Abortion

[Aardvark]

I'm not an expert on evolution..

Correct me if you think I've got it wrong but don't characteristics have to be present in order for them to be developed.

 

No.

 

Dawkins (for example - I said I wasn't an expert ) in The Blind Watchmaker explains how he believes the eye might have evolved. His starting point was the characteristic of photo sensitivity which he claims is universal.

 

No.

 

 

What are the principles of evolution? How many are there? If you can help me I'd appreciate a reply.

 

I suggest you read Darwins 'Origin of the Species'.

[Mart]

Thanks Aardvark.

Darwin's "The Origin of Species" is on my reading list.

You said no to this

Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker explains how he believes the eye might have evolved. His starting point was the characteristic of photo sensitivity which he claims is universal.

What is wrong with Dawkin's idea?

[Mart]

Obviously' date=' we share a deeply rooted instinct to avoid injury, every animal species does. As all animals react to pain the argument that the cats reacting to pain is the result of consciousness is false unless you are prepared to concede that all creatures are conscious. The idea that snails or earthworms are conscious is foolish to me so therefore you argument is foolish.

 

You argue that reacting to avoid pain and injury is dependent on conciousness, using this behaviour as a test of consciousness. As i have clearly demonstrated, your entire argument is false. Perhaps you have another behaviour you could highlight as being the result of consciousness?[/quote']

I'll try again. I make a distinction between injury which is in the public domain - often called objective - and pain which I understand as private - a subjective response. Injury is damage to the organism. Pain is, for us, a (usually) unpleasant experience. I can talk to you about my pain and you can talk to me about yours. But we don't (usually) directly experience each other's pain. We can usually experience each others injury

 

I have no direct way of knowing whether a cat experiences pain. I assume it does because it is objectively sufficently like me for me to have a fellow feeling for it. To treat an animal like a cat (a mammal) as not capable of experiencing pain is unacceptable to me. But if you want to believe otherwise then you can then avoid the expense of pain-killing drugs when a mammal needs surgery for an injury.

[In My Memory]

Syntax,

 

Well then since a newborn baby would suffer if we killed it after it was born, how can you think that it would not suffer before[/b'] it was born? What happen during that passage through the birth cannal that suddenly makes it sensitive to pain?

My apologies, I read your original comment as a question asking whether it would be appropriate to allow a newborn to starve to death.

 

To answer your question, the newborn baby has a greater claim to the right of its own self-determination than the unborn baby, because the conflict in the interests between self-determination of baby and mother no longer exists.

 

Without any kind of conflict in interests, the only justifiable instance there would be to kill a newborn baby is if it is for the sake of the infant itself. Such as, if the baby were going to be in severe pain for weeks before dying.

 

You were[/b'] talking about pain when you used the term "suffer?"

I use that word as a blanket term for a number of varying types of discomfort, which includes physical pain, anxiety, stress, (sometimes) fear, etc.

 

My opinion on abortion is that it is the taking of a human life and as such is sometimes justifiable' date=' and sometimes not. I could not think of myself as moral if I killed someone because not killing him was inconvienent, but I [b']could kill someone if there was the question of safety to me or to others, or if I was a soldier at war, or if he had committed a crime that called for the death penalty in the society in which I lived.

 

There may be other cases where I could kill someone, but I think you understand.

Yes I do.

[syntax252]

Syntax' date='

 

 

My apologies, I read your original comment as a question asking whether it would be appropriate to allow a newborn to starve to death.[/quote']

 

It was.

 

To answer your question, the newborn baby has a greater claim to the right of its own self-determination than the unborn baby, because the conflict in the interests between self-determination of baby and mother no longer exists.

 

Without any kind of conflict in interests, the only justifiable instance there would be to kill a newborn baby is if it is for the sake of the infant itself. Such as, if the baby were going to be in severe pain for weeks before dying.

 

But there is still a conflict of interests,

 

The conflict is that if anyone takes care of that baby, and it is paid for with tax money, then the general public is obligated to finance something that they had no part in creating--the care and well being of a newborn.

 

Now, if the interest of the pregnant mother trumps the interest of the fetus--to the extent that she can kill it and still be on safe ground morally --why does the general public necessarily have to pick up the bill for taking care of a newborn that the mother doesn't want to feed and care for?

 

Can you see that there are two moral standards here? One for the pregnant girl, and another for society?

 

I use that word as a blanket term for a number of varying types of discomfort, which includes physical pain, anxiety, stress, (sometimes) fear, etc.

