• Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this!
    Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here
  • YOU can help the next generation of students in the community!
    Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
MedVision ad

The Abortion Debate (continued) (1 Viewer)

withoutaface

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
15,098
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
bshoc said:
No sperm and egg are not human, its only when they come together to form a unique genetic sequence and the required chromosomes do "your cells" become another human being
That's by your definition. It can just as easily be defined to be earlier, or later. This is exactly my point and we can't talk in absolutes.
One mans oppression is another mans nurture.
Making vague statements such as that does nothing to justify your position. If the goverment were to decree that everyone born on the 5th of April should suffer Chinese water torture to build character, they could justify it using that statement.
 
Last edited:

BradCube

Active Member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Messages
1,288
Location
Charlestown
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
AntiHyper said:
It answers ur question about the distinction between adult humans and animals.
I think those points are arguable, but the fact that some adult humans are not caring for the environment and trying to save species would suggest that this is not a defination that can be applied to all humanity. It can therefore not be used as a definition of what seperates adult human from other animals.

Even if we still ignore this, does the fact that other life forms do not have the capacity to save other species make them any less deserving of life? Surely they are doing a better job of environmental management then we currently are.
 

withoutaface

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
15,098
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
We know beyond reasonable doubt that animals lack the mental functions to display awareness of themselves as individuals.
 

BradCube

Active Member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Messages
1,288
Location
Charlestown
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
withoutaface said:
We know beyond reasonable doubt that animals lack the mental functions to display awareness of themselves as individuals.
I would think that also would be arguable. I don't understand how this could ever be proved, but even saying that it is, do you think newborn babies have this mental capacity?
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
483
Location
West Pennant Hills
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Once the foetus becomes implanted in the uterus it attaches itself to the mother via the umbilical cord, which provides the foetus with energy and nutrients.

As to the distinction between humans and animals then the difference is that humans have self awareness, animals only act on an instinctive level. Actually if you want to get technical about it humans ARE animals and we can easily justify killing them by the fact that we are higher on the food chain and need to survive.
 

BradCube

Active Member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Messages
1,288
Location
Charlestown
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
The Brucemaster said:
Once the foetus becomes implanted in the uterus it attaches itself to the mother via the umbilical cord, which provides the foetus with energy and nutrients.
I am talking about before it is attatched to the walls of the uterus. In those days that it is still travelling down the fallopian tubes what gives the foetus the ability to reproduce cells if it is not able to metabolise on any level?

The Brucemaster said:
As to the distinction between humans and animals then the difference is that humans have self awareness, animals only act on an instinctive level. Actually if you want to get technical about it humans ARE animals and we can easily justify killing them by the fact that we are higher on the food chain and need to survive.
Then that brings us full circle, since to justify killing animals we need to survive, yet if human life in a woman is undesired, then an abortion (having a negetive impact on our survival) is performed.
 
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
483
Location
West Pennant Hills
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
BradCube said:
I am talking about before it is attatched to the walls of the uterus. In those days that it is still travelling down the fallopian tubes what gives the foetus the ability to reproduce cells if it is not able to metabolise on any level?
Nothing, thats the whole point of my argument. It cannot metabolise at this stage and thus is not alive.


Then that brings us full circle, since to justify killing animals we need to survive, yet if human life in a woman is undesired, then an abortion (having a negetive impact on our survival) is performed.
I don't think an abortion necessarily has a negative impact on our survival. In some cases an abortion is performed to save the mother's life.

Also, the point of the animal analogy is to illustrate the inconsistencies of the pro-life definition of life i.e. that killing a foetus is murder, whilst eating plant and animal material is not when clearly nothing significant differentiates the two.
 

BradCube

Active Member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Messages
1,288
Location
Charlestown
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
The Brucemaster said:
Nothing, thats the whole point of my argument. It cannot metabolise at this stage and thus is not alive.
So if nothing gives it the ability to reproduce cells, how does it end up with an extra 100 or so by the time in reaches the uterus wall?

The Brucemaster said:
I don't think an abortion necessarily has a negative impact on our survival. In some cases an abortion is performed to save the mother's life.
Certainly the majority of cases that pregnacy occurs the mother does not die. Therefore by having an abortion stops the chances of our increased survival since we have reduced the possible population.

The Brucemaster said:
Also, the point of the animal analogy is to illustrate the inconsistencies of the pro-life definition of life i.e. that killing a foetus is murder, whilst eating plant and animal material is not when clearly nothing significant differentiates the two.
Unless a newborn child can be proven to be aware of its own conciousness and existance, then I fail to see how a newborn child is anydifferent.

Also I do not believe we have suitable evidence to prove that other animals are not capable of this same thought.
 
