buybull even to the extent of killing all the inhabitants of a town if only a single one of them is not a believer. You can also beat your slaves with a rod and it’s not even a crime if they don’t die within 2 days. It’s not murder even if they do die that quickly because they aren’t considered to be people.

    So please don’t pretend your bronze age myth book is any sort of moral guide. It’s full of such filth it would be considered a hate crime to publish it if it were to be written by someone today.



    Report abuse

  • Give the god-deluded an inch, and they will try to take a mile!

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-45731990

    Irish anti-abortion doctors in conscientious objection row

    A row over conscientious objection has broken out in Ireland as legislation to introduce abortion services is brought before parliament on Thursday.

    Anti-abortion doctors have said they do not wish to be forced to refer a pregnant woman seeking a termination to another doctor.

    Ireland voted to overturn its abortion ban in a referendum in May.

    Health Minister Simon Harris has said he hopes abortion services will be available from January 2019.

    Abortion legislation will be debated in the Dáil (parliament) from 14:15 GMT for the first time since the 8th amendment – a near total constitutional ban on abortion – was removed.

    The bill allows for abortion services to be provided “on demand” – up to the 12th week of a pregnancy, in the case of a fatal foetal abnormality or where the physical or mental health of the mother is in danger.

    Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Leo Varadkar and Health Minister Simon Harris have both said they expect services to be up and running in Ireland by early next year. Mr Harris has said that terminations will be made available free of charge, as part of a GP-led service.

    The bill allows for doctors to opt out of providing a medical or surgical abortion if they do not wish to perform the procedure. But they must refer a woman seeking an abortion to another doctor who will carry it out .

    Anti-abortion doctors have lobbied the government to remove any requirement to transfer women seeking a termination to another doctor.

    The health minister said that conscientious objection was one thing, but refusing to refer women wishing to terminate their pregnancies to other doctors was quite another.

    The bill must be passed by the Irish parliament and the Irish senate before it officially becomes law.

    Anti-abortion TDs have said they want to table amendments to the legislation. The health minister has said he will not accept them as the Irish people gave a clear mandate “to get on with it” when they voted to overturn the abortion ban by 66.4% to 33.6%.

    Separate legislation will be introduced at a later date to allow for “safe access” zones – designated areas that prevent protests around centres providing abortion services.

    Why should anyone care if a small minority of indoctrinated god-deluded doctors, do not wish to be subject to state laws?
    That is why states have police and regulatory bodies to enforce laws!
    There is no requirement for the faith-deluded to be theocratically empowered to enforce their superstitious beliefs on everyone else in defiance of state laws!

    At some stage, there are probably going to be some self-selected obstructive abusive RCC “martyrs”, playing the victim, defying the law, and being acclaimed heroes or saints, by the geriatric ignorant old men of the Vatican!

    This proposed law is still quite restrictive when compared with some laws elsewhere!



    Report abuse

  • Being a bit late to the party, but maybe someone can still explain something for me:

    “Much better to oppose “RightWingRebel” and his type by deploying a different set of arguments which, it seems to me, nobody could thoughtfully disagree with.

    So, let me turn to RightWingRebel’s reply to my tweet. It reeks of speciesism.

    “The right response to people like “RightWingRebel” is show them they are being illogical, speciesist and – oh dear – really rather stupid.”

    I do not understand why Dawkins thinks anything is gained by showing that the position of RightWingRebel is speciesist.

    After all, the most universally agreed upon important legal document is called “Declaration of HUMAN rights”.

    it has speciesism right in the TITLE.

    If one of the most important legal documents, a document which is upheld by some as a beacon of hope and goodness, a document that serves as yard stick for evaluating governments, is verbatim speciesism, what can one hope to gain by showing someone is being speciesist.

    E.g.:

    A: “Human beings are usually not to be killed; unborn in the womb of a woman are also human beings; hence, they are not to be killed; hence, abortion is to be forbidden/regulated/…”

    B:” You’re position is unreasonable, because [long argument]; from that ift follows that your position is speciesist meaning that you consider independent of neurological capabilities humans to have more rights than non-humans.”

    A: “Of course; after all i am in favor of the human rights declaration.”

    (Note: i am aware that human rights declaration leaves the question of rights of unborns deliberately unanswered; but that humans having special rights due to species membership is a nearly universally accepted norm; showing that someone agrees with a nearly universally accepted norm, is usually not convincing anybody)



    Report abuse

  • carn #145
    Oct 4, 2018 at 11:32 am

    Being a bit late to the party, but maybe someone can still explain something for me:

    I’ll have a go at it!

    “Much better to oppose “RightWingRebel” and his type by deploying a different set of arguments which, it seems to me, nobody could thoughtfully disagree with.

    I agree.

    So, let me turn to RightWingRebel’s reply to my tweet. It reeks of speciesism.

    “The right response to people like “RightWingRebel” is show them they are being illogical, speciesist and – oh dear – really rather stupid.”

    I do not understand why Dawkins thinks anything is gained by showing that the position of RightWingRebel is speciesist.

    RightWingRebel is using a speciesist argument (Humans can kill elephants if the like) denigrating the protection of elephants in a game reserve, as an emotive side-tracking diversionary distraction from an objective discussion about abortion, in the hope of putting an opponent on the defensive!

    After all, the most universally agreed upon important legal document is called “Declaration of HUMAN rights”.

    The killing of elephants has nothing to do with human rights. Humans have no “right” to poach elephants from game reserves.

    A: “Human beings are usually not to be killed; unborn in the womb of a woman are also human beings; hence, they are not to be killed; hence, abortion is to be forbidden/regulated/…”

    This argument is flawed, because it relies on a simplistic wrong assertion, that unborn zygotes, blastocysts, embryos etc. are “human beings” (when they are in fact human tissue).

    B:” You’re position is unreasonable, because [long argument]; from that ift follows that your position is speciesist meaning that you consider independent of neurological capabilities humans to have more rights than non-humans.”

    However, It is foolish to take the diversionary bait, and mix the irrelevant speciesim, into an argument about abortion, thus failing to deal with the key issues.

    Dawkins’ comment does deal with the issue of elephants feeling pain, while early stage embryos don’t have the development of a nervous system to function at that level.

    The spurious comparison is relevant to the pain of hunted elephants.

    It is irrelevant to the issue of debating abortion – which has nothing to do with elephants.



    Report abuse

  • “Dawkins’ comment does deal with the issue of elephants feeling pain, while early stage embryos don’t have the development of a nervous system to function at that level.”

    Which is completely irrelevant, as one of the most fundamental documents of our human civilization is speciecist and does not care about something having a functioning nervous system. While i cannot buy elephants due to some enviromental protection laws (which are about keeping the planet in a nice shape for humans to live upon), i can buy dogs, horses, cows, cats and a bunch of other things and – keeping some laws about slaughtering and food handling in mind – i can slaughter them in many countries at WILL, cause they are my property and i have the right to use my property as i want.

    “speciesim, into an argument about abortion, thus failing to deal with the key issues.”

    “speciesim” is fundamental to all arguments against abortion; “pro-lifers” do not hang out before brothels to save the – according to Monthy Python “sacred” – sperm, cause sperm are not human beings and hence do not have human rights and hence destroying it is at least not akin to murder.

    BTW, i am ok with the human rights declaration and therefore i am a specisist. And “RightWingRebel” would probably also agree to being one and might be equally perplexed why people make an issue of being fine with human rights, which include the right to buy, own and slaughter animals within some limits.



    Report abuse

  • carn #147
    Oct 4, 2018 at 12:38 pm

    Which is completely irrelevant, as one of the most fundamental documents of our human civilization is speciecist and does not care about something having a functioning nervous system.

    I think you will find that most civilised countries have laws about cruelty to animals which have a functioning nervous system.

    That does not mean that those laws need to be included in documents about the rights of humans.

    I think anyone who appeared in court charged with animal cruelty, would be on a loser, if they claimed the absence of a mention in the human rights charter was a defence!

    i can buy dogs, horses, cows, cats and a bunch of other things and – keeping some laws about slaughtering and food handling in mind –

    It is indeed those laws on safety, pollution, protection of endangered species, and ecosystem management, which prevent reckless humans from doing just what they like!

    i can slaughter them in many countries at WILL, cause they are my property and i have the right to use my property as i want.

    There is nothing to that effect in the human rights charter.

    That is indeed the simplistic speciesism which is wrecking the ecology of the planet, and which could lead to human extinction!

    Humans must act responsibly in a management role, and can’t just casually treat every resource and every living thing, as property with which they can do anything they like.

    The only link of the topic of responsible management to abortion (or contraception) arguments, is the need to stabilise the human population explosion before it triggers a catastrophic collapse!



    Report abuse

  • “There is nothing to that effect in the human rights charter.

    That is indeed the simplistic speciesism which is wrecking the ecology of the planet, and which could lead to human extinction!”

    It is the law of the land in many countries. As long as the slaughtering is not done in a cruel way, any cattle owner can decide right on the spot to have all his cattle or just have of them or just some slaughtered and eat the meat himself, sell it or throw it away as garbage (of course respecting further laws about garbage disposal and handling of food and minding tax laws, etc.).

    You are deluding yourself if you think specisism is not intentionally entrenched deep within nearly all human laws.



    Report abuse

  • carn #149
    Oct 4, 2018 at 1:39 pm

    You are deluding yourself if you think specisism is not intentionally entrenched deep within nearly all human laws.

    Humans are both a predatory species, and a dominant species high up at at the top of the food chain, so human laws are bound to recognise this.

    The very dangerous speciesism is the notion that humans can irresponsibly do whatever they like, with a total disregard of the stability of the ecology of the planet or the pollution of its environment.
    Other species must be recognised as having a place in the system, with some areas acting as protected reserves where wild environments are preserved and allowed to evolve. Greedy unregulated consumption by humans with massive habitat destruction, is a recipe for catastrophic population collapse and possible human extinction.

    As long as the slaughtering is not done in a cruel way, any cattle owner can decide right on the spot to have all his cattle or just have of them or just some slaughtered and eat the meat himself, sell it or throw it away as garbage

    I am not suggesting that farmers should not harvest crops or herds, but it would be a very foolish group of farmers who slaughtered ALL of their stock of animals to the point of the extinction of the breed/species!

    Similarly foolish crop growers can carelessly clear rainforest and reduce the land to desert!

    https://sciencing.com/soil-erosion-due-rainforest-deforestation-23042.html
    Deforested rain forest soil becomes dry and nutrient-deficient as there is no longer vegetation to hold water and nutrients in place. Heavy rains further erode soil and saturate waterways with excess nutrients, disrupting the food chains of tropical ecosystems. Eroded sediment can even change the course of rivers like the Yangtze in China, which suffers from huge deposits of silt from deforestation. Desertification is another possible consequence of erosion through deforestation — when enough plant cover is lost, erosion takes over and former lush rain forest can be transformed into arid desert.

    We are however, getting off the topic of abortion.



    Report abuse

  • “We are however, getting off the topic of abortion.”

    Not really as you seem to have agreed that human laws are specisist.

    So the relevant question for many people, when evaluating some sort of killing is whether the to be killed thing is a human being and what neurological capacities it has is often less important.

    Hence, Dawkins argument in the article, which tries to show that RightWingRebel’s position is specicism, is both pointless and unlikely to convince many, cause specisism is the ethical base from which killing is evaluated and most people are aware about that and accept that (as nearly no country has enacted any laws not being based in speciesism).

    What use is it to show a speciesist already knowing that he is a speciesist that he is a speciesist?



    Report abuse

  • The Franchise of the Suffering has been expanding through recent history. Once those with the freedom to act differently, Princes and the like, those who had choices, were the only ones free to relieve suffering. They relieved their own and advantageously, they discovered, those just below them. Since then those perceived to be suffering has grown in stages to include mere men, then mere women, and mere children, to other races, to enemies and now to higher mammals. Comrade dolphin joins brother bonobo according to a growing number to have joined the ranks of the suffering. As the acquisition of choice expands through the being accepted as one of the suffering and empowered by relief from it, so the recognition of those (formerly “below”) as suffering can continue

    Suffering is not about pain which as a one off is of little ability to be deleterious. But suffering which may be initiated by pain or other negative experiences (loss say) is that experience introspected upon and anticipated or recalled in a sustained misery, a brain damaging cortisol bath.

    At some point of neural complexity suffering becomes an unsustainable account of experience. But until that fuzzy border in the UK, for instance, Veganism is exploding as a lifestyle choice. The expansion of the franchise of the suffering motors on apace.

    Looking backwards, carn, is merely looking backwards.



    Report abuse

  • carn #151
    Oct 4, 2018 at 6:09 pm

    “We are however, getting off the topic of abortion.”

    Not really as you seem to have agreed that human laws are specisist.

    Being “speciesist”, is not a black and white issue, but claiming as a human a “right” to kill legally protected species in a game reserve, certainly is.

    This is a separate issue to eating farmed, and humanely raised beef, pork, or lamb, from sustainable sources.

    It is also a separate issue from defining when embryonic tissue becomes a human being with prospects of survival as a healthy individual, and with a reasonable life expectancy and quality of life. This is a biological and neurological question based on predictive expert advice.

    Ancient dogmas and the ignorant preconceptions of the uneducated, have nothing constructive to contribute to these decisions.

    I explained this very clearly in the very first comment on this discussion.

    These involve PREDICTIONS of outcomes, such evaluating the capability of the parent(s) to support the infant, the freedom or not, of the infant from severe disabilities, the general physical and mental health of all parties, and the potential to survive of the embryo/foetus – bearing in mind that numerous sperm and eggs fail to develop, and that the majority of human fertilised eggs naturally abort – especially if they carry defects or the mothers are starving.
    These predictions involve detailed studies of embryology, medical advice, social advice, and economic advice, along with empathy for the various human parties and their interests.

    Steven007 gives an example of some aspects of decisions @# 6:-

    Steven007 #6 – Nov 2, 2017 at 4:34 pm . . . . that’s a variation of the famous trolley problem

    I give details and links @# 13, explaining some of the medical and regulatory issues involved! (None of them involve elephants 🙂 )
    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2017/11/an-exchange-on-abortion/#li-comment-227617



    Report abuse

  • @phil rimmer:

    Whether its backward or not, is irrelevant to the issue, that the fundamental “ethical” declarations of our societies use the word “human” and use and mean it regarding species and declare that members of species humans have rights.

    And that – as one can argue that unborn are members of the species that their parents belong to (i have a hard time to think about how one could argue against that) – therefore unborn humans have also some rights and that therefore abortion might be “unethical” in general or in certain circumstances.

    @Alan

    Maybe you consider the declaration of human rights from 1948 to be “ancient dogma”; but that does not change that i try to bring home the point – and you seem to be ignorant to that – that this “ancient dogma” from 1948 or at least the underlying thinking is very important regarding why people have issues with abortion.

    People think that killing humans is due to their species membership rather problematic; people derive from what they know that the discussed unborns are also of that species and are alive; and people therefore conclude that killing them aka having an abortion is problematic.

    The further information contained in the posts you linked do not put a dent into that line of thinking, cause they are irrelevant to the claim, that these unborns are members of species human. These further information could only modify when killing an unborn human might be considered ethically acceptable or at least not in that way unacceptable, that it is to be punished.

    Or do you claim that there is any evidence showing that a unborn for example 6 weeks after conception (not unusual time for an abortion) is not a living organism and/or not a member of species human?