 

So you would agree that the fetus feels pain?

[In My Memory]

Syntax,

 

But there is still a conflict of interests' date='

 

The conflict is that if anyone takes care of that baby, and it is paid for with tax money, then the general public is obligated to finance something that they had no part in creating--the care and well being of a newborn.[/quote']

Your taxes go towards schools you'll never attend, towards financing wars you will never take part in, towards medical research you'll never enjoy, towards feeding and housing criminals you'll never know, towards space programs that you'll never hear about, and to many things that you legitimately have nothing to do with.

 

I dont mean to skirt your argument, but I'm afraid what you have to say is simply so incredibly broad that it simply cannot be discussed in the context of abortion alone. Why should the government tax us at all, its our money isnt it? That would make an interesting thread, but wholly inappropriate to discuss in the contexts of abortion alone.

 

If you want me to answer your question at all, I'll answer by saying that society should care for lives they didnt create for the same reason that tax dollars go into treating people who develop cancer after decades of their own smoking. The two thoughts appear non-sequitor, but once you understand the motivation behind them, your question pretty much answers itself.

 

So you would agree that the fetus feels pain?

It has a very rudimentary ability to feel pain after about 30 weeks of gestation.

 

I think pain is morally relevant, and I find causing things gratuitous pain is profoundly immoral. For very late term abortions, I would recommend the use of anestetics so that if abortion is necessary, the unborn person would not feel pain.

 

However, I'm not sure if you feel the same way - is the fetal pain a deciding factor in your opinion on abortion?

[syntax252]

Your taxes go towards schools you'll never attend' date=' towards financing wars you will never take part in, towards medical research you'll never enjoy, towards feeding and housing criminals you'll never know, towards space programs that you'll never hear about, and to many things that you legitimately have nothing to do with.

 

I dont mean to skirt your argument, but I'm afraid what you have to say is simply so incredibly broad that it simply cannot be discussed in the context of abortion alone. Why should the government tax us at all, its our money isnt it? That would make an interesting thread, but wholly inappropriate to discuss in the contexts of abortion alone.

 

If you want me to answer your question at all, I'll answer by saying that society should care for lives they didnt create for the same reason that tax dollars go into treating people who develop cancer after decades of their own smoking. The two thoughts appear non-sequitor, but once you understand the motivation behind them, your question pretty much answers itself.[/quote']

 

And I agree that society should take care of a newborn baby under these circumstances, because the inconvenience to the tax payer is no where near as profound as the loss of the life of an infant. But I think that where you and I disagree is that the same thing applies to the pregnant female. While it is inconvenient to carry a pregnancy to term, it is no where near as inconvenient as the loss of the unborn baby's life would be.

 

If one can say that killing an unborn baby for the sake of convenience is morally justified, the same thing should apply to simply letting it starve or freeze to death after it is born. There is no difference.

 

It has a very rudimentary ability to feel pain after about 30 weeks of gestation.

 

I think pain is morally relevant, and I find causing things gratuitous pain is profoundly immoral. For very late term abortions, I would recommend the use of anestetics so that if abortion is necessary, the unborn person would not feel pain.

 

However, I'm not sure if you feel the same way - is the fetal pain a deciding factor in your opinion on abortion?

 

No. It is part of it, but not all of it. A far larger part is that a human life is distroyed, merely because it would be a temporary inconvenience to the mother. I find this to be utterly reprehensible. One does not kill just because allowing a baby to live is inconvenient. If the mother's health was in danger, or if the baby was badly deformed, or any of a number of other ligitimate reasons, that would be different, but convenience? No.

[In My Memory]

Syntax,

 

And I agree that society should take care of a newborn baby under these circumstances' date=' because the inconvenience to the tax payer is no where near as profound as the loss of the life of an infant. But I think that where you and I disagree is that the same thing applies to the pregnant female. While it is inconvenient to carry a pregnancy to term, it is no where near as inconvenient as the loss of the unborn baby's life would be.

 

If one can say that killing an unborn baby for the sake of convenience is morally justified, the same thing should apply to simply letting it starve or freeze to death [b']after[/b] it is born. There is no difference.

Not all death is the same. If you can concieve that a person being systematically tortured for weeks until they die is less ethical than a person being put to death by a fast acting and painless lethal injection, then you can concieve that there are very clear ethical differences between the loss of life of an unborn person via abortion and the loss of life of a newborn by starving to death.

 

There is a phrase that I hear that says "a life is a life", but I believe that sentiment is simply not the whole story.

