Why I am no longer pro-choice no longer.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-10-2013, 12:49 AM (This post was last modified: 13-10-2013 02:39 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(12-10-2013 11:06 PM)Chippy Wrote:  It isn't an issue of "rules" it is a question of relevance. Questioning the relevance of your contribution is legitimate. A circular and hence vacuous concept--namely legal personhood--adds nothing to the discussion.

You forgot one thing. In YOUR opinion. Steinbock isn't all of a sudden the moral arbiter here.

(12-10-2013 11:06 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Given that I've devoted many keystrokes in this thread to providing argumentation and evidence I have no need for emotional appeals. I used the word murder because that is what I meant and that is the moral significance of the conception of person-hood that I am arguing for.

Yet you used an emotional appeal anyway. Murder is a legal term, with emotional overtones, whether you like it or not, or recognize it