    I ask, because after all it is a question of biology whether anything is a living organism and whether something that is alive is a member of some species; hence, the issue of whether such an unborn is a living organism and whether it is member of some species is a matter of scientific inquiry. (And please: do not discuss viability; something can very well be a living organism without being viable; and i am talking about 6th week after conception, so comparisons to single cells are of no interest)



    Report abuse

  • And maybe you understand it, when Peter Singer puts down the argument:
    https://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1995—-03.htm

    “The central argument against abortion may be put like this:

    It is wrong to kill an innocent human being. [many agree, see specisist human rights declaration]
    A human foetus is an innocent human being.
    Therefore it is wrong to kill a human foetus.”

    I am really suprised, that you balk about understanding the relevance of HUMAN rights for abortion discussion.



    Report abuse

  • And that – as one can argue that unborn are members of the species that their parents belong to (i have a hard time to think about how one could argue against that) – therefore unborn humans have also some rights and that therefore abortion might be “unethical” in general or in certain circumstances.

    They are not of the Franchise of the Suffering. They cannot suffer.

    At 27 weeks they may have 10% of their adult brain mass but apart from a brain stem shared with fishes none of the grey matter has begun any synaptic coupling to create anything like a higher brain function. It lies idle at this point. No pain registers up until 30 weeks when the Anterior Cingulate Cortex begins to form.

    No white matter forms outside of the brain stem until after birth when the necessary lipids are supplied from milk. These can then go to form all the large scale architecture the associative corteces that provide values and make introspection possible once biographical memories can be formed, and these only start to get formed after age 2 when the brain topology exists in sufficient parts to make memories map back to stable locations.

    Person-hood emerges slowly after birth. Most people don’t realise how astonishingly neotenous human babies are. We are born half-made to be able to fit through the birth canal.

    Babies can’t be anaesthetised due to a high risk of death. Until 1980 they were operated on without any. Now they are given analgesics, but no account of suffering or consequent negative impacts emerge from this. As we know from the notorious Romanian orphanage cases. What we might imagine to cause suffering before age 2 had no discernible legacy. After two and terrible often irrecoverable damage is wrought.

    Abortion to 24 weeks encounters no person, no pain, no suffering and leaves substantial margin to cause no harm.

    What I flush away is human. “Human” per se has zero moral weight or worth.

    Suffering and person-hood have.



    Report abuse

  • carn #154
    Oct 5, 2018 at 8:30 am

    Maybe you consider the declaration of human rights from 1948 to be “ancient dogma”; but that does not change that i try to bring home the point – and you seem to be ignorant to that – that this “ancient dogma” from 1948

    The Human rights declaration, like all human drafted laws, are legal entitlements awarded to citizens within a particular jurisdiction by the governing authorities in that jurisdiction. It is an easy concept to understand.

    or at least the underlying thinking is very important regarding why people have issues with abortion.

    This is relevant to the mother of the family, NOT a bunch of cells which may or may not make to a birth! ( Most fertilised eggs don’t)

    carn #155
    Oct 5, 2018 at 8:37 am

    It is wrong to kill an innocent human being.

    As I pointed out earlier and gave links list considerable detail, Human tissue is not the same as a “human being”! – although the term “innocent” implies a lack some infringement of human laws, which in the context of non-sentient human tissue is ludicrous!

    A human foetus is an innocent human being. (Flawed assertion)

    Therefore it is wrong to kill a human foetus.”(flawed conclusion)

    Have a look at your argument when it is applied to other human tissue.

    An “innocent” human amputated leg, infected appendix, or inflamed tonsils are human tissue, asserted to be innocent human beings. (Flawed assertion)

    Therefore it is wrong to kill an “innocent” human gangrenous leg, remove an infected appendix, or amputate infected tonsils .”(flawed conclusion)

    I am really surprised, that you balk about understanding the relevance of HUMAN rights for abortion discussion.

    I think if you replaced this simplistic asserted dogma by reading and understanding the social and medical issues which appear earlier in this discussion, you should have no difficulty in understanding the human rights of the mother to control her own body and decide on her own medical treatment.

    If you make an attempt to answer the question I referred to @#6, as to if in fire, you would save a five-year-old or a freezer full of frozen embryos, this may clarify your thoughts.

    The further information contained in the posts you linked do not put a dent into that line of thinking, cause they are irrelevant to the claim, that these unborns are members of species human.

    Are you saying that your mind is closed to medical evidence about when zygotes, embryos or foetuses become viable sentient human beings with prospects to live a healthy life beyond birth?
    Far from being irrelevant this is a key issue in considering the issue of abortion, spontaneous abortion and miscarriage. I thought the earlier explanations were VERY clear on many very basic biological key points, which you have yet to touch on.

    I ask, because after all it is a question of biology whether anything is a living organism and whether something that is alive is a member of some species;
    hence, the issue of whether such an unborn is a living organism and whether it is member of some species is a matter of scientific inquiry.

    I am the biologist who is trying to get you to think about the right questions! The question is not “Do the cells contain the DNA of the human species?”, but “Are they a viable independent organism?” Science already has answers to those questions.

    (And please: do not discuss viability; something can very well be a living organism without being viable;

    No it can’t. Non-viable organisms are dying cells or cancerous cells, not living cells which will live as an independent organism.

    and i am talking about 6th week after conception, so comparisons to single cells are of no interest)

    You are making blanket assertions over an extended period for which I quoted actual statistics of abortions.

    To suggest that an embryo is viable at 6 weeks is ludicrous! No human embryo miscarried at that age has ever survived! Also a large percentage of embryos which reach that age spontaneously abort later.

    Women have died because of stupid prohibitions on aborting non-viable foetuses! Babies have suffered, starved and died, because their mothers were refused abortions by religious busy-bodies who had taken charge of refugee camps and denied them their right to choose their own medical decisions!

    The death of Savita Halappanavar led to protests in 2012 calling for changes to Ireland’s abortion laws and a highly public investigation by the Health Service Executive. After a miscarriage had been diagnosed, she was denied an abortion because the foetus’s heart was still beating.[47][48][49] She developed sepsis and died. The HSE enquiry found that her death was a result of inadequate assessment and monitoring and a failure to adhere to established clinical guidelines, and made several recommendations, including legislative & constitutional change.



    Report abuse

  • carn #155
    Oct 5, 2018 at 8:37 am

    And maybe you understand it, when Peter Singer puts down the argument:

    I can understand that this is philosophical obfuscation, which fails to understand that embryonic development is a continuous process, where the fallacy of looking for an imaginary hard and fast development boundary line between eggs and babies, is included to mislead those ignorant of biology and medicine.

    (“Black is White” because we [allegedly] can’t distinguish shades of grey!)

    Abortion – Peter Singer
    In Ted Honderich (ed.),
    The Oxford Companion to Philosophy, Oxford, 1995, pp. 2-3

    It is of course the very dated confused mental ramblings of a would-be philosopher (and not a very good one at that), and not a medical or biological reference article.



    Report abuse

  • In Practical Ethics, Singer argues in favour of abortion rights on the grounds that fetuses are neither rational nor self-aware, and can therefore hold no preferences. As a result, he argues that the preference of a mother to have an abortion automatically takes precedence. In sum, Singer argues that a fetus lacks personhood.

    He didn’t have any of the neurological data we have now. carn’s quote was out of context and deceptive.

    Singer gets it right in any case.



    Report abuse

  • carn #155
    Oct 5, 2018 at 8:37 am

    And maybe you understand it, when Peter Singer puts down the argument:

    While Singer quotes the flawed thinking I debunk earlier, further down the page, he takes a clear view on your “examples of deduction”, and explains along the lines of my thinking on the biology!

    From your link:-
    To describe a being as ‘human’ is to use a term that straddles two distinct notions:
    membership of the species Homo sapiens,
    and being a person, in the sense of a rational or self-conscious being.

    Which is precisely the point I made about conflating human tissue with human beings.

    If ‘human’ is taken as equivalent to ‘person’, the second premiss of the argument, which asserts that the foetus is a human being, is clearly false; for one cannot plausibly argue that a foetus is either rational or self-conscious.

    So did you not read this before posting the link?

    If, on the other hand, ‘human’ is taken to mean no more than ‘member of the species Homo sapiens’, then it needs to be shown why mere membership of a given biological species should be a sufficient basis for a right to life.

    Which brings us back to DNA and the “murder” of the amputated leg!

    Rather, the defender of abortion may wish to argue, we should look at the foetus for what it is – the actual characteristics it possesses – and value its life accordingly.

    So have a look at the earlier comments and links in this discussion which explain these “actual characteristics”!



    Report abuse

  • @phil rimmer 156:

    “They are not of the Franchise of the Suffering. They cannot suffer.”

    Which is irrelevant if the ethically (more) relevant question is “Is it a member of species human?” instead of “Is it capable of suffering?”. Which is the case for the human rights declaration, as in that declaration there is zero indication that rights should depend upon the capability to suffer, while there is much indication that rights should depend upon species membership.

    Again, note: you might think the preference of the human rights declaration wrong; but you should not deny that such preference is therein.

    @Alan 157:

    “I am the biologist who is trying to get you to think about the right questions! The question is not “Do the cells contain the DNA of the human species?”, but “Are they a viable independent organism?” Science already has answers to those questions.”

    You commit the serious error to think, that which question is to be asked is a matter of biology. It isn’t biology can provide an answer; but which question to ask is a matter of ethics/philosophy/worldview, etc.

    For example, why do you think the question to be asked should be:
    “Are they a viable independent organism?”
    instead of
    “Are they an organism?”

    Answering these two questions is of course a matter of biology. But whether to ask the first or the second question depends upon the ethical relevance of “viable” and “independent”.

    ” (And please: do not discuss viability; something can very well be a living organism without being viable;

    No it can’t. Non-viable organisms are dying cells or cancerous cells, not living cells which will live as an independent organism.”

    Then let me reword my claim in hope of making you see why your refutation does not work:
    Something can be an organism without being viable.

    You cannot refute that with “Non-viable organisms …” as then you would already have conceded that it it is an organism.

    To try to make it short:
    If the ethically most important characteristic is species membership, both non-viable and viable organisms of that species have that most important characteristic; hence, the issue of viability is at least of no relevance to that characteristic.

    “To suggest that an embryo is viable at 6 weeks is ludicrous!”

    I never suggested that.

    I just suggest, that the discussed embryo at 6 weeks is an organism and that it is a member of species human.

    Nothing more.

    Not that it is viable. Not that it has certain or even any neurological capabilities. Nothing else. Just that it is an organism and that it is of species human (“living” is redundant, cause something can only be an organism, if it is alive; hence, i drop it to avoid confusion).

    @Alan 158:

    “which fails to understand that embryonic development is a continuous process”

    As i am talking about whether it is an organism and whether it is member of species human, that continous development is only relevant to my argument, if it ever includes stages in which there is no organism.

    But unless you offer some information so far unknown on my side, there is to my knowledge no information indicating that an embryo at 6 weeks isn’t an organism.

    On the other hand, cut off hands are as far as i am aware not organism, but just (cut-off) parts of an organism.

    @Phil 159

    As being an organism and species membership is not dependent upon neurological capabilities, the neurological data known today is to some extent completely irrelevant to what i discuss here and to what Singer discussed then.

    @Phil 160:

    “Suffering and person-hood are specifically Singer’s moral concerns.

    Being “human” is specifically not a moral concern for him.”

    For Singer yes, for human rights declaration no.

    Singer at least understands that legally and for many born human beings being a human being is of “moral concern”; and Singer criticizes that; but at least he is aware unlike Alan and you so far, who seem to continually ignore the extent to which species membership is of “moral concern” legally and for many other born human beings.

    @Alan 161:

    “To describe a being as ‘human’ is to use a term that straddles two distinct notions:
    membership of the species Homo sapiens,
    and being a person, in the sense of a rational or self-conscious being.

    Which is precisely the point I made about conflating human tissue with human beings.

    If ‘human’ is taken as equivalent to ‘person’, the second premiss of the argument, which asserts that the foetus is a human being, is clearly false; for one cannot plausibly argue that a foetus is either rational or self-conscious.

    So did you not read this before posting the link?”

    Of course.

    And the point i am continuously trying to drive home is that human rights declaration opts among the two options:
    “membership of the species Homo sapiens,
    and being a person, in the sense of a rational or self-conscious being.”

    for the first suggested meaning of “human”. Again, Singer is aware of this, disagrees with this and therefore suggest that one should argue in favor of opting for the second meaning.

    But that cannot change, that human rights declaration opted for option one and is still understood in that sense by many born human beings.

    “So have a look at the earlier comments and links in this discussion which explain these “actual characteristics”!”

    Maybe i am far more aware about these characteristics than you think; it is just that i also opt for option 1, that for example in human rights declaration the term “human” is about species membership.

    Regarding that burning lab with embryo and child question, i would save the child, because while species membership is the in my view ethically most important characteristic, it is not the only ethically important characteristic; which would result in me saving the child and not the 10, 100 or 1000 embryos, if i am forced to choose; if all can be saved, i would of course save all.

    In the end it is really simple:

    For some – e.g. most people skeptical regarding abortion; human rights declaration – species membership is important. And you should neither ignore this nor erroneously think this preference is just due to people not being aware that the capabilities, especially capability for suffering, of a 6 week embryo are insignificant compared to the capabilities of a born and grown cow. Many people do know this and still regret that there are so many abortions while eating their burgers, as for such people species membership is very important and as they can refer to the human rights declaration they are not in bad company.

    But i think it is time for me to have breakfast. Though burger will probably not be my choice, maybe in the evening.



    Report abuse

  • carn

    Singer at least understands that legally and for many born human beings being a human being is of “moral concern”;

    Yes, he identifies a historical moral error. But how is that not my concern also? The fight is about dogmatic thinking. Looking backwards, and thinking that going forwards must be a mirror of it is dogmatic thinking. Simple-minded moral heuristics are common, but sometimes other heuristics can eke out a greater moral truth. And my point is entirely, since the Enlightenment, this change is moving steadily through the population without let, as our concerns for suffering of all perceived sorts takes a dominating hold for how we decide matters, rather than the on the tribalisms of old.

    Right wing (historical) morality has always been tribal and a little complex in its assessment of identity. Its emerging alternate is with a simpler, open handed mutualism, a harms and fairness test.



    Report abuse

  • carn

    data known today is to some extent completely irrelevant to what i discuss here and to what Singer discussed then.

    Singer got it right and the data we have now corroborates his assertion then of non-sentience. We have the details.

    It is stunningly relevant to his argument and position then. The fact that he notes people believe X to be moral is not an acknowledgement from him that X is moral.

    You seem muddled as to what my argument is.



    Report abuse

  • carn #162
    Oct 6, 2018 at 2:00 am

    Just as I did earlier, Singer explains your mistake in conflating species with the individual.

    Which is precisely the point I made about conflating human tissue with human beings.

    If ‘human’ is taken as equivalent to ‘person’, the second premiss of the argument, which asserts that the foetus is a human being, is clearly false;
    for one cannot plausibly argue that a foetus is either rational or self-conscious.

    So did you not read this before posting the link?”

    Of course.

    “membership of the species Homo sapiens,

    and being a person, in the sense of a rational or self-conscious being.”

    for the first suggested meaning of “human”. Again,
    Singer is aware of this, disagrees with this and therefore
    suggest that one should argue in favor of opting for the second meaning
    .