 

A far larger part is that a human life is distroyed, merely because it would be a temporary inconvenience to the mother. I find this to be utterly reprehensible. One does not kill just because allowing a baby to live is inconvenient. If the mother's health was in danger, or if the baby was badly deformed, or any of a number of other ligitimate reasons, that would be different, but convenience? No.

What is the objection to destroying a human life?

[Sayonara]

I have no direct way of knowing whether a cat experiences pain. I assume it does because it is objectively sufficently like me for me to have a fellow feeling[/b'] for it.

That is the essence of anthropomorphisms.

[syntax252]

Syntax' date='

 

 

Not all death is the same. If you can concieve that a person being systematically tortured for weeks until they die is less ethical than a person being put to death by a fast acting and painless lethal injection, then you can concieve that there are very clear ethical differences between the loss of life of an unborn person via abortion and the loss of life of a newborn by starving to death.[/quote']

 

Well then what would you think about simply pulling it apart with instruments, such as is done in an abortion? That would circumvent the slow death by starvation issues, would it not?

 

 

 

What is the objection to destroying a human life?

 

To me, it is a matter of empathy for the killee.

 

I have always been a little grateful that my mother opted to carry me to term and that so far, no one has seen fit to murder me. I am willing to treat others as I would be treated.

 

Isn't that one of the basics of what we call "civilization"?

[Mart]

That is the essence of anthropomorphisms.

Anthropomorphisms. Is there more than way of being anthropomorphic?

You don't say whether you think this would be a useful scientific stance.

[Aardvark]

Thanks Aardvark.

Darwin's "The Origin of Species" is on my reading list.

You said no to this What is wrong with Dawkin's idea?

 

 

That isn't Dawkins idea so there is nothing wrong with it. He makes a good explanation for the evolution of the eye. What he does not do is claim any 'universal' photo sensitivity. That was a misunderstanding on your part. He stated that most species exposed to light would develop some photo sensitivity for obvious reasons of utility and then theorised on how that process could lead on to the devlopment of eyes. No problems there at all.

[Aardvark]

I have no direct way of knowing whether a cat experiences pain. I assume it does because it is objectively sufficently like me for me to have a fellow feeling[/b'] for it. To treat an animal like a cat (a mammal) as not capable of experiencing pain is unacceptable to me. But if you want to believe otherwise then you can then avoid the expense of pain-killing drugs when a mammal needs surgery for an injury.

 

 

Are you deliberately misunderstanding this point?

 

At no point did i state that animals don't experience pain. If you read my posts you will see that i clearly state that animals do experience pain.

 

I am simply arguing that experiencing pain is not evidence of consciousness.

 

If you wish to reply to any of my posts i would appreciate it if you would actually read them first.

[Mart]

That isn't Dawkins idea so there is nothing wrong with it. He makes a good explanation for the evolution of the eye. What he does not do is claim any 'universal' photo sensitivity. That was a misunderstanding on your part. He stated that most species exposed to light would develop some photo sensitivity for obvious reasons of utility and then theorised on how that process could lead on to the devlopment of eyes. No problems there at all.

I though all matter was photo sensitive. It interacts with light.

[Mart]

A i clearly state that animals do experience pain. I am simply arguing that experiencing pain is not evidence of consciousness.

We need to agree about what we each mean by pain and injury.

 

When I use the word pain I take it to be a subjective experience - I can say it exists for me but you can't because you can't experience my pain. Injury is a shared experience in that both of us can agree that it exists.

 

My experience of my pain only happens when I am conscious of my pain. If you want to say that you have no consciousness when you experience a pain then you're fundamentally not like me.

[Sayonara]

Anthropomorphisms. Is there more than way of being anthropomorphic?

You don't say whether you think this would be a useful scientific stance.

Anthropomorphisms is the plural of 'an instance of anthropomorphisation'.

Noun: Anthropomorphism.

Verb: Anthropomorphise.

 

No, it is inherently unscientific.

[Mart]

Anthropomorphisms is the plural of 'an instance of anthropomorphisation'.

Noun: Anthropomorphism.

Verb: Anthropomorphise.

 

No' date=' it is inherently unscientific.[/quote']

I would have thought that the plural of anthropomorphisation would be anthropomorphisations. But that's not important.

What information does inherently convey?

What specifically makes an anthropomorphisation (this Germanic becoming is ) unscientific?

[Rekkr]

I am against abortion usually, but I don't want to be mixed up with the pro-life people. I hope you understand.