Atheists, Abortion, and Philosophy

[Doctor X]

Christian:

A late FYI:

Physicians now use a more rigorous criterion for death: brain wave activity. A flat EEG (electroencephalograph) is one of the most important criteria used to determine death.

Actually, it is not and has not for some time. despite the Hollywood fascination with "flat-line" the EEG is very unreliable in the sense that it can pick up a lot of artifact. That you have activity does not make it meaningful. Far faster and more reliable secondary tests are used.

If the cessation of brain wave activity can define death, could the onset of brain wave activity define life?

No, if "life" implies consciousness and the ability to be conscious. I think that is the intent of the references since the sperm and ovum are both alive to begin with. Also, I am not sure the reference would like supporting "morning-after" pills or early abortions--which is what he does with this statement and subsequent statement.

--J.D.

 

[The GM]

Yahzi et al...
Very interesting and thought provoking discussion going on. Due to RL circumstance, I'm going to have to bow out until Sat. or Sun. of this week. Feel free to discuss (or not ) w/out me. I hope to catch up by then and maybe post a few replies on some thoughts you guys have inspired.
Have a good week.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Hold on.. some people are saying that a person should not have an abortion and deal with the "consequences" of their actions?! So, a pregnant lady should be forced to raise a child that she didn't plan on? How nice of a parent will she be at that point, having to raise a kid that is merely a consequence? What if her action was simply jogging in a park and getting raped? Is that her fault?

Isn't abortion another consequence?

The consequence argument is just freaking stupid.

 

[The GM]

Hold on.. some people are saying that a person should not have an abortion and deal with the "consequences" of their actions?! So, a pregnant lady should be forced to raise a child that she didn't plan on? How nice of a parent will she be at that point, having to raise a kid that is merely a consequence? What if her action was simply jogging in a park and getting raped? Is that her fault?

Isn't abortion another consequence?

The consequence argument is just freaking stupid.

Please read the OP. The thread wasn't supposed to be about about rape vics or medical/ health related abortions. The topic was abortion as birth control.
Also, why do people automatically assume that a woman would be *forced* to raise a child. Does adoption no longer exist?
You may believe that certain consequences are stupid, but everything we do has consequences, positive or negative. That's life.
I'll check in later. Off to bed for now.

 

[Christian]

Christian:

A late FYI:



Actually, it is not and has not for some time. despite the Hollywood fascination with "flat-line" the EEG is very unreliable in the sense that it can pick up a lot of artifact. That you have activity does not make it meaningful. Far faster and more reliable secondary tests are used.

Ok, good to know.

No, if "life" implies consciousness and the ability to be conscious. I think that is the intent of the references since the sperm and ovum are both alive to begin with. Also, I am not sure the reference would like supporting "morning-after" pills or early abortions--which is what he does with this statement and subsequent statement.

--J.D.

I haven't made up my mind on this yet.

But, I want you to note that all these criteria are subjective. It could be that we define human life as having consciousness. It could be that we define it as having brainwaves.

Or I could go another route. I could say that what clearly is on route to becoming a human, must be categorized as human.

Which criteria is more valid? I don't know. But, right now I'm not convinced that any carry more weight than the other.


What I'm really uncomfortable is with the idea that because it is inconvinient, one can dispose of a fetus. Going the slippery slope path, a child born with severe brain damage is inconvenient. What then?

 

[Christian]

Actually, no.

Actually, yes.

We do not have Good Samaritan laws, at least in most states in the USA. While you cannot act in such a way as to threaten a life, and of course if you are merely selfish your community will probably find a way to prosecute you: but if the bum will live at least 24 hours, then you're probably off the hook.

But, you have manslaughter (showing extreme indifference to human life). The 24 hours period depends on the circumstances.

You might be surprised, Christian, at just how callous the law can be.

Why surprised?

The absolute certain foreknowledge that the bum will starve to death does not impinge upon your rights. You have a point that the bum does not die immediately, but I think you can see that really isn't terribly important.

Maybe it has nothing to do with starving to death. Maybe it is just that someone outside is waiting for him with a gun shouting "I'm going to kill you". If you live out in the woods, and there is no communication, it might take more than 24 hours for the bum to be safe.

 

[thaiboxerken]

Please read the OP. The thread wasn't supposed to be about about rape vics or medical/ health related abortions. The topic was abortion as birth control.

Isn't abortion, by definition, a form of birth control?


Also, why do people automatically assume that a woman would be *forced* to raise a child. Does adoption no longer exist?

Ok, so she's forced to be pregnant for about 9 months and give birth. She's forced to change her lifestyle for that period of time and shortly afterwards.


You may believe that certain consequences are stupid, but everything we do has consequences, positive or negative. That's life.
I'll check in later. Off to bed for now.

Abortion is a consequence. I see no problem with terminating the life of a parasite, which is basically what a fetus is, for ANY reason.

If you don't like abortions, don't have one.

 

[Doctor X]

Christian:

But, I want you to note that all these criteria are subjective. It could be that we define human life as having consciousness. It could be that we define it as having brainwaves.

Yes . . . and no!

Something with "brain waves" that exhibits no consciousness is hardly human--does not meet the criteria or has lost everything that makes one a human.