    That is a logical conclusion based on the difference between a sentient being which is capable of an independent life, and a piece of meat or organ, which will die if it is separated from its supporting organism!

    He does not simply disagree. He points out that the assumption that human tissues are human beings, is false!

    But that cannot change, that human rights declaration opted for option one and is still understood in that sense by many born human beings.
    Maybe i am far more aware about these characteristics than you think;
    it is just that i also opt for option 1,
    that for example in human rights declaration the term “human” is about species membership.

    Could you quote the section of the declaration which makes this statement – assuming that you haven’t just made that up as personal whimsical belief! You said earlier that reference to the “unborn” was notable by its absence from the declaration!

    carn – @#154 – (And please: do not discuss viability; something can very well be a living organism without being viable; and i am talking about 6th week after conception, so comparisons to single cells are of no interest)

    But single cells are the same species and contain the same DNA of the species, so when exactly do you think that single cells become sentient human beings? You can’t resolve issues by simply declaring a lack of interest and refusing to look at them!

    We should of course remember, that other human cells could become sentient human beings by a process of cloning, so cells from part of that amputated leg could become a human being!
    In many species, cloned parts do become new individuals. – but that is biology!

    The moral reality is, that real born humans are suffering, living in poverty, and dying, while obstructive anti-abortionists bicker over words which they don’t seem to understand!



    Report abuse

  • @Phil

    “Yes, he identifies a historical moral error. But how is that not my concern also?”

    You seem to think that the today knowledge about development proves that there is a moral error.

    If the choice would be – as you suggest – between “tribal” thinking and “concerns for suffering”, then evidence which entities can suffer cannot show “tribal” thinking to be wrong; such evidence would only alter who someone adhering to the latter would care about; it cannot show the former to be wrong.

    What one can try – and that is what Singer aims at – is to convince someone via appeal to his compassion by showing him with evidence that this or that entity does/does not suffer.

    @Alan
    “That is a logical conclusion based”

    In isn’t a logical conclusion. There are two different uses of “human being” suggested by Singer; he does not show one of them to be false. He just prefers one of them.

    To show one of the uses wrong, one would have to start from a definition of the term “human being”; but these two options are just competing definitions. Showing that one definition is wrong based on the other definition is pointless, cause that is to be expected in case of competing definitions.

    “Could you quote the section of the declaration which makes this statement”

    As with any legal document, definition of terms often have to derived from the document.

    http://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/

    We have two options:

    The declaration uses human as being a person, in the sense of a rational or self-conscious being.
    The declaration uses human as membership of the species Homo sapiens.

    If these is any passage within the documents excluding one of them, but no passage excluding the other, the not excluded one is the one meant, unless one could think up a third possibility.

    “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

    The writers were fully aware, that something like self-conscious beings exist (endowed with reason and conscience); they were aware that right at birth both reason and conscience is absent (that is and was common knowledge since centuries, e.g. all jurisdictions treat newborn as not capable of legally taking care of themselves and it is plainly visible that they lack the reason of adults or even children); yet they choose to declare rights beginning at latest with birth.

    =>

    Option 1 as meaning of human is not possible, as the writers were aware about lack of reason and conscious of newborns and yet awarded them the same basic rights as any older human.

    There is nothing excluding option 2.

    Hence, option 2 has to be presumed, unless someone can suggest an option 3.

    “But single cells are the same species and contain the same DNA of the species, so when exactly do you think that single cells become sentient human beings?”

    a) i do not care much, when they become “sentient” human beings; that is on the one hand due to me mainly caring when they become human beings meaning when they are organisms of the species human; and on the other hand the term “sentient” lacks both clear definition and reliably testing methods and when it comes to questions of to kill or not to kill i dislike if fuzzy terms decide

    b) based on the definitions i am aware about, i would suggest that a human being becomes sentient between about 5 months after conception (which is about 4 months before the usual date of birth) and 33 months after conception (which is about 24 months after birth).

    At what point between “sperm starts to move in search of egg to fertilize” and “is allowed to vote in elections” would without doubt exist an organism belonging to species human?

    “We should of course remember, that other human cells could become sentient human beings by a process of cloning, so cells from part of that amputated leg could become a human being!”

    At what point between “madly laughing biologists readies his equipment for cloning” and “is allowed to vote in elections” would without doubt exist an organism belonging to species human?



    Report abuse

  • carn #166
    Oct 6, 2018 at 1:03 pm

    “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.

    I think this is quite explicit that rights are post birth!

    They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.”

    While this is very explicit that sentient brain activity is included in this statement!

    “But single cells are the same species and contain the same DNA of the species, so when exactly do you think that single cells become sentient human beings?”

    a) i do not care much, when they become “sentient” human beings;

    Objective reality does not care what you choose care about, ignore, or to believe.

    that is on the one hand due to me mainly caring when they become human beings meaning when they are organisms of the species human;

    Nor do any of the medical or biological specialists care if you wish to concoct circular arguments to prop up your confused preconceptions based on your personal redefinitions of words or refusal to understand standard definitions as referenced in dictionaries and in science.

    and on the other hand the term “sentient” lacks both clear definition and reliably testing methods

    Really???
    Perhaps you should look up a dictionary in addition to some of the medical reference materials Phil referred to.

    https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Sentient+being

    sentience – n.
    1. The quality or state of being sentient; consciousness.
    2. Feeling as distinguished from perception or thought.

    What part of the meaning of “consciousness”, “feeling”, and “perception”, do you not understand? (Hint: these involve nerves and brains)

    and when it comes to questions of to kill or not to kill i dislike if fuzzy terms decide

    There is nothing “fuzzy” about the definition of “sentience” or the medical evidence of the stages embryonic brain development and activity, or the acquisition of sensory perception – except in your personal ignorance of the subject!

    organism belonging to species human?

    Organisms are capable of independent living.
    Until they are capable of independent living, they are part of the parent organism.

    So let’s get down to some basic biology:
    https://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/an-introduction-to-nutrition/s07-01-the-basic-structural-and-funct.html

    Tissues, Organs, Organ Systems, and Organisms

    Unicellular (single-celled) organisms can function independently, but the cells of multicellular organisms are dependent upon each other and are organized into five different levels in order to coordinate their specific functions and carry out all of life’s biological processes.

    Cells. Cells are the basic structural and functional unit of all life. Examples include red blood cells and nerve cells.
    Tissues. Tissues are groups of cells that share a common structure and function and work together. There are four types of human tissues: connective, which connects tissues; epithelial, which lines and protects organs; muscle, which contracts for movement and support; and nerve, which responds and reacts to signals in the environment.
    Organs. Organs are a group of tissues arranged in a specific manner to support a common physiological function. Examples include the brain, liver, and heart.
    Organ systems. Organ systems are two or more organs that support a specific physiological function. Examples include the digestive system and central nervous system. There are eleven organ systems in the human body (see Table 3.1 “The Eleven Organ Systems in the Human Body and Their Major Functions”).
    Organism. – An organism is the complete living system capable of conducting all of life’s biological processes.

    A foetus is not capable of “conducting all of life’s biological processes”, until shortly before, or after birth!

    As you will see from data provided earlier in this discussion, (except in medical emergencies), nobody is suggesting abortions at this late stage when the foetus qualifies as an independent organism.



    Report abuse

  • carn

    “Error” would better have been rendered as “deficiency”.

    Indeed in The Righteous Mind Jonathan Haidt does indeed identify right-wing-distinguishing morality as comprising the three tribal heuristics of loyalty to the group, subjection to the leader and the sacredness of instituions/the office. These indeed occupy the space where more developed morals are now found. They are primitive in how they function, drawing pretty directly from amygdala kinds of judgement calls of friend/foe identity.

    Their deficiency in the big grown up world we now inhabit requires far more finesse in how we dole out our concerns. We have learned how to apply our prefrontal cortex to moral considerations rather than just our pre-mammal judging kit. Our mammal kit, gave us nurturing and harm reading apparatus. We understand empathy.

    Morality of whatever level of development is always eventually reciprocal. A harms and fairness, suffering-based morality founded upon empathy and its more intellectual buttressing of sympathy’n’compassion reaches wider than tribes and rewards from wider than tribes. It better ensures we are treated with compassion, it wastes less effort (e.g. on non-suffering non-persons), but it far more effectively weeds out the parasite/bullies, the psychopaths, the kleptocrats, than that which seeks to win your hearts by appealing merely to ingroup and against outgroup identities. That is an antique heuristic based on an antique amygdala, hopelessly out of its depth in a modern world.



    Report abuse

  • @Alan:

    “While this is very explicit that sentient brain activity is included in this statement!”

    Unlike it seems to be with you, i have both knowledge regarding science and laws; and human rights declaration clearly awards rights independent or nearly independent upon brain activity as long as it is a human being that is not dead.

    “Objective reality does not care what you choose care about, ignore, or to believe.”

    Objective reality is, that a human being might lack sentience; hence, one has to distinguish between human being having sentience and those lacking it.

    Human rights declaration declares rights for both sentient and non-sentient human beings.

    Is it hard to understand, that “sentient human being” is not exactly the same as “human being”?

    The definition you link for sentience is recursive and/or uses another undefined term (consciousness).

    Maybe it would help, if you could just name the month after conception and/or birth (whichever suits you) in which in case of normal development the human being becomes sentient; then i can at least deduce what you think the definition is.

    “So let’s get down to some basic biology:”

    Good idea.

    https://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/an-introduction-to-nutrition/s07-01-the-basic-structural-and-funct.html

    In that link:
    “Independent single-celled organisms must conduct all the basic processes of life: it must take in nutrients (energy capture), excrete wastes, detect and respond to its environment, move, breathe, grow, and reproduce. Even a one-celled organism must be organized to perform these essential processes.”

    “A foetus is not capable of “conducting all of life’s biological processes”, until shortly before, or after birth!”

    Then surely you could name, which of “take in nutrients (energy capture), excrete wastes, detect and respond to its environment, move, breathe, grow, and reproduce” the embryo is at six weeks unable to do; and i presume you are aware that “breath” in that text is not about a functional lung, as the text directly next talks about single cell organism, which obviously “breath” not in the sense of having a functioning lung.

    So which one of “life’s biological processes” are embryos unable to conduct?

    “Organisms are capable of independent living.”

    The link you provided as supposedly evidence does not indicate, that an organism must be capable of independent living; it only requires independent functioning, not independent living.

    That by the way is very obvious by looking at parasitic organisms; per definition these are unable to live independently; yet they are organisms; hence, independent living is not a necessary characteristic of an organism.

    @phil

    I disagree with you implication, that a certain brain use/development necessarily leads to preference of certain ethics; i think we simply do not yet understand what intelligence is (from which ethics arise) to do anything much beyond guessing.

    With the rest i just have a different opinion.

    I think that basing ethics on avoidance of suffering and including non-human suffering into that, will not produce a stable human society.



    Report abuse

  • carns

    Dissenting is not good enough. Now you have to argue why basing morals on in-group and-out group identities will work; why tribal scale heuristics will work better with 12 billion people.

    You may not be up to speed on the latest understanding on intelligence, but believe me in the last ten years thanks to fMRI and a number of other techniques understanding has rocketed. A good lay book is David Eagleman, Incognito.

    The truth is conservatives simply want to be left behind. You have a good enough brain. You needn’t be.



    Report abuse

  • carn #169
    Oct 6, 2018 at 6:12 pm

    Unlike it seems to be with you, i have both knowledge regarding science and laws; and human rights declaration clearly awards rights independent or nearly independent upon brain activity as long as it is a human being that is not dead

    Making an assertion is very different to demonstrating an ability or understanding!

    @#167 – Tissues, Organs, Organ Systems, and Organisms

    Someone with a knowledge of the science of biology, would not be in denial of the meaning of basic terms such as tissue and organism!

    All you are demonstrating is the Humpty-Dumptyism of reinterpreting words to mean whatever you want them to mean!

    In that link:


    “Independent single-celled organisms must conduct all the basic processes of life: it must take in nutrients (energy capture), excrete wastes, detect and respond to its environment, move, breathe, grow, and reproduce. Even a one-celled organism must be organized to perform these essential processes.”

    “A foetus is not capable of “conducting all of life’s biological processes”, until shortly before, or after birth!”

    Then surely you could name, which of “take in nutrients (energy capture), excrete wastes, detect and respond to its environment, move, breathe, grow, and reproduce” the embryo is at six weeks unable to do;

    Depending on its stage of development it can’t do most of those things.

    Its nutrients and respiration are fed to it through the placenta, and wastes are removed through the placenta! The fact that you have to ask about basic functions such as these, shows a profound lack of basic understanding!

    and i presume you are aware that “breath” in that text is not about a functional lung,

    Breath in any mammal is very much about functioning lungs.

    as the text directly next talks about single cell organism, which obviously “breath” not in the sense of having a functioning lung.

    It uses the term “breath” because it is discussing a mammalian system, for which this is the normal mode of respiration. Single cells usually respire by diffusion. There is no “standard form” of respiration in biological organisms. Some depend on chemosynthesis, and do not even use oxygen.
    However when dealing with multicellular ORGANS and TISSUES, oxygen, nutrients, and wastes are supplied from, and removed by, the blood and dealt with in a different part of the body! – In the case of embryos, the mother’s body.

    So which one of “life’s biological processes” are embryos unable to conduct?

    Do you really know so little about the subject that you have to ask?

    The link you provided as supposedly evidence does not indicate, that an organism must be capable of independent living; it only requires independent functioning, not independent living.

    You really do struggle with basic comprehension of words, in your contorted attempts at denial!

    Biological functioning IS living! Ceasing biological functioning is DEAD!

    Earlier, I asked if your mind was closed to evidence!
    The answer is becoming increasingly obvious!

    What is more of concern is your giving priority to the preservation of bits of mindless tissue, over the suffering, welfare and health, of sentient human women and their families.



    Report abuse

  • What is more of concern is your giving priority to the preservation of bits of mindless tissue, over the suffering, welfare and health, of sentient human women and their families.

    This is the very crux of the problem for conservatives like carn. The dismissal of the suffering of extant others for some future possibility of personhood.

    How could this have come about? Maybe…

    The discounting of other’s suffering through dogmatic culture is the trick of the right to unhook inconvenient caring. Those pesky evolved traits of empathy, putting you at risk of being stolen from. Prefer kids, unmade lives as still co-opt-able to the conservative/religious tribe, over the already made and lost?

    A side note on cultural evolutionary elements. These don’t need to be at all conscious elements to affect and evolve. (“Memes” are not our individual ideas.) Cultural parasites (cultural manipulators) depend on this.



    Report abuse

  • carn #169
    Oct 6, 2018 at 6:12 pm

    Unlike it seems to be with you, i have both knowledge regarding science and laws;

    . . . .

    The link you provided as supposedly evidence does not indicate, that an organism must be capable of independent living; it only requires independent functioning, not independent living.

    @#171 – Biological functioning IS living! Ceasing biological functioning is DEAD!

    The link I provided is BASIC school textbook information, on a subject you profess to understand and demonstrably don’t, while pretending to be better informed than myself as a biologist.

    Many people on this site understand the D-K Effect which leads to such false confidence in those who cling to, and repeat, tiny scraps of simplistic misinformation and fallacies, they have bought into!



    Report abuse

  • carn #169
    Oct 6, 2018 at 6:12 pm

    Is it hard to understand, that “sentient human being” is not exactly the same as “human being”?