Joined
Mar 25, 2006
Messages
483
Location
West Pennant Hills
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
bshoc said:
Well who was it placed on before the mid 70's when it was illegal, more relevantly, who was it placed on after that date? Answer to both: nobody, really
Oh, so abortion legislation just managed to appear did it? Some 'hippy' managed to drug everyone in parliament, get them to vote on abortion being available to women whilst they were stoned and then run off back to his commune?

Unlike you some people dont enjoy the thought of babies being killed before they are even born, and blow our nuts at thought of this happening 60000 times a year, especially with the birth rates in this country.
At what point did i state my enjoyment at babies being killed?
This is the whole point you thick-headed dimwit I DON"T CONSIDER THE FOETUS TO BE ALIVE FROM THE MOMENT OF CONCEPTION. Thus my support for abortion is not a support for murder. Obviously the killing of babies is to be frowned upon as it is ILLEGAL. The abortion of a foetus up to a point is not illegal and thus does not constitute murder.

I heard its hard to get in, plus abortions there a readily accessable becuase they're a degenerate leftists state, not unlike the kind you're dreaming of for this country.
True, abortions are readily accessible in North Korea just not in the manner you are thinking:

Abortion Axis of Evil

Not alive you say? even though it manages to propel itself out of the tubes and into the womb, and this happens 99.9% of the time, kinda coincidental dont you think?
So because a sperm manages to propel itself along the fallopian tube it is alive? So because a woman's unfertilised eggs manage to propel themselves along the fallopian tube once a month they are alive?
If so, every person above the age of about 16 should be locked up or wait, you support capital punishment, so they should all die?


A dangerous road to go down, considering human babies only gain conscious thought/self awareness after 1 year or so.
My next sentence clearly states this cannot be conclusively proven and as such a reasonable definition would be somewhere along the lines of what WAF said in regards to the foetus/baby feeling pain (3rd Trimester).


Given your general perspectives and empty-headedness, I am disiclined with your assesment of "reasonable", since you seem like the sort of person for whom reason is severely lacking.
Given your lack of substantial evidence to support your case I am inclined to think that you lack the ability to form a coherent argument supported by reasonable evidence. Combined with your lack of ability in regards to basic grammar and spelling you'll forgive me if I don't take you very seriously.
 

gerhard

Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
850
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
withoutaface said:
We know beyond reasonable doubt that animals lack the mental functions to display awareness of themselves as individuals.
im not sure what you mean by this but im assuming theory of mind in which case you would be correct for most but not all animals. well actually its all debatable really. i would say some primates and maybe even dolphins have some sort of theory of mind. both recognise themselves in the mirror.

Also I want to tell you about this awesome experiment.

Ok so this chimp had to pick between two upside down cups, one of which had food in it and the other had nothing, but the chimp didnt know which. I guy stood in the room, put the food in one of the cups (the monkey couldnt see into which cup the food went) and pointed to the cup with the food in it. If the monkey chose the correct cup then it got the food, otherwise it didnt.

Then later on they did the same thing but with two experimenters in the room, except one had a bucket on its head. This time they both pointed to different cups. (this is the cool bit now) The monkey would choose the cup that the guy without a bucket on its head had chosen. The monkey appeared to have some sort of thought process, where it went, 'ok the guy with the bucket on the head wouldnt have been able to see into which cup the food went because he;s got a bucket on his head, so ill go with the other guy.'

so it appears the chimp has a second order theory of mind. pretty cool.
 

BradCube

Active Member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Messages
1,288
Location
Charlestown
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
hmmm, very interesting experiment indeed.

It is for this sort of reason that I still stated that WAF's statement was arguable and I still stand by that.
 
Joined
Dec 12, 2003
Messages
3,492
Location
Sydney
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
withoutaface said:
We know beyond reasonable doubt that animals lack the mental functions to display awareness of themselves as individuals.
What exactly does "having an awareness of themselves as individuals" mean?
 

ur_inner_child

.%$^!@&^#(*!?.%$^?!.
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
6,084
Gender
Female
HSC
2004
As in self-awareness, which I do recall chimpanzees and dolphins recognise the idea of their own reflections. Chimps would make stupid faces, explore their face and open their mouth to clean themselves in front of the mirror.

Mirror self-recognition in the bottlenose dolphin: A case of cognitive convergence

Self-recognition and abstraction abilities in the common chimpanzee studied with distorting mirrors

Picking Definitions of Self Awareness

Precise definitions of self awareness vary wildly, but usually they are picked to capture one or several aspects of the term's intuitive meaning. The intuitive understanding of self awareness underlying most of the literature on the topic is bound up with the notion of an organism using some concept of its own self -- as an item situated within an environment -- to affect its behaviour. For instance, experiments show that most primate species are unable to recognise themselves in mirrors. (Specifically, if a spot of paint is applied to their forehead and the animals are then offered a mirror, they fail to respond to the image in the mirror by touching their forehead to investigate the spot; chimpanzees and humans are notable exceptions.) This, it has been suggested, indicates that such animals lack self awareness -- even though they may perfectly well be phenomenally conscious. (I.e., they feel pain, see red, etc.) On this view, because the animals apparently lack the ability to translate a picture in a mirror into information about themselves, they are not 'self aware'.
 