I understand your objection that subjectivity exists however.

. . . I could say that what clearly is on route to becoming a human, must be categorized as human.

I would disagree since it has not got there yet. Ethicist Jane English wrote a very good paper on the subject. She noted the basic ethical/moral problem--most people would not force a woman who does not want to be a mother to have an abortion at a reasonable time--early--while most people would not want a woman to have an abortion because pregnancy will screw up her vacation plans.

She recognized that ethical problems involve balancing rights of others. I have a right to do anything until the exercise of that right infringes on someone else. She characterized the zygote-fetus as a "potential human life." She rejected not calling it "life"--it is alive. However it is not human yet. On the other hand, barring accidents, it will become a human.

So she balanced the rights of a potential human life versus that of an established human life. She argued that prior to viability--certainly first trimester--the rights of the established life outweigh that of the potential human life.

But, right now I'm not convinced that any carry more weight than the other.

One has to look at practicality. That without the attributes of human is not human. This does not mean it cannot become human. This seems like a lot of semantics, but it impinges on ethical decisions such as in severe brain damage.

What I'm really uncomfortable is with the idea that because it is inconvinient, one can dispose of a fetus.

I do not think "inconvenience" is the reason for abortion--inability to be a mother, care for a child, appear to be the majority cases last I looked. However, I have to agree that at the beginning the potential human life's rights do not outweigh the right of an established human life to not be a mother.

Going the slippery slope path, a child born with severe brain damage is inconvenient. What then?

Generally, nature takes care of that. Severe brain damage generally means death eventually. Parents can choose "not to treat" the complications of such. Your slipperly slope does not really exist, however. It is not so much convenience as respect for the child that a parent would not want it to suffer or exist in such a state.

Furthermore, such decisions are rarely easy to make.

--J.D.

 

[Radrook]

He who defines holds the power.


Friendly fire = your own friends trying to blow yer brains out.

Regime = a government that doesn't appeal to you

Police action = an invasion that YOUR COUNTRY is involved in making.

Invasion = police action

Invasion = unwarranted attack

passed away = died

passed gas = farted

has political savvy = is a habitual liar

stout = fat

big = fat

plump = fat

slim = skinny or gaunt

honest = is sadistically blunt

a human being does not = a fetus

a human being = a fetus

Define and everything else neatly falls into place.

 

[Doctor X]

Ambrose Bierce expressed it with more wit.

--J.D.

 

[Radrook]

Trace the soul idea and you come smack right dab to pagan Greek philosophy. Which makes no difference since no one cares where the damned idea originated anyway long as it makes them feel ecumenical.

 

[Gulliamo]

But, I want you to note that all these criteria are subjective. It could be that we define human life as having consciousness. It could be that we define it as having brainwaves.

I'm not sure that I see what the definition of human "life" has to do with it. We end "life" on a daily basis. Big deal. We end life, complete with heart beats, developed frontal lobes, brain waves, and every other mentioned criteria daily. My attorney, my doctor, my parents, and my wife all have copies of my "living will" that states they will "pull the plug" if certain criteria are met.

I guess my point is that sometimes ending life is the more humane thing to do. Sometimes a quick end or never beginning is the morally right thing.

 

[Doctor X]

Gulliamo:

Well, someone can retort that in the cases you describe the person "getting ended" has some choice in the matter--or acted in a way to merit it--as in death penalty.

--J.D.

 

[Christian]

Gulliamo:

Well, someone can retort that in the cases you describe the person "getting ended" has some choice in the matter--or acted in a way to merit it--as in death penalty.

--J.D.

Beat me to the response

 

[An Infinite Ocean]

If I make poor choices, I expect to reap the fruits of those choices.

Why punish yourself if it is unnecessary? Why not simply learn from your mistakes? Unless of course, you have some religious or spiritual investment in the idea that a fetus is person.

Perhaps you really would just let yourself die if you got a disease related to your lifestyle. After all, it's your own fault, why burden others with having to cure you? Best all round if you just drop dead. Then you'll learn your lesson.

 

[Ratman_tf]

Also, why do people automatically assume that a woman would be *forced* to raise a child. Does adoption no longer exist?

Ok, so she's forced to be pregnant for about 9 months and give birth. She's forced to change her lifestyle for that period of time and shortly afterwards.

[/B]

Indeed. A man gets a woman pregnant, and he doesn't have to deal with the physical ramifications of being pregnant and giving birth. A woman does. Why should a woman be saddled with that if she doesn't want it? And don't anyone give me any crap about how sex is only for making babies.
Personally, since I don't think a fetus is a human being until the 3rd trimester, I consider abortion to be almost the exact same thing as wearing a rubber or taking the pill.

 

[American]

If you blind yourself to reality, then it's easy to accept any fallicy (whether you do it carelessly or maliciously). That's what abortionists do, probably out of habit and they never really thought about their beliefs, absent worldly influence.

 

[Kopji]

Maybe some things always require careful consideration and do not lend themselves to black and white answers.

I would agree with Doc X's implication that the potential for human life must always be a consideration, and abortion should not be decided lightly or without careful thought.

Good quality blindness though, comes from firmly deciding what the answer is and then accepting only evidence that supports your pov.