    Errr:- is not exactly the same as human tissue!

    The definition you link for sentience is recursive and/or uses another undefined term (consciousness).

    In terms of the existence of nerve and brain cells and their functioning, the terms “conscious”, “unconscious”, “sub-conscious”, “non-conscious”, and “autonomous”, are clearly understood by those educated in medical science and neuroscience. – Not so much by fumble-brained, fallacy professing, would-be philosophers!

    Maybe it would help, if you could just name the month after conception and/or birth (whichever suits you) in which in case of normal development the human being becomes sentient;

    The matter in the abortion debate is the period of development when embryos are clearly NOT sentient due to the lack of brain-cell development, rather than the later elaborated developments of sentient brain activities post-birth.

    You have as usual, missed and totally ignored both my reference to nerve cells, and the earlier Medline link to embryonic and foetal stages of development, which state the sequence and time-line of organ development, in favour of side-tracking the issues with semantic obfuscation and bickering over Humpty-Dumpty interpretations of words.

    then i can at least deduce what you think the definition is.

    Until you take medical reference materials and dictionary definitions seriously, it is unlikely that you will be able to rationally deduce anything, but will continue to concoct a smoke-screen of side-tracking circular arguments, in attempts to prop up your confused indoctrinated misconceptions, self delusions, and self-distractions, to avoid looking at the real material issues!

    So summing up your position:-
    The health, welfare, pain and suffering, of sentient human individuals should be subordinated to the interests of (not necessarily viable) human cell tissues, (SEE: The death of Savita Halappanavar @#157 ) which you assert to be “organisms” in the face of the standard medical and biological definitions of organisms, and lacking the capabilities required in those standard definitions. (SEE: #167 + #171)

    It seems to me that by your definitions, you have just taken up as “moral stance” in determining medical decisions, a position of asserting the right to life, and protection from doctors, of those poor little innocent human (species) host-dependent cancer tissue tumour cells, despite any deleterious effects they may have on sentient human beings!

    Such flawed positions are a usual result, of the types of thinking from unevidenced preconceptions, which you have demonstrated.



    Report abuse

  • @phil 170:

    The question of how mankind would develop if the currently dominant speciesist position – that humans have rights and most other creatures none or at least a lot less and that the rights of humans are rather independent of the neurological capabilities of a given human – is replaced by the position you prefer – that rights/protection are independet of species and nearly exclusively depend on neurolocial capabilies – cannot be resolved through discussion/exchange of arguments, as it is about trying to estimate how mankind would develop under a never observed fundamental change.

    Economist are unable to know how the economic development in 2 years will be; hence, when we make estimates about the above scenario spanning at least decades, we are guessing. And arguments cannot resolve, which guess is the correct one.

    @phil 172:

    “The dismissal of the suffering of extant others for some future possibility of personhood.”

    What makes you think i dismiss suffering of born human beings?

    Speciesism is about human beings having due to species membership certain rights, worth, etc. Under speciesist regime it is normal to care about the suffering of born human beings.

    The suffering of dolphins is of lesser concern.

    @Alan 171:

    “Its nutrients and respiration are fed to it through the placenta, and wastes are removed through the placenta!”

    Congrats, then the embryo is capable of independently picking up its nutrients and respiration at the placenta and is capable of independently bringing its wastes to the placenta.

    “shows a profound lack of basic understanding!”

    I have a profund lack of understanding how you understand these words. How you could even have the idea to argue, that the embryo being capable of picking up/depositing substances at the placenta al by itself is yet unable of independent functioning. Seems like you have some use of the word “independent” differently from my use, cause whenever something is able to do anything all by itself, it has some independent functionality.

    And – because you are probably not aware about this side aspect of definition problem – born humans just differ, where they pick up/deposit their nutrients/waste. A new born baby for example is only capable of picking up nutrients placed in its mouth; a young adult might be already capable to collect nutrients at the next supermarket.

    All are capable of some independent functioning, just in a different extent.

    Maybe this argument of mine about “independent” is wrong, at least in respect to the usual definition of independent in biology.

    But so far in this discussion no definition was offered; and from discussions with other people also from the field of biology, i noticed a strong tendency to never offer a definition, that would lead to unborn at some stage incapable of independent functioning but would still mean that the newborn is capabl of independt functioning.

    But such a definition you need, if you want to claim that a newborn is an organism, while at some stage of development the embryo/fetus isn’t.

    “Do you really know so little about the subject that you have to ask?”

    I know enough so that from my view the following is done by embryo at 6 weeks:

    “take in nutrients (energy capture), excrete wastes,” “breath, grow” (as described above, the embryo does this through the connection to the plazenta, while i do those things through mouth etc.; but as long as at the plazenta/in my mouth the necessary stuff arrives both me and the embryo continue with our heartbeat, cell activity, etc.)

    at 14 weeks at latest the following is also present:

    “move”

    at 18 weeks at latest the following is also present:
    “detect and respond to its environment” (while they cannot survive if born at 18 weeks, they react in the short time they live to touch, etc. meaning there is capability to detect and respond at 18 weeks, as this capability is not developed in the magic birth canal, but must already be present inside the womb; its just that touch detection inside there might be of little use; but the ability is there)

    It is only not yet able to “reproduce”, but newborn babys are unable to do that as well yet are still organisms, hence for that it is sufficient if at some point in the organism life cycle it will be capable of reproduction; hence, embryo meets this criteria as well.

    We could shorten this discussions a lot, if you would answer a question i already asked and which should be EASY to answer for a biologist:

    At what point of the development is there definitve and without doubt an organism in existance?

    conception, implantation, 6, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 40 weeks, with the beginning of birth, with the end of birth, 6 monaths after birth, 1 year, 2 year, 18 years, 21 years, just pick.

    You are a biologist; you should be able to answer the question, whether there is an organism.
    @Alan 173:

    “Errr:- is not exactly the same as human tissue!”

    Of course, human tissue is something different than both sentient human beings and non-sentient human beings. it is just that you constantly dodge the issue, if non-sentient human beings exist.

    I claim they exist, human newborns are human beings but are non-sentient. You agree?

    “In terms of the existence of nerve and brain cells and their functioning, the terms “conscious”,”

    The undefined term is “consciousness” not “conscious”.

    “Until you take medical reference materials and dictionary definitions seriously”

    You know what a constance experience of mine is in absolutely any field, in which i have enough expertise to judge whether other people are experts or just bumbling along with limit real understanding although having degrees?

    That actual experts just answer for their field simple questions, besides deriding the one questioning about his/her lack of competence/knowledge. The rest regularly dances around simple questions and just try to put the one asking the question down.

    At what stage of human development there is an organism is or should be a simple question of biology; and yet you do not want to answer the question.

    Besides, i do take them seriously. As described above, at least in the later stages of pregnancy the unborn shows all characteristics of an organism that newborns alo show.

    You do not seem to take them seriously, cause although i am constantly discussing the issue whether an unborn is an organism, you talk about being sentient, which IS NOT a characteristic of an organism.

    “So summing up your position:”

    Poor reasoning to conclude from me not commenting about Savita Halappanavar, that i want to subordinate the well being of born human beings to that of unborn. And as long as you fail to narrow down in any way at what point of development an organism being a member of species human comes into existance, your argument that my dating – at latest end of implantation – is unconvincing.

    “Such flawed positions are a usual result, of the types of thinking from unevidenced preconceptions,”

    As you draw unsupposrted conclusions about my position, your evaluation of my position is deeply flawed – even in case my position has its own flaws.



    Report abuse

  • carn

    trying to estimate how mankind would develop under a never observed fundamental change

    Cultures never look before they leap. It is indeed too complex in the end to know the full consequences of policy change. Changing from dogma based policy making to reason based policy making in the US has resulted it a very substantial theocratic type push-back, so anxious are folk (and so lied to). Thought experiments can only take you so far. Much better are the experiences of further progressed cultures, corroborating mooted virtues of new policy.

    As I have repeatedly pointed out people are already changing their attitudes. It is my children’s generation that are leading the way. Less indoctrinated they are more various in their beliefs and the reasonableness of suffering as a test of harms and fairness gets applied with fewer discounts. The experiment is running already and its outcomes are starting to be realised. People like themselves more. The new heuristics create less internal conflict. Patriotism for what might be rather than what was, repairs that heuristic too.

    Culture evolves. The codification of rights is a day job that will never actually go away.

    Take care of solipsism. The Russians long ago proposed Comrade Dolphin. Its already too late to stop people intuiting animal harm and having compassion.



    Report abuse

  • carn #175
    Oct 9, 2018 at 3:30 am

    @Alan 171:

    “Its nutrients and respiration are fed to it through the placenta, and wastes are removed through the placenta!”

    Congrats, then the embryo is capable of independently picking up its nutrients and respiration at the placenta and is capable of independently bringing its wastes to the placenta.

    You really are profoundly ignorant of basic biological processes, but full of words you fail to understand!
    The placenta is the ORGAN in placental mammals which acts as a life support interface between the embryo and the mother’s bloodstream. once implanted the blastocyst becomes an embryo, and without the exchanges in the placenta, is dead!

    “shows a profound lack of basic understanding!”

    You certainly do!

    I have a profound lack of understanding how you understand these words.

    Yep! and a profound lack of understanding what those words describe!

    How you could even have the idea to argue, that the embryo being capable of picking up/depositing substances at the placenta all by itself is yet unable of independent functioning.

    Its as easy as arguing that a red blood cell can pick up oxygen from the lungs, but is incapable of independent functioning as a separate organism.

    The embryo can’t function without the placenta just as it can’t function without the mother! It is totally DEPENDENT on both!

    Seems like you have some use of the word “independent” differently from my use,

    Yep! I definitely don’t think INDEPENDENT means DEPENDENT! – But then I don’t use Humpty-Dumpty interpretations of words!

    whenever something is able to do anything all by itself, it has **some* independent functionality.

    Nope! SOME is not ALL! Independent functionality does not mean a little bit of function on a tiny fraction of the overall functions required.

    We could shorten this discussions a lot,
    if you would answer a question i already asked
    and which should be EASY to answer for a biologist:

    At what point of the development is there definitve and without doubt an organism in existance?

    In the case of a human, it is when it is capable of surviving independent of the placenta and the mother with its life supporting organs developed and operating. That’s what “independent biological function” means! Individual cases vary.

    Of course, human tissue is something different than both sentient human beings and non-sentient human beings. it is just that you constantly dodge the issue, if non-sentient human beings exist.

    Non sentient humans are the brain-dead dependent on life-support machines – awaiting the doctors to confirm their condition and turn the machines off. They are usually incapable of independent feeding or breathing, so are dying organisms in the process of losing their capability to live.

    I claim they exist, human newborns are human beings but are non-sentient. You agree?

    You can claim what you like, but it will still be nonsense!
    Newborns have partially developed sentience, are definitely conscious, and have sensory feelings and an active brain. As I explained earlier, pretending that continuous development processes have black and white boundaries is a fallacy! Black is NOT white because we allegedly have difficulty with putting a boundary on shades of grey!

    At what stage of human development there is an organism,
    is or should be a simple question of biology;
    and yet you do not want to answer the question.

    I have already answered that question for the second time!.

    besides, i do take them seriously. As described above, at least in the later stages of pregnancy the unborn shows all characteristics of an organism that newborns also show.

    . . . . Which I pointed out as the reason abortions are done during the early stages of pregnancy when the situation is clearer.

    You do not seem to take them seriously, cause although i am constantly discussing the issue whether an unborn is an organism, you talk about being sentient, which IS NOT a characteristic of an organism.

    It IS a characteristic of a HUMAN organism, which is DEPENDENT on brain and neurological function, in order to independently remain alive.
    It is not a characteristic of some other forms of organism, which do not have structured brains or multicellular bodies, but that is irrelevant both to the issue and to the definition.

    “So summing up your position:”

    Poor reasoning to conclude from me not commenting about Savita Halappanavar, that i want to subordinate the well being of born human beings to that of unborn.

    Not really! it follows logically from your various statements and your lack of a response to that post.

    “Such flawed positions are a usual result, of the types of thinking from unevidenced preconceptions,”

    As you draw unsupposrted conclusions about my position, your evaluation of my position is deeply flawed –

    Assertions do not make it so!

    My conclusions about cancer cells, are far from “unsupported”. They are derived directly from your claims about “the right to life” human tissue, and your flawed definitions of human tissues as “human beings!
    Cancer cells are as dependent on drawing support from the human body, as the embryo is from the mother. In ovarian cancer, they may even be the same types of cell!

    “Until you take medical reference materials and dictionary definitions seriously”

    You know what a constance experience of mine is in absolutely any field, in which i have enough expertise to judge whether other people are experts or just bumbling along with limit real understanding although having degrees?

    This self-delusion is the root of your inability to learn from presented evidence, and your dogged entrenched position defending your mistaken preconceptions, and lack of understanding of the precise definitions used for technical terminology!

    The inability of those with limited ability in a subject, to properly evaluate their own capabilities (or lack of them) and expert advice, is a well known psychological phenomena! – As this link clearly explains.
    https://www.verywellmind.com/an-overview-of-the-dunning-kruger-effect-4160740



    Report abuse

  • Sorry, carn. I didn’t complete my argument for why you can talk about the future of mooted “new” policy.

    So

    “never observed”

    is untrue. It is not wholly new. Harms to sub-human LGBT folk (killed and locked up for their failure as acceptable humans) acknowledged as harmed and suffering (even by some religious groups in the UK in the sixties) changed rights and changed attitudes with a growing familiarity with their person-hood. In the UK there is now a 90% acceptance of abortion at least for some reasons after many decades of coming to terms with the fact that no person is actually harmed with the process as constrained by law.

    The complexities of specifically parasitised societies makes it difficult for you, but not impossible, to observe the sheer contingency of your position.



    Report abuse

  • carn #175
    Oct 9, 2018 at 3:30 am

    So summing up your position:

    Poor reasoning to conclude from me not commenting about Savita Halappanavar,
    that i want to subordinate the well being of born human beings to that of unborn.

    While you CLAIM it is poor reasoning to deduce from your absence of a reply discussing the material issues around the Savita Halappanavar case, . . . . and for that matter the absence of addressing all the other key issues around abortion bans damaging women’s health, adding more babies to impoverished families which are already starving, adding to the work-load of already overloaded parents and causing babies to be born into a very short life of suffering and starvation in refugee camps, or forcing rape victims to bear the child of their rapists, your argument is essentially:

    “Abortion is wrong, because: I have no idea about biology or its terminology, and can’t comprehend the wording of legal documents”, but in spite of reference information supplied, erroneously assert that human tissues are independent human beings.

    Your arguments might be more convincing, if you provided some views on practical ideas for dealing with these ignored real-world issues, rather than concocting semantic word-waffle illustrating your ignorance of the subject!



    Report abuse

  • carn #175
    Oct 9, 2018 at 3:30 am

    That actual experts just answer for their field simple questions, besides deriding the one questioning about his/her lack of competence/knowledge.

    I see that following from your numerous assertions disputing expert information given, a week on – and you still have no comments to offer on the practical real life issues outlined @#179 and @#177.



    Report abuse

  • I see the “pro-disability” lobby is having information on Downs Syndrome problems, witheld from families!

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-45722880

    A leaflet for pregnant women who opt for Down’s syndrome screening has been scrapped after it was criticised for overly focusing on medical problems their baby could face.