Last edited:

withoutaface

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
15,098
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
Self awareness also encompasses self consciousness, which is the ability to be aware of one's actions as well as one's self, and posess the capacity to be embarrassed, shy, etc, which afaik only humans posess.
 

BradCube

Active Member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Messages
1,288
Location
Charlestown
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
withoutaface said:
Self awareness also encompasses self consciousness, which is the ability to be aware of one's actions as well as one's self, and posess the capacity to be embarrassed, shy, etc, which afaik only humans posess.
But how can it ever be proved that this is the case? If we cannot prove it then why assume that they do not posses the abilty?
 

ur_inner_child

.%$^!@&^#(*!?.%$^?!.
Joined
Mar 9, 2004
Messages
6,084
Gender
Female
HSC
2004
BradCube said:
Or adult human for that matter
withoutaface said:
Self awareness also encompasses self consciousness, which is the ability to be aware of one's actions as well as one's self, and posess the capacity to be embarrassed, shy, etc, which afaik only humans posess.
The above definition is a little flawed. I remember watching many a documentary, and chimpanzees' social interactions are quite complex, particularly as an individual chimpanzee and how its actions affect its society. I'm positive they are able to feel embarassed, or something along the lines of acting upon something, then later feeling regretful, by showing remorse or a reluctance to show confidence.

Being shy I feel is with any animal below the intellect of a chimp - being shy as a by-product of fear.

Obviously I am pro-choice (early abortions, for the final time), but I stress the self-awareness of certain animals (being two other species). I don't believe a fetus is self-aware in the first trimester, nor does it feel pain, and yes, I do find it morally disturbing for someone to be okay slaying an adult chimp moreso than a fetus, which is not self aware.

But to switch sides.

http://www.sesameworkshop.org/parents/advice/article.php?contentId=864&

Babies' sense of self begins with their earliest explorations of their bodies; the parents' role at this time is to create a positive atmosphere for this self-discovery. When a three-month-old plays with her fingers and toes, for example, she is gaining an awareness of her physical self—an early step in the process of self-discovery.

Infants as young as six months of age begin to sense that they are separate from their mothers and fathers, according to Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, Ph.D., the Virginia and Leonard Marx Professor in Child Development and Education at Teachers College at Columbia University.

By 9 to 12 months infants can tell the difference between themselves and other babies, Dr. Brooks-Gunn says. Her studies of babies, conducted with video cameras and television monitors, showed that children as young as nine months could distinguish between live images of themselves on television and taped images of other infants. The babies smiled and were more captivated with the live images of themselves.

At about 15 to 24 months babies start to become even more conscious of self. In another study, conducted by Dr. Brooks-Gunn and Dr. Lewis, 9- to 6-month-old babies were first allowed to look at themselves in a mirror. Afterward, the researchers had the babies' mothers discreetly place a dot of rouge on the youngsters' noses. The babies were then prompted to look in the mirror again. Those younger than 15 months of age, not realizing that they were looking at reflections of themselves, ignored the red dot. But children 15 months and older looked in the mirror and touched the dot on their nose. "The babies' actions in this study suggest that they're thinking to themselves, 'That's me!'" Dr. Lewis says. The older babies clearly recognized that they were in fact looking at their own reflection in the mirror.
Though of course, if it comes down to self-awareness, you could technically slay a child when they are 1 month old, which in theory should be about the same as killing a cow for beef but not an adult human. So clearly killing a fetus, does not equal to kill an adult human (under the idea of self-awareness)

Or course, under these ideas, you could slay an 8 month old child and be technically under the "self-awareness" rule, but then morals come in, ie whether it feels pain.

So self-awareness is not where you draw the line.

For me, and referring to the information above, it's pain that is the deciding factor, not self-awareness.
 
Last edited:

transcendent

Active Member
Joined
Jan 5, 2005
Messages
2,954
Location
Beyond.
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
I believe a simple self recognition test is all that is required for sentience. If a creature is able to identify itself in a mirror it is most likely to be sentient.
 

gerhard

Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
850
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
BradCube said:
But how can it ever be proved that this is the case? If we cannot prove it then why assume that they do not posses the abilty?
morgans canon/occams razor/whatever you want to call it.


edit: yeah for the life of me i cant remember how this is all related to abortion but its interesting
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top