    The information was produced to accompany a non-invasive prenatal test (NIPT) for chromosomal conditions which was rolled out by NHS Wales in April.

    Campaigners said pregnant women were being “pushed towards terminations”.

    The Welsh Government said parents were given information to make choices.

    NIPT can safely screen for genetic conditions such as Down’s syndrome, Edwards’ syndrome and Patau’s syndrome with more than 98% accuracy in the first three months of pregnancy.

    But only an invasive amniocenteses test, which carries up to a 2% risk of miscarriage, can confirm a diagnosis.

    While the initial leaflet was poorly sesigned, the new one is misleading!

    The new leaflet has altered some information about medical problems such as heart conditions and cataracts.

    It also states children with Down’s syndrome “lead healthy and fulfilled lives” and added that many go on to work and live in their own accommodation.

    .. . . and of course many cannot and do not! – and have some very nasty health complications.



    Report abuse

  • They are being pushed towards compassion and away from selfishness.

    No decent person would inflict a life of known brevity and illness upon another.

    We should have nothing but admiration for mothers/parents of trisomy21 kids prepared to devote their lives to their service.

    We should have nothing nut admiration for the bravery and achievement of those kids. They have an important role in society by their example.

    But now we can see it is indecent to knowingly inflict a role by birth.

    Best not.



    Report abuse

  • Alan

    From your link, the original leaflet is inadequate. It does point out that there are medical issues associated with Downs but doesn’t go far enough with that. All known medical issues must be disclosed to a patient no matter how uncomfortable the patient finds it and no matter how uncomfortable society finds this disclosure. I seriously question the use of a leaflet for this purpose. I suppose they are using the leaflet to prompt questions by the patients to medical staff but surely the medical professionals are the right choice for discussions of risks and issues around raising a Downs child or a child with any other medical or psychological condition.

    The second leaflet isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

    It would be useful to have the conversation with the medical professional first and come away with facts in the most objective way we possibly can. Then, it could be desirable to have the prospective parents spend time talking with and observing support group members dealing with their own Downs kids. This would add information but not necessarily objective information.

    Advice and information about the medical side of raising a Downs child is necessary and proper medical procedure but what about the psychological side of things? The disclosure mentions nothing about that.

    Any parent who raises a child with issues that are medical or psychological must realize that they are operating under a much heavier load of stress than other parents. There is a constant worry over the welfare of the child and an exhausting schedule of therapists and appointments. This grueling schedule leads straight to mommy burnout and often turns into resentment toward the dads who are viewed as getting off easy because they go off to work every day. This sets up a very negative dynamic in a relationship. Dads say that somebody has to make money and obviously that is true. It’s hard to criticize dads who are devoted to their jobs and career and take their responsibilities seriously and with all the therapies involved in raising a kid with issues, no one would deny that extra money is needed and can really make a positive difference for that kid, but still, we now have a mom who will have a hard time working herself and will be left with the brunt of the care of a challenging child.

    Medical and psychological therapies and dealing with difficult school issues are mostly negative in feeling. Other parents are judgmental and blame moms for the “bad behavior” of their children. Other moms may steer their own children away from a child with issues leaving a medically or psychologically challenged child and his/her parent socially isolated.

    So parents and especially moms of kids with issues suffer substantial stress in raising them but also, what about the siblings of a kid with issues? While the parents hopefully have a choice in whether or not to proceed with the pregnancy of a trisomy child, what choice did the siblings have? None, but of course they have to grow up sharing their parents’ attention with a very demanding new sibling. Siblings already compete for more than their fair share of parental investment but when a new sibling arrives in the mix with a medical or psychological problem then let’s face it, that challenged sibling will monopolize the attention of its parents to the detriment of other offspring.

    To be blunt, parents should be advised that it will be difficult to give other offspring their fair share of time and attention. Siblings of children with issues can experience serious resentment for lack of parental attention and for having to help care for the ill child and for having to run interference for that child socially in school and in the neighborhood.

    For more on parental investment here’s the Wiki page.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parent%E2%80%93offspring_conflict

    Due to unforeseen stress that goes along with raising a medically or psychologically challenged child, parents are at higher than average risk of divorce and siblings of the affected child will deal with stress, resentment and possibly benign neglect. These are the psychological facts that ought to be included in any proper disclosure conversation around this issue.

    It’s not right to evade these facts just because of a right to life ideological opposition to abortion. Leaving out any medical or psychological information in these cases would indicate a significant bias toward anti-abortion agenda but of course we have the religious ideologues fretting and whining over disclosure of truth because it might cause the abortion of a “baby” who has more right to live than its own mother and must be brought into this world no matter how much suffering results from it.



    Report abuse

  • When I was at school in the 70s I joined the Social Services program. It was either that or the army corps and I didn’t fancy running around at night in fatigues waving a gun at people. I got assigned to visit a girl with Down Syndrome once a week. I’d bike over to their house in Watford on my moped and they had a net that clipped to the kitchen table and we’d play table tennis for an hour. She wasn’t very good at it but she loved the attention. I remember her mum telling me that Downs kids didn’t often live past their 30s back then and she was already 30 something so it was a big worry. I understand the expected lifespan is 50 to 60 now with modern medical care. She was a lovely girl, always happy and laughing but with the mental age of a small child. It was 1976 so both she and her parents will be long dead now but I still think about them from time to time and wonder how long she lived.



    Report abuse

  • LaurieB #183
    Oct 27, 2018 at 7:43 am

    From your link, the original leaflet is inadequate. It does point out that there are medical issues associated with Downs but doesn’t go far enough with that.

    Yes the first effort was poor, so the delusionists cut out the bits which WERE of use!
    There are parents who devote their lives to their Down’s child, but I sometimes detect an attitude of “We like keeping our dependent pet”, rather than thinking about the big picture and thinking about suffering with disabilities.

    There was an long earlier discussion on RDFS which includes an exchange between myself and a parent of a child with Down’s Syndrome.

    https://www.richarddawkins.net/2014/08/abortion-down-syndrome-an-apology-for-letting-slip-the-dogs-of-twitterwar/



    Report abuse

  • That was a tremendous thread, Alan. I think it was one for the site to be proud of. “Elisabeth” was excellent (though I disagreed on some stuff.) It crystallised many of my views in the area.

    A pity the formatting was lost…



    Report abuse

  • I see that the once Catholic dominated Irish Republic, is putting some of its theocratic laws behind it and moving into the world of modern medicine!

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46558431
    A bill to legalise abortion services in the Republic of Ireland has passed all stages of the Oireachtas (Irish Parliament).
    On Thursday evening the report and final stages of the bill passed in the Seanad (Irish Senate), reports Irish Broadcaster RTÉ.

    The Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy Bill will now be given to the President to be signed into law.

    The Republic of Ireland overturned its abortion ban in a referendum in May.

    The Seanad spent nine hours debating the bill on Thursday.

    The Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy Bill allows for abortion services to be provided “on demand” up to the 12th week of a pregnancy, in the case of a fatal foetal abnormality or where the physical or mental health of the mother is in danger.

    Since the bill’s introduction at first stage in October, there have been some minor changes, including a decision to review the legislation after three years, rather than five years as was originally planned.

    Two different doctors will be allowed to assess a woman in early pregnancy and the offences section has been moved from the front of the bill.


    Report abuse

  • Alan
    The Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy Billallows for abortion services to be provided “on demand” up to the 12th week of a pregnancy, in the case of a fatal foetal abnormality or where the physical or mental health of the mother is in danger.

    I’m pleased with the progress in Ireland on abortion rights but I can’t be satisfied with this so called abortion “on demand” when after her demand a patient would then need a doctor to certify fetal abnormality and or physical or mental health risk of the patient. That doesn’t fit my definition of abortion on demand. I realize I live in the liberal blue state of Massachusetts but women who choose abortion here and are 24 weeks or less pregnant, can walk into a clinic, and obtain this service. Over 24 weeks and the law reads much like the Irish one will.

    https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleXVI/Chapter112/Section12M

    I know that social change must be incremental sometimes but I don’t like the possibility that this could be the policy that is set in stone. We don’t need a doctor or a shrink to know if the time is right to bring a child into the world or not. This is not rocket science. We know the questions she will ask herself; Do I have financial resources to make it through a few years of pregnancy and child care? Do I have family members and friends who will help with child care? Is my health stable enough to maintain a pregnancy? These concerns may not even be considered on a conscious level but most pregnant women are aware that with the birth of a child, their life trajectory will be altered permanently. Instead of consulting with a doctor about the stupid concerns of the Irish law, she’d be better off visiting the social services office to see what support she can get from the government. She should talk it over with her own mom, father of the child, sisters and friends to ascertain whether or not she has the resources to see the pregnancy through to a good outcome.

    If a pregnant woman wants to consult a medical professional then she’s free to do so on her own. When the law forces her to do so then it opens the possibility that she could be coerced or influenced to maintain the pregnancy against her own best interests. It also wastes time and this is a method used by anti-choice forces here in the States. Drag it out with red tape and other impediments and let the weeks tick on by until she gives up entirely and becomes ineligible for abortion by hitting the 25 week mark.

     

    Abortion on demand means we make our own calculations regarding the timing and paternity of our future children and use the best medical care available to manage our reproductive choices.


    Report abuse

  • LaurieB; says: –
    I know that social change must be incremental sometimes. . . .

    Hopefully, the provision for a review after 3 years, is the next step along the way from Catholic theocracy to a modern democracy.

    There is still considerable Catholic resistance, but with an openly gay mixed-race ex doctor, who arranged the successful pro-abortion referendum, as prime minister, there is room for optimism.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/14/leo-varadkar-formally-elected-as-prime-minister-of-ireland – 14 Jun 2017

    The former GP, who came out as gay in 2015, is confirmed as taoiseach in Dáil ceremony in Dublin

    Abortion will be another big issue for Varadkar, specifically demands for a referendum on the future of the abortion Ireland law change eighth amendment” 

    The former GP, son of an Indian father and Irish mother, faces a number of challenges as he takes over the only EU country that has a land border with the UK as it prepares for Brexit.


    Report abuse

  • LaurieB #188

    The Regulation of Termination of Pregnancy Bill allows for abortion services to be provided “on demand” up to the 12th week of a pregnancy, in the case of a fatal foetal abnormality or where the physical or mental health of the mother is in danger.

    If you notice the comma after ‘pregnancy’ and the ‘or’ after ‘abnormality’ in the passage quoted, you will find that what are set out here are the three singly sufficient conditions under which an abortion is obtainable on demand: 1. up to the 12th week of a pregnancy, 2. in the case of a fatal foetal abnormality, and 3. where the physical or mental health of the mother is in danger. The provisions of this new Irish Bill do then resemble what you are accustomed to in your own fair state of Massachusetts, except for the length of time into the pregnancy.


    Report abuse

  • After seeing the recent comments, I read this thread.  At the outset, Professor Dawkins said:  “This little exchange reminded me of how extremely strongly people can feel about abortion, on both sides of the argument.”  That sentence reminded me of a good book I read on this subject some years ago – Abortion:  The Clash of Absolutes, by Laurence H. Tribe (1992).  I’m sure everyone knows, but Tribe is professor of Law at Harvard Law School, and is considered to be an expert on U.S. Constitutional law.  I read the book when it was new, but I suspect that it’s still relevant today.


    Report abuse

  • Alan,

    Interesting info on the P.M. Let’s see how he manages this.

     

    Cecil,

    Thanks so much for pointing that out! I do feel a little better about it. That one comma makes a world of difference.


    Report abuse

  • What I appear to miss is that abortion is also a practical issue.

    If  we want to reduce the numbers of abortions to a minimum -and I presume all of us want that- there is only one method that has shown to work to actually reduce the numbers: good sexual education and easy availability of contraceptives.

    What has been shown is that criminalising abortions does  not work (cf Rumania after 1968), it just goes ‘underground’ with all the associated mortality and morbidity.

    Hence I suspect that the motives of the anti-abortionists are not what they pretend to be, how else can one explain that they do not devote the major part of their efforts into sexual education and accessibility of contraceptives?


    Report abuse

  • Nicolaas

    Hence I suspect that the motives of the anti-abortionists are not what they pretend to be, how else can one explain that they do not devote the major part of their efforts into sexual education and accessibility of contraceptives?

    Well, I think you’ve hit on something there. There’s a strange disconnect between their goal and their strategy to reach their goal.

    Perhaps the reduction in the number of abortions is not their only goal or not their primary goal. Consider that if contraceptives are objectionable, abortion impossible or extremely difficult and if they do their best to limit or eliminate financial support for young women with unplanned pregnancies and their dependent children, then perhaps their real goal is to deliver harsh punishment to women who don’t follow their oppressive rules.

    Good girls guard their virginity. They marry a guy who is approved of by their parents and hopefully belongs to the same church. They produce children and devote themselves to family and homemaking. In this picture, those young women who act independently in matters of social life, sexuality, education and career are out of control and must be dealt with. Punishment is an important component of the authoritarian lifestyle. Obedience, respect and conformity is the goal.

    Compassionate parents will accept the fact that teens and young people in general will engage in sexual behavior as part of a normal life cycle. They will act impulsively and come up against consequences that they need help managing. Contraceptives and abortion are tools to deal with those consequences.

    What good does it do to punish these young people and leave them with very negative outcomes that will change the trajectory of their life to the worse outcome? That’s really a sick thing to do to someone who is just starting their life – saddle them with a child or children that they didn’t want, and increase the odds that they will live in poverty and their children with them and all because of an imaginary deity requires it.

    They think they have the monopoly on morality but in truth they can’t muddle through the most basic ethical exercise. The anti-abortion bunch is after much more than less abortions. They intend to punish women for having sex outside of sanctified guidelines.

     

     


    Report abuse

  • Further to my comment   193    Dec 20, 2018 at 3:07 pm

    I see the Irish president has now signed the abortion bill into law

    I see the law has now come into force!

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-46737593

    As of 1 January 2019, Irish abortion services are being provided by Ireland’s health service through GPs, family planning services, maternity units and hospitals across the country.

    Up to 12 weeks of pregnancy
    Where there is a risk to the life or of serious harm to the health of the pregnant person
    Where there is a condition likely to lead to the death of the foetus before or shortly after birth

    Abortion care is being provided free of charge for people normally living in Ireland.

     

     


    Report abuse

  • Continuing from #197-

    As is to be expected some of the medical services are complaining about being unprepared, having not made preparations in the preceding months.

    Currently 179  geographically spread GPs, have signed the contract and each day more GPs are signing up.

    It looks like the government is not going to pander to foot-draggers, so those who have been sitting on their hands since the referendum, are going to have to get themselves organised.

    Arranging the provisions for medical abortions, – (which probably make up the majority under 12 weeks), is not rocket science!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_abortion

    A medical abortion, also known as medication abortion, is a type of non-surgical abortion in which medication is used to bring about abortion. An oral preparation for medical abortion is commonly referred to as an abortion pill.

    Medical abortion became an alternative method of abortion with the availability of prostaglandin analogs in the 1970s and the antiprogestogen mifepristone (also known as RU-486)[1] in the 1980s.

     


    Report abuse

  • Meanwhile, in Northern Ireland, oppressive anti-abortion laws, are still causing heath problems.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-47058629
    A woman who is trying to change Northern Ireland’s abortion law, with a case based on her personal experience, has begun her High Court challenge.
    Sarah Ewart was denied an abortion in 2013, despite doctors saying her baby would not survive outside the womb.

    The 1967 Abortion Act, which liberalised the rules in Great Britain, was never extended to Northern Ireland.

    Currently, a termination is only permitted in Northern Ireland if a woman’s life is at risk or if there is a risk of permanent and serious damage to her mental or physical health.

    Rape, incest or diagnoses of fatal foetal abnormality – where medics believe that a baby will die before, during or shortly after birth – are not grounds for a legal abortion in Northern Ireland.

    The  of Theresa May’s dependence on the reactionary Protestant right-wing DUP, to to keep her in government, is not helping!

     

     

  • I will assume I am communicating with Richard Dawkins, as well as his votaries. If not, please get him on the line.  Mr. Dawkins, I will respond to your comments beginning today with the first paragraph in your 11 paragraph comment.   
    You state that the abortion issue has been ‘inflated out of all sensible proportion’.  You may not be aware but there are over 40 million abortions in the world each year.  That death-toll, and yes, if you know your science, and if you are honest, as I am sure you do and are, you will recognize and admit that abortion takes the life of living human beings. 
    You may not care about the lives of these human beings, but surely you can at least recognize that others feel strongly about the loss of life of any human being, and they feel this whether the one (or 40 million) dying can feel pain or not.  (A comatose person cannot feel pain, but we do not assume they are undeserving of respect and concern. And, of course, if feeling pain is all that matters, then we only need to find painless ways to kill people and we satisfy that concern.) 
    For those unaware of the scientific facts I quote from the editors of California MedicineThe Western Journal of Medicine, 1970 Sep; 113(3): 67–68.  (I note that the editors clearly supported the pro-choice and pro-euthanasia side of, let’s call it the “life issue”.)  The editors wrote, in part:   
    “In defiance of the long held Western ethic of intrinsic and equal value for every human life regardless of its stage, condition or status, abortion is becoming accepted by society as moral, right and even necessary. … Since the old ethic has not yet been fully displaced it has been necessary to separate the idea of abortion from the idea of killing, which continues to be socially abhorrent. The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception and is continuous whether intra- or extra-uterine until death. The very considerable semantic gymnastics which are required to rationalize abortion as anything but taking a human life would be ludicrous if they were not often put forth under socially impeccable auspices. It is suggested that this schizophrenic sort of subterfuge is necessary because while a new ethic is being accepted the old one has not yet been rejected.”
    I’m sure you also know that ultrasound and other advances in medicine have only increased our understanding that, yes, your life, and my life, and the life of everyone reading this note and all living human beings, began at conception.  The issue is, as you surely recognize, not whether individual human life begins at conception, but, rather, as the quoted editors note, whether we consider it important to protect all human life.   I do.  Many do.
    Those who do want protection extended to the unborn, believe in human rights, i.e. the rights of human beings, and believe in such right for all human beings.  If someone does not believe that all human beings are entitled to equal respect and concern, then s/he does not believe in human rights.  Perhaps what you believe in, as your comments suggest, is that we have only those rights (or liberties) which some government chooses to ‘bestow’ on us; which means, as Ronald Dworkin wrote, that we have no rights at all.   Excuse me for adding another quote but it is also relevant to your comments. H.L.A. Hart wrote in his seminal work The Concept of Law:
    “Indeed so deeply embedded in modern man is the principle that prima facie human beings are entitled to be treated alike that almost universally where the laws do discriminate by reference to such matters as colour and race, lip-service at least is still widely paid to this principle. If such discriminations are attacked they are often defended by the assertion that the class discriminated against lack, or have not yet developed, certain essential human attributes; or it may be said that, regrettable though it is, the demands of justice requiring their equal treatment must be overridden in order to preserve something held to be of greater value, which would be jeopardized if such discriminations were not made. Yet though lip-service is now general, it is certainly possible to conceive of a morality which did not resort to these often disingenuous devices to justify discrimination and inequalities, but openly rejected the principle that prima facie human beings were to be treated alike. Instead, human beings might be thought of as falling naturally and unalterably into certain classes, so that some were naturally fitted to be free and others to be their slaves or, as Aristotle expressed it, the living instruments of others.” (Hart, HLA. The Concept of Law, Oxford University Press.)
    You have added, I do not say disingenuously, the supposed criterion that someone has to feel pain before we need care about them.  In the end, I assume you are okay and would promote the use of dead fetuses or fetuses who survive abortion, for medical research, as long as they do not feel pain.  If this is your view, and excuse me if I have imputed a view to you that you do not hold, you, unfortunately, have arrived at the conclusion that the unborn can be used as the living instruments of others, like lab mice.  You will excuse me, and others who think as I do, if it is my view that no human being should be the living instrument of anyone.  Nor should any human being be killed (without justification) and disposed of through abortion, like so much trash.
    You should understand that the idea that something more than simple ‘humanness’ is needed for a human being to be valued, comes from the Judeo-Christian tradition.  The religious felt they had to separate human beings, those made in the image of their god and entitled to partake in ‘salvation’ from ‘mere’ animals, and they did this by creating the idea that human beings had a soul and that this soul manifested itself solely via the so-called and so-thought unique human capacity to reason.  It remains surprising to me that so many atheists continue to espouse positions which have, as their root, the religious dogmas these atheists so profess to hate.  
    The position that all human beings, even those yet unborn, are deserving of our equal respect and concern, is full egalitarianism, a position I assume you support, as I do. One human being’s comfort and even discomfort doesn’t trump another human being’s right to life; not if we really believe in equality.  And yes, we all have a valid right to life, even if every government in the world fails to recognize it and someone chooses to violate it. 
    You say that for many people the abortion issue (the life issue) sways ‘their vote, eclipsing things that really matter such as defence policy, economics, social welfare, health care, poverty, global warming and, indeed, conservation’.   Why do you care about global warming?  Why do you think I should?  We can do virtually anything we want to do to increase global warming today and you and I and everyone alive today will be just fine.
    Are you concerned only about the elephants? How about future elephants?  Or are you also concerned to save the planet for future people?  I am concerned about elephants and about preserving their habitat.  However, if I were only concerned about elephants, that would be a case of speciesism—an ‘ism’ you detest. 
    So, I’m also concerned with the impacts of global warming on people as well as elephants. And, as everyone living today will be just fine if we continue our global-warming course, in caring about people, I must also be concerned for the welfare of future people.  I will assume you, or some of those reading this, might also have the same concern.  On that assumption, how is it at all reasonable or and other than nonsensical to care for future, yet unidentified, merely possible persons, who have yet to be conceived, when we, at the same time, care nothing for those future persons already identified and conceived and present within the wombs of their mothers?  That would be some real schizophrenic subterfuge.
    If I receive a reasoned response to this comment, I’ll be happy to address the balance of your comment, which I respectfully suggest also suffers from some mistaken reasoning. 
     


    Report abuse

  • @ monte  #200

    ( disclaimer  – I don’t speak for Richard Dawkins)

    ….abortion takes the life of living human beings.
    You may not care about the lives of these human beings, but surely you can at least recognize that others feel strongly about the loss of life of any human being

    It’s curious but true that so many pro-forced-birthing fanatics profess such feelings,  while remaining apparently oblivious to large-scale loss of life amongst the population of actual walking talking living humans, as opposed to human cells attached to a woman’s uterine wall.

    The result has been a curious avoidance of the scientific fact, which everyone really knows, that human life begins at conception

    It’s a lott more complicated than that, and an edited cherry-picked quote resurrected from 1970 doesn’t pass muster.

     

    …it is my view that no human being should be the living instrument of anyone.  Nor should any human being be killed (without justification) and disposed of through abortion, like so much trash.

    Nor should any woman be reduced to the status of an incubator or brood mare for an unplanned, unwanted or unviable foetus, purely in the service of some archaic patriarchal religious dogma.  If you believe,  as you pretend :

    all human beings……… are deserving of our equal respect and concern,

    then out of respect for a woman’s fundamental rights it follows that apart from any other considerations, a pregnancy can only proceed with her CONSENT.

     

    I’ll be happy to address the balance of your comment, which I respectfully suggest also suffers from some mistaken reasoning.

    I believe that is what is known as  “projection”.


    Report abuse

  •  I find it strange that there are those who cannot, or will not, distinguish between an embryo, a fetus, and a fully developed human being. I don’t think the decision to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, or one that has gone tragically wrong, should be made by anyone other than those directly affected, and the ultimate decision belongs to the pregnant woman. The rest of us should keep our noses out of other people’s business.  If an abortion is determined to be the best solution, the woman should be able to access the best health care possible.  Doctors who provide reproductive healthcare should never feel threatened.  And legislators should not attempt to practice medicine.  It’s a tragedy that reproductive healthcare is becoming increasingly difficult to access. 


    Report abuse

  • ….abortion takes the life of living human beings.

     

    As has been made clear earlier in this discussion ….abortion takes the life of living human TISSUE.

    Cleaning you teeth also kills human cells, and many cells are routinely replaced in the body throughout life.

    Those who do not know the difference between human beings and human tissue, really should not be interfering in medical decisions – particularly if the basis for their views is doctrine  or mythology, rather than any  knowledge of biology or medicine.

     


    Report abuse

  • Monte

     

    Personhood and the ability to suffer emerge very late in the course of foetal development. Arguably none is yet present at birth. At 27weeks, though 10% of our brain is developed (grey matter only), apart from a little fishy thread of brainstem and optic nerve, none of this is hooked up. No synaptic coupling has begun. Indeed all important white matter coupling only begins after birth when a supply of lipids (from milk), makes this possible.

    Humans are astonishingly pre-mature with far less of their brain built at birth than any other animal at 28%. (Chimps, our nearest relative have 50%). Entire brain regions have yet to be built and these are rapidly assembled in an 18 month period of explosive growth, post partum, which then must be cut back, pruned, into some sort of useful shape. The terrible twos mark this confusing period, but by three some sort of final order is achieved and biographical memories can at last be reliably formed having a stable brain architecture to be mapped back to.

    Pain response is clearly not present at 30weeks in grossly pre-mature infants, having only brain stem related one or two neural step reflexes present.

    Suffering (that distinction from pain that marks higher animals) involves the ability to introspect on past pain or harms and anticipated pain or harms. It is notable that adverse childhood harms, maltreatment, have no legacy for the adult to come if encountered before the age of two. Later such harms can devastate a life.

     

    Before 27 weeks there is no rational reason to imagine personhood is present in a foetus. Abortion laws leave substantial margins of error over the issue. Bodily autonomy for the pregnant women (being a person and suffering) must always precede any concerns for a non-sentient non-suffering foetus. After birth, though personhood and the capacity to suffer is still highly contentious, there is not the least remaining need for such considerations and the positive bonds a baby will undoubtedly elicit in the world as personhood slowly emerges, makes them treasurable.


    Report abuse

  • Meanwhile the inhumanity and ignorance of forced birthers remains sickening…

     

    https://friendlyatheist.patheos.com/2019/03/07/an-11-year-olds-forced-birth-in-argentina-shows-the-cruelty-of-pro-lifers/

    The authorities ignored repeated requests for an abortion from the child, called “Lucía” to protect her identity, as well as her mother and a number of Argentine women’s right activists. After 23 weeks of pregnancy, she had to undergo a procedure similar to a caesarean section on Tuesday. The baby is unlikely to survive.

  • @ Alan4discussion 204
    I will be as polite as possible while still being accurate:  You say: “As has been made clear earlier in this discussion ….abortion takes the life of living human TISSUE.”
    Perhaps you think you have made it clear, but, with respect, your discussions to this point, evidence, unfortunately, that you do not know the difference between mere human tissue and a living human individual.  The views I have expressed are those of today’s leading embryologists; namely, the biological life of each human being begins at conception.   You seem not to understand the difference between an organism and an organ.  Thus, while you are certain of your understanding, you are mistaken and on the basis of the logic of your own remonstrating, you clearly should not be interfering in medical decisions – and perhaps ethical discussions as well. 
    You imply to anyone reading that my views are based on mythology (I include religion in this).  In fact, it was the early religionists who claimed that a human being did not become a person and worthy of the respect and concern of “persons” (read that as “Christians” or other believers and their brand of faith) that argued and enforced the argument that a human being had to be more or achieve more before being deserving of our care and concern.  One view was, of course, that a human being had to have a “soul” before he or she was deserving of respect as a human being. Ensoulment was thought to happen as quickening.  Baptism was also considered essential to full human worth. Indeed, one of the leading early recorders of the English common law questioned whether the unborn were denied rights due simply to the fact they were unbaptized.   Again, it is surprising (to me) how so-call modern progressive thinkers, perhaps you think of yourself as one, remain mired in the prejudices of the past.  I was chatting with a party once who said that he supported abortion due to his deep and abiding feelings for pregnant women.  My response was that all he had told me was the basis of his bias against the unborn.  Very few people admit their prejudices as stand-alone prejudices, they usually, as HLA Hart notes, claim that there is something or someone of equal or greater value those interests excuse their prejudices or indeed, render their prejudices laudable.  There are valid bases for abortion.  These bases may provide the ethical basis for a justified or excusable abortion.  However, treating the unborn human individual as mere tissue, is at best uniformed and more likely disingenuous, and uninformed and disingenuous views are not views worthy of consideration.

  • @Philrimmer  205
    Dear Mr Rimmer:
    Thank you for your considered response.  I will endeavour to reply in a similar fashion. 
    You say: “Personhood and the ability to suffer emerge very late in the course of foetal development. Arguably none is yet present at birth”.   I am presently writing on the issue of personhood.  I am also in contact with a leading embryologist who is doing the same.  The concept of “personhood” is not a medical construct.  It is philosophical and ultimately legal.  Unfortunately, our modern philosophy and laws find their origin in religion. And unless we want to continue to discriminate against human beings on the basis that they have not yet developed those human attributes thought essential by historical religious dogma (read prejudices) we need to rethink our approach to human rights. 
    Concerning your remark about the ability to feel pain, I have been surprised by recent papers which say that the potential of the fetus to feel pain starts much earlier than the 24th week of gestation.  However, I respectfully suggest that we can put too much emphasis on the ability or inability to feel pain. Surely the fact that I can make someone’s death painless or that they might be in a coma and unable to feel pain, doesn’t provide an argument that it is okay to kill them. 
    I am sorry but your comments about a “little fishy thread of brainstem” as being all that has developed by the 27th week does not accord with the scientific literature I have read on fetal brain development.  The human brain is one of the first of the major organs to develop.  From my research I think you are right about the synaptic coupling being incomplete.  But we need to recall that the newborn child has twice as many neurons as an adult does.  Moreover, synaptic “pruning” takes place as the baby ages.  I do not know if the synaptic connections are incomplete to allow environmentally relevant connections to be made after birth (although that seems not unlikely) or for other beneficial brain-plasticity features dictated by evolution. 
    As for the lack of development of the human brain vs. other primates, as the human brain is much greater in size and complexity than the brains of our animal relatives, I am not at all surprised that our brains might be less complete than theirs at birth.  It takes longer to build a castle than it takes to build a hut.  But, again, I must ask: So what?  Ronald Dworkin argued that we didn’t have to worry about aborting fetuses up to 24 weeks because their brains were dissimilar up to that point (i.e. 24 weeks) from adult brains.  A few hundred years ago, those writing on the basis of the same logic as Dworkin, argued that women and children didn’t deserve rights because they didn’t have the rational minds of adult men. 
    You also note the distinctions between the brains of infants and adults.  Again, I ask with respect: So what?  We protect infants even though their brains are developing. We also protect adolescents even though their brains are developing, and we also protect the aged even though their brains are deteriorating.  And we protect these classes of the human family via the law–even though we have affection for them.
    You mention our emotional ties to infants.  Obviously, you are right. However, it is where the ties of emotion and bonding (internal constraints) are less pronounced and where those subject to the discretion of others are the most vulnerable, that protection (external constraints) is most needed.  Your recognition that we feel closer to those we can see and touch and bond with is an argument for more protection of the unborn, not less.  

  • @rogeroney 201
    I do not intend to respond to your ad hominem attacks.  As often happens when I seek to bring logic and some facts to this issue, I am encouraged that the best the fringe pro-lifers and pro-choicers can do is attack me and the motivations they image I must really be harboring. 
    Now, to the substantive points you raise: As Peter Singer (a vehement pro-choicer) admits, the most fundamental right anyone has is the right to life.  Choice doesn’t mean much if all we can to is choose in which graveyard we’ll be buried.  All human rights depend on the right to life for their efficacy.  Now, JJ Thomson raised your argument about women being forced to be incubators and she (also a vocal pro-choice advocate) was clear that her argument carried sway only in cases of rape.  She left open the possibility that where the woman has voluntarily engaged in coitus she has obligations to her fetus.  You seem to argue that Thomson’s argument applies across the board.  You provide no basis for your bald claims.
    You speak of unplanned, unwanted or nonviable fetuses.  Do you really think that your rights as a human being should depend on whether someone else, who may have absolute power over you, wants or likes you?  If that is what human rights mean, clearly, we have none.  And as to viability: None of us were viable without external aid when we were born and for years afterwards.  Indeed, few of us are viable in adulthood in the sense we can live without aid from all others. I suggest therefore that non-viability and the fact someone may not want or may even hate you matters not an iota to the question of the viability of your rights.
    It is intriguing as well that so many (men especially) see abortion as this great panacea.  (It is clearly a panacea for men, as as long as we can say that the decision to have or not to have a child is entirely up to the pregnant woman or girl, we can argue that our responsibilities end with giving the woman or girl we impregnate the cash for the abortion.)  But it is not a panacea for women.  There are tens of thousands of women living today who see their “choice” to have an abortion as the worst decision of their lives. 
    Also, choice assumes 1. Complete understanding of what it is one is choosing to do and 2. Freedom from coercion in making the choice. Both are often lacking in the decision of the woman to have an abortion.  African Americans make up about 13% of the US population. Yet African American women make up over 30% of women having abortions.  Far from being a panacea, I suggest that these statistics highlight that abortion is an egregious form of racial discrimination against African Americans.  (In case you do not know, discrimination can evidence itself in the effects of an action not merely the intent behind the action.) I suggest that the only conclusion we can reasonably reach from this Black Genocide (what some African American leaders are calling abortion) is that many African American women and girls feel they have no alternative to abortion.  No alternative = coercion, not choice.


    Report abuse

  • Monte

     

    At 27 weeks only ten percent of all brain matter has been developed, compared to an adult. Most importantly the great bulk of this has not begun any synaptic coupling. Without this whilst there is some brain stuff, it is mostly non-functioningnon functioning. Further, not only are there no local connections being made yet, it will be 9 weeks (after birth) before longer range white matter connections are started making the essential links between the various grey matter modules and helping form the still to be started brain regions of the associative corteces.

    Responses to painful stimuli exist before synaptic coupling because of that little fishy thread of spinal chord and brain stem. Like karate chopping below your patella. The responses are one and two neuronal step reflexes, without the least possibility of conscious experience.

     

    Peak neural complexity is achieved 18 months after birth  (not at birth). It needs the start of white matter production  allowing the building whole new regions, and then only possible with the lipids in milk.

     

    Developing brains is not the issue. It is the complete absence of functional parts that deny sentience and suffering. Our treatment of say demented folk once they have built relationships is entirely different. We have means to extend pleasure with biographical memories shared and re-shared. We can, in a sense, loan them part of our brains to help them complete thoughts and enjoy interactions. Biographical memories are not possible until after 18 months when all brain regions have at least been formed if not shaped and biographical memories have a stable topology to map onto….

     

    You really must address the issue of the woman’s rights over her own body. She is the sentient one, able to suffer, with other relationships and dependencies and responsibilities already started. Her wishes simply prevail over any non-sentient, non-suffering non-person.

     

    Without that primary moral concern, once the health of the new mother is decoupled, as it were, from the foetus, then we may celebrate the possible start of a long process of building a new person.


    Report abuse

  • Mar 22, 2019 at 3:59 pm
    207
    Monte says:

    @ Alan4discussion 204
    I will be as polite as possible while still being accurate:  You say: “As has been made clear earlier in this discussion ….abortion takes the life of living human TISSUE.”

    In the early weeks of a pregnancy that is correct.

    Perhaps you think you have made it clear, but, with respect, your discussions to this point, evidence, unfortunately, that you do not know the difference between mere human tissue and a living human individual.

    I think that comment is what is known as psychological projection!

    The views I have expressed are those of today’s leading embryologists; namely, the biological life of each human being begins at conception.

    You seem confused, and having difficulty distinguishing embryologists from priests and bishops!

    You seem not to understand the difference between an organism and an organ.

    Having been a biologist for many years, I can assure you I do!   Your comment looks like more psychological projection trying to pose as authority but only supported by rhetoric!  If you have read this thread and its links, you will notice I have posted a considerable quantity of informative medical information.

    Thus, while you are certain of your understanding, you are mistaken and on the basis of the logic of your own remonstrating,

    “Logic” is a process of induction or deduction – in science and medicine this is based on objective observations, and is not a badge  which can be stuck  on religious dogmatic preconceptions as a claim to “authority”.

    you clearly should not be interfering in medical decisions – and perhaps ethical discussions as well.

    I don’t “interfere in ethical discussions”.  I participate in them!

    You seem to be suffering from the over-confidence of the under-informed.

    However, treating the unborn human individual as mere tissue, is at best uniformed and more likely disingenuous, and uninformed and disingenuous views are not views worthy of consideration.

    . . .  in your humble and rather poorly informed opinion.

    One view was, of course, that a human being had to have a “soul” before he or she was deserving of respect as a human being. Ensoulment was thought to happen as quickening.  Baptism was also considered essential to full human worth. Indeed, one of the leading early recorders of the English common law questioned whether the unborn were denied rights due simply to the fact they were unbaptized.

    Perhaps this reflects the real source of your unevidenced doctrinaire claim that each human being begins at conception (with the mythical “ensoulment” which does not feature in biology?).

    My response was that all he had told me was the basis of his bias against the unborn.  Very few people admit their prejudices as stand-alone prejudices,

    So I think we can be clear about who is airing their biases and prejudices without producing a scrap of medical evidence to support their presented views!

    So ethically speaking, we need to consider the health and the welfare of the born  women, and families, way ahead of any mindless bits of human tissue making up zygotes, blastocysts, or early stage embryos – 50% to 70% of which, are likely to spontaneously abort naturally anyway.


    Report abuse

  • Mar 22, 2019 at 8:11 pm – 211

    phil rimmer says:
    To; Monte

     

    At 27 weeks only ten percent of all brain matter has been developed, compared to an adult. Most importantly the great bulk of this has not begun any synaptic coupling. Without this whilst there is some brain stuff, it is mostly non-functioning non functioning.

    27 weeks is waaay past the normal time scale for most abortions in most countries!

    Alan4discussion says:

    Continuing from #197-

    Arranging the provisions for medical abortions, – (which probably make up the majority – under 12 weeks), is not rocket science!

    Levels of assertive biological illiteracy induced by religious indoctrination, can be entrenched and utterly inflexible with full Dunning-Kruger confidence!

     


    Report abuse

  • Monte,

     

    You have made a number of claims that now require evidence.

    There are tens of thousands of women living today who see their “choice” to have an abortion as the worst decision of their lives. 

    This is a favorite bugaboo of the anti-choice bunch. Where did you come upon this information?

     

    choice assumes 1. Complete understanding of what it is one is choosing to do and 2. Freedom from coercion in making the choice. Both are often lacking in the decision of the woman to have an abortion. 

    Again, quite a sweeping statement. How do you know that both of these are lacking?

    African American women make up over 30% of women having abortions.  

    Source?

     I suggest that these statistics highlight that abortion is an egregious form of racial discrimination against African Americans. 

    This stinks of conspiracy theory. I hope you won’t expect us to just accept such a statement without evidence. Do you ever consider other factors that would explain your 30% ? (If that’s even a true figure).

    Black Genocide(what some African American leaders are calling abortion)

    The African American community has a strong attachment to the church and it is hardly surprising that they would have anti-choice activists as well. Some African American leaders can call abortion black genocide all they want to but African American women who are economically disadvantaged want to control their own fertility with what means they have available to them, just like every other woman on the face of this earth and for as long as female humans have had to deal with difficult living conditions and some very difficult choices that comes with that.

    The decision to proceed with a pregnancy is a life and death issue. Her own life may be at stake and throughout human history a badly timed pregnancy could threaten the lives of the children she already has.

    Go on with your fretting Monte, over neurons and fetal pain and conspiracy theories. Women are making life or death decisions every day and that will never change. Since you are on a website that engages in discussion of evolutionary theory, you should know that for women, the two most important objectives in our struggle to control our own reproductive strategy are; control over the paternity of our children and the spacing between those children. Both are critical in the production of the most fit offspring we can produce and both are the objects of the devoutly religious’ ire.

    Try to see the big picture and dispense with the inane trivia


    Report abuse

  • I just came across this article which is apropos to this discussion. 

    https://secularhumanism.org/2016/07/cont-why-i-am-pro-abortion-not-just-pro-choice/
    Why I Am Pro-Abortion, Not Just Pro-Choice
    Valerie Tarico
    From: Volume 36, No. 5

    I think the most cogent recent remarks were made by LaurieB #214 
     
    Those who agree with the sentiments expressed above by Monte, should refrain from ever having an abortion, and I sincerely hope that all of their pregnancies go well and produce healthy, happy, and wanted children. For those who find themselves in different circumstances, the law and medical science provide the appropriate protection and assistance.  Let us never return to the days of the proverbial back ally malpractice of medicine.

  • Thank you Michael.

    The short-sightedness of the forced pregnancy bunch is appalling. If legal and safe abortion were to disappear, it would not eliminate abortion at all. It would go underground as a home industry. Not only that; infanticide would increase and infant abandonment (almost always ends up as infanticide) would also increase. Are the anti-choicers completely unaware of our human history of engaging in these practices? It’s not just a sad few. Infanticide and abandonment were ubiquitous in Europe in the past. Safe abortions were not available then so the safest bet for a pregnant mother who knew she couldn’t raise her child to be was to hope to survive labor and delivery and then dispose of the child later. Safe legal abortions are the newer, kinder, realistic, much more ethical way to reduce harm in this very common human dilemna.

    If anyone wants to read more about this I’ll dig out the book and give the details. It’s a classic.


    Report abuse

  • LaurieB #216, you make an excellent point about the foreseeable consequences of eliminating the possibility of medically safe abortion. Reading your remarks about infanticide, I was reminded of the Q&A debate between Professor Dawkins and that great paragon of sexual morality George Cardinal Pell.  The debate is easy to find on YouTube. In his opening remarks, Pell said that among the reforms that Christianity brought to pagan Rome, along with the abolition of slavery, was the end to infanticide.  I suspect that if Prof. Dawkins could critique each of Pell’s remarks, point by point, with what Steven Pinker called l’esprit de l’escalier, Pell’s inane remark about infanticide would merit an entire chapter.


    Report abuse

  • Laurie, Micheal

     

    Was hoping we could have gotten that answer from him direct by asking what he thought the options were (above). The churches hand in looking after stricken mothers and abandoned babies is not very clean in all this.


    Report abuse

  • @ monte  #209

    @ rogeroney 201
    I do not intend to respond to your ad hominem attacks.

    My original remarks were not  ad hominem.  You clearly don’t understand the term, or are just seeking to deflect.  However, just as an aside, I will now put it to you directly that your blindness and arrogance towards the question of a woman’s fundamental right to control her own fertility is truly breathtaking.

    As for the rest,

    As often happens when I seek to bring logic and some facts to this issue

    clearly,  you have done neither.

     

    And as to viability: None of us were viable without external aid when we were born and for years afterwards.  Indeed, few of us are viable in adulthood ..

     

    Viability in the foetal sense has a specific meaning,  and your attempt again to deflect by invoking alternate irrelevant uses of that term further illustrates the ignorant and/or disingenuous nature of your arguments.

     

    …as as long as we (men) can say that the decision to have or not to have a child is entirely up to the pregnant woman or girl, we can argue that our responsibilities end with giving the woman or girl we impregnate the cash for the abortion…

    No, our responsibilities are first and foremost to make the best decision for the mental and physical well-being of the woman or girl (sic).

    Your position can best be summmarised as  “…our responsibilities end with impregnating the woman or girl…

     

    Also, choice assumes 1. Complete understanding of what it is one is choosing to do and 2. Freedom from coercion in making the choice. Both are often lacking in the decision of the woman to have an abortion.

    Patronising drivel,  that is all.


    Report abuse

  • On child abandonment/infanticide from the book Mother Nature, Maternal Instincts and How They Shape the Human Species, by Sarah Blaffer Hrdy.

    “Unintended Consequences on a Massive Scale”

    The explicit aim of foundling homes was to prevent abandoned infants from dying. The “Hospital of the Innocents,” one of the earliest such institutions in the world, still stands in Florence, a stately reminder of a catastrophic experiment in social engineering. Founded in 1419, with assistance from the silk guilds, the Ospedale degli Innocenti was completed in 1445. (26).  Ninety foundlings were left there the first year. By 1539 (a famine year), 961 babies were left. Eventually five thousand infants a year poured in from all corners of Tuscany. 

    Although the best known, the Innocenti was just one, the largest, of sixteen such foundling homes in the Grand Duchy of Tuscany. Three centuries after it opened, mortality rates were still appalling. Of 15,000 babies left at the Innocenti between 1755 and 1773, two-thirds died before reaching their first birthday. (27)

    Elsewhere in Europe groups of citizens and governments were similarly disturbed by the large numbers of unwanted infants left along roads and in gutters. In city after city the same painful experiment was repeated. In England, retired sea captain Thomas Coram got royal backing to build a home for deserted children. When it opened in 1741, it became immediately apparent that he had underestimated the magnitude of the problem. Mothers fought at the gates for admission. By 1756 the British Parliament guaranteed funds to ensure open admissions, with the result that within four years, 15,000 children had been admitted. Mortality rates soared, as there were simply not enough wet nurses to go around. 

    pgs 299-300

    As for the influence of Christianity on the newly converted, the parents of unwelcome children who were in conflict between previous strategies and the new concept of sin, a convenient new strategy evolved; the appearance of a changeling with the associated mythology was plenty of good reason to bring it out to the forest and leave it for the night to see if the fairies might change their minds and switch the real infant back and take away their changeling. Of course, most of those “changelings” didn’t survive the night. There’s always a workaround.

    From page 305:

    As in much of Catholic Europe, a ruota, or rotating barrel, was installed in 1660 to replace the old marble basin a Florence’s main foundling home, the Innocenti. By 1699, however, it was necessary to place a grill across the opening to prevent parents from shoving in older children as well.

    ! All of this in the Pope’s backyard!

    Also from page 305:

    Throughout Europe it was the practice for each foundling to be given a name as he or she was logged, a first name and then a generic last one, names like Esposito (Italian for “exposed”) or Trouve’ (French for “found”). In Milan, many were given the last name Colombo, for the pigeons that alighted on the roof of the foundling home there and adorned its emblem. (This practice was abandoned in 1825, as the Milanese authorities found it awkward to have tens of thousands of people with the same last name, and they worried about the stigma attached to being abandoned.)

    Olgun, I think you have your answer here from the history books of Europe. We know very well what would happen if abortion is made illegal and birth control made difficult.


    Report abuse

  • Laurie

     

    I am going back and forth trying to decide which is more depressing. The history you highlight or someone today who ignores all this and comes here looking for a ‘loophole’ to justify their ‘point’. Sad all around I think.


    Report abuse

  • Olgun

    Overwhelming sadness. The scope of it is hard to take in. Harm reduction is all I can suggest. We already have moved toward harm reduction – it’s abortion! It’s free, easy to obtain birth control.


    Report abuse

  • It seems to me that there is more at play than just ‘choice’, at least in the USofA. Monte brought up abortion as a means of institutional racism. And I don’t think we can discount his thought altogether.  While some may feel peace that an African American woman is 5 times more likely to abort her child than a white woman, due to some sorta economic decision, the tools given to an African American woman are readily available since approximately 80% of abortion clinics are in predominantly African American communities.

    I think a fair question would be, would white woman participate more in aborting their child if the level of access in the white community was equal with the African American community?

    I don’t have the answers to this but it goes far beyond a woman’s choice, and I suspect that institutionalized racism isn’t far away.


    Report abuse

  • justaman,

    approximately 80% of abortion clinics are in predominantly African American communities

    Where did you get this figure? Post the source please.

    I will add that white women of the middle, upper middle and upper economic classes have no problem with access to abortion. It’s the lower economic class women who end up victims of forced childbirth in this country because of increasing restrictions on abortion providers which force the clinics to close. Arranging transportation to a clinic in another state is financially onerous to women who can hardly pay their rent and feed the children they already have. For financially comfortable women, clinic location is irrelevant. Another state or another country is not an issue at all for those of us who are lucky enough in this life to have an ample bank account.

    You should look at a reputable source to see how clinics have been severely restricted in states that are under the influence of the aggressively deluded evangelicals and other Christian fundamentalists. This is not a race problem. It’s about economics and aggressive piety.

    Be wary of tactics of the far right reactionaries such as scare  mongering about racism in abortion, psychological damage of women who have abortions, and many more dishonest statements.

    Forcing poverty stricken, uneducated beleagered minority women to have more children than they can ever take care of, educate, feed and clothe is to me the worst racism out there. I hope you don’t think for a moment that the evangelicals would allow their darling daughters to bear an unwanted child, do you? Those young women are in the abortion clinics too.

     


    Report abuse

  • Justaman #228  I have to take issue with your choice of words:  “… abort her child …”  Abortion is not about killing a child.  It’s about terminating a pregnancy.  Neither an embryo nor a fetus is a child. I do not think that equating the terms is scientific.  


    Report abuse

  • @ Olgun says: 210 “Monte, What are the options?”
    Dear Olgun, I don’t claim to have all the answers.  However, holding men who have fathered children responsible to care for those children is certainly one answer. Prenatal and postnatal care and financial support for the woman and the child is another.  More access to contraception and sex education are others.  Teaching young girls self-respect and young men to respect girls is another.  Far lengthier prison terms for rape is another.  Broader educational support for single mothers (and women in general) is another.  Making adoption more humane and basing it on the mother’s choice of the adoptive parents and potentially her continuing involvement with her child is another. Educating everyone as to the value of human life is another.  Ensuring that pregnant women are informed of their choices once pregnant and that they understand the nature of the life they are carrying is another. Telling women of the potential physical and psychological harms they may experience from abortion is another.  And, of course, ensuring that abortion is safe and legal where justified (or excusable) at law is another.  If we do all these things hopefully abortion will be safe, legal (where warranted) and rare (to approach Bill Clinton’s expressed hope but which he unfortunately did nothing to see realized).     

  • @ 214 LaurieB says: …. a number of things including that I am spouting ‘inane trivia’.
    I don’t know how to respond to someone who says that my concern for all human life and the physical and psychological well-being of women, is inane trivia.
    The statistics I have noted are provided in part, but only in part on the DVD Documentary Maafa 21st Century Black Genocide.   See:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I6XfU8KVkzI 
    You can find statistics on the web.  You say that I suffer from a conspiracy theory dysphoria.  With respect, if you don’t think that there are still many powerful Whites who would like there to be fewer Blacks, you are fooling yourself.  
    As for women who suffer due to their “choice” to undergo abortion, you should obtain the new DVD “HUSH”.  There are many testimonies by women who have had abortions on the internet.  Dr. Alveda King is only one. 
    Finally, as an evolutionist and as you seek support from evolutionary theory, you should know that the first principle of evolutionary theory is that all species seek to pass-on their genetic code to the next generation.  Abortion kind of interferes with this principle.

  • @phil rimmer 211
    Dear Phil.
    Could you please send me the texts, papers etcetera (some at least) that you are using as support for your statements on the development of the human brain.  I ask you to do this because your statements simply do not fit with what I have read.  Consider by way of example only: Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Fetal Awareness: Review of Research and Recommendations for Practice (Mar. 2010). Available here:
    https://www.rcog.org.uk/globalassets/documents/guidelines/rcogfetalawarenesswpr0610.pdf And: Fetal pain: a systematic multidisciplinary review of the evidence. Lee SJ, Ralston HJ, Drey EA, Partridge JC, Rosen MA. JAMA. 2005; 294:947-54.

    You say: ‘Peak neural complexity is achieved 18 months after birth (not at birth). It needs the start of white matter production allowing the building whole new regions, and then only possible with the lipids in milk.’  Phil, let’s assume this is correct.  What are you suggesting follows from this? I note the following:
    While agreeing that the human fetus is a genetically distinct human individual, the theorists Ashley Montagu (Montagu, Ashley, Life Before Birth, New York Signet Books (1965) page 2.) and Michael Tooley (Tooley, Michael, ‘Abortion and Infanticide’ Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 2 No. 1 (Autumn 1972), pages 37 to 65) argue that rights do not vest until further specified criteria are present. Montagu’s specified criterion for the ‘striving human being from the very beginning’ to achieve personhood is that s/he must ‘become functionally human’ through ‘humanized in the human socialization process’. According to Montagu, personhood is ‘an achievement, not an endowment’. Tooley’s specified criteria necessary for a ‘member of the species homo sapiens …to be a person, i.e., to have a serious right to life’ are that our species member must possess ‘the concept of a self as a continuing subject of experiences and other mental states, and believes that it is itself such a continuing entity’.
     
    Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva state in their paper (Giubilini, Alberto and Minerva, Francesca, ‘After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?’ J. Medical Ethics, 2013: 39: 261-3, page 262) that the ‘moral status of an infant is equivalent to that of a fetus’ (emphasis added) and since even healthy fetuses can be killed if they are unwanted, parents should also be able to kill newborn children if they are unwanted. Giubilini and Minerva say ‘a fetus and a newborn certainly are human beings and potential persons, but neither is a “person” in the sense of “subject of a moral right to life”’. (Emphasis added) Like Tooley, Giubilini and Minerva find both human fetuses and newborns ‘lack[ing] those properties that justify the attribution of a right to life to an individual’.
    Peter Singer and Helga Kuhse (1985) submit (Singer, Peter and Kuhse, Helga, Why Should the Baby Live? The Problem of Handicapped Infants, Oxford University Press (1985) ) that ‘a period of 28 days after birth might be allowed before an infant is accepted as having the same right to live as others’.
    Professor Montagu’s statement that the two week old unborn is, and has been a ‘living, striving human being from the very beginning’ is based on fact: However, his relegation of the unborn and the newborn to the “potentiality of humanity” is based, not on the facts of the science of human embryology or any other science, but on personal value judgments, among them that value as a human being is something to be achieved postnatally. You must be more, achieve more, be perceived as more, or be wanted more, before you can be a human being deserving of respect and concern. Giubilini, Minerva, Tooley, Singer all know the fact that the life of each human being begins at conception. They just argue that being a human being isn’t good enough, and, being consistent, they argue that being a newborn child isn’t good enough either.

    What is your view? Do we provide some protection for the unborn? No protection?  Protection for the newborn?  On what basis? 

    Also, with respect, you haven’t addressed my query concerning why we should be concerned in the least with future, unborn, yet to be conceived, generations and yet promote abortion of existing human beings as a good thing.

    You say that I ‘must address the issue of the woman’s rights over her own body. She is the sentient one, able to suffer, with other relationships and dependencies and responsibilities already started. Her wishes simply prevail over any non-sentient, non-suffering non-person’.  As to suffering see the first articles noted above.  Assuming you are right that a sentient being’s rights should be respected first, and I don’t necessarily disagree, does this mean completely ignoring the rights and interests of the non-sentient being?  Future human beings are also non-sentient today.  Why care about them?  If you say that future people will be sentient some day, I say in response that so will the unborn existing today in their mothers’ wombs.  We can either make it impossible for the conceived future generation and the yet-to-be-conceived future generations to live or fail to exist at all depending on our choices.

    I am happy to address the rights of women.  As we must.  I agree that the issue becomes easier once the health of the mother is decoupled from the fetus.  But the issue isn’t sui generis when the bodies of both are coupled.  People can legally and morally take the lives of other people.  They may do so in self-defence and for other reasons. But there is a threshold that must be met before anyone can claim self-defence.  It is a threshold that is likely met in many (perhaps virtually all) cases of rape.  It is a threshold that is met when the pregnant woman’s life or health is in serious and immediate jeopardy from her pregnancy.  It is not met when the fetus simply isn’t wanted.

    Philosophers are presently considering the potential effects on the “right” to abortion of external (artificial) wombs.  If we have advanced to this stage and assuming (a) a woman decides she wants a child (b) this woman’s fetus is in such a womb, and (c) she then decides she doesn’t want a child (or this child), in your view should she be able to shut down the external womb?

  • A post on a Facebook page called “The Christian Left”:

    “The unborn” are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; they are morally uncomplicated, unlike the incarcerated, addicted, or the chronically poor; they don’t resent your condescension or complain that you are not politically correct; unlike widows, they don’t ask you to question patriarchy; unlike orphans, they don’t need money, education, or childcare; unlike aliens, they don’t bring all that racial, cultural, and religious baggage that you dislike; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It’s almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe.
     

    Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn.

    — Dave Barnhart

    https://www.facebook.com/TheChristianLeft/posts/2376274572394666

  • May 19, 2019 at 7:15 am
    232
    Monte says:

    Finally, as an evolutionist and as you seek support from evolutionary theory, you should know that the first principle of evolutionary theory is that all species seek to pass-on their genetic code to the next generation.  Abortion kind of interferes with this principle.

    You do realise that the use of the term “evolutionist”, generally indicates information sources as pseudoscience or creationist sites, where most of the articles are written by science illiterates, who base their understand on ancient mythologies and dogmas rather than modern medical science!

    Those who actually know what they are talking about, recognise terms like “evolutionary biologist”, “medical researcher” etc.

    first principle of evolutionary theory is that all species seek to pass-on their genetic code to the next generation.  Abortion kind of interferes with this principle.

    This indeed shows your information is from a source with a simplistic misunderstanding of evolutionary theory.
    An abortion which benefits an existing family of children, or increases the health and quality of life of future children when a family’s circumstances improve, is very much in line with evolutionary theory. – Not that that is particularly relevant to the issue or who is entitled to make choices about their own bodies and their own families.

    Unfortunately, most of those who use  preaching from priests about those mythical and imaginary “souls”, don’t know the difference between human tissue and humans beings.

    The simplistic wish to see processes of continuous development as black and white issues, helps to confuse the uneducated mind.
    The objective test, for a human being is the possession of a working brain, and the ability to survive independently of its mother.
    Frequently asked questions

    Abortion is the deliberate medical process of ending a pregnancy.
    We offer two types of abortion care: medical abortion (abortion pills) and surgical abortion.
    Both procedures are very safe, and 1 in 3 women will have one.

    Most abortions take place in the first 12 weeks.
    These are ethical issues which should be decided by responsible humans on the basis of informed predictions of outcomes, and expert medical advice.
    Decisions on abortions, should not be decided by uneducated applications of dogma from those who want to duck the issues and dictate to other people.
    These people should also NOT be interfering in the decisions of individual families or medical professionals.

    The position in England is quite clear:
    Abortion clinic buffer zone appeal fails

    Protesters have lost their bid to remove a buffer zone around an abortion clinic in west London.
    In April, Ealing Council implemented a 100m exclusion zone around the Marie Stopes centre after women complained of intimidation by protesters.
    Both anti-abortion and pro-choice protesters are barred from standing within 100m (330ft) of the centre.

    There is usually a marked contrast between the supposed concern for “unborn” zygotes, blastocysts, and embryos. and concern for the the welfare of the “born” mothers who have problems in pregnancies or the babies born into poverty and starvation, or a life of deformity.
    Women have died because of the refusal to terminate problem pregnancies.
    If there was a genuine concern about reducing rates of abortion, one would expect the anti-abortionists to be actively promoting contraception, – but the opposite is usually the case.
     

  • Monte.

    I’m a bit short on time today. So a few points only.

    The picture of neural development is utterly standard. Reviewing my posts on the topic here and at Patheos will link you to some specific online resources I used at the time.

     

    People can legally and morally take the lives of other people.

    and

    [The threshold for acceptable abortion] is not met when the fetus simply isn’t wanted.

    For the period that we can be reliably be sure the foetus is not a person there is no threshold. Besides an unwanted future child is catastrophe enough. Nor is there any virtue in inflicting a potentially miserable life on any child. Every act of procreation is essentially selfish, only sometimes later redeemed by sufficient assumption of responsibility and love. It would be nice to see anti-abortion advocates as a matter of primary principle carry through with their responsibilities to the born.


    Report abuse

  • Monte # 231. I agree with those who have responded to your post, but I feel compelled to add my own two cents worth.

    I agree that fathers should be financially responsible for their families, who would disagree? In my opinion pre/postnatal care should be an integral part of any progressive health care system. In the United States, contraception, sex education, and respect for people of other sexes, are all opposed by those opposed to abortion, and advocated for by organizations such as Planned Parenthood.  It’s my understanding that most crimes of rape are frequently motivated by factors other than sexual desire, so I’m not certain that increasing penalties Is apropos to this discussion.  I would argue that adoption is a wonderful thing in appropriate circumstances, but should never be used as an excuse to force completion of an unwanted pregnancy. I take issue with your implication that terminating an undesired or dangerous pregnancy is tantamount to ending a human life — I don’t think your position has support in either science or law, if I’m mistaken perhaps either a scientist or a lawyer will correct me.  I agree with you that abortion should remain safe and legal, but it should be as rare, or frequent, as those who need it — namely pregnant women— deem necessary. 
     


    Report abuse

Leave a Reply

View our comment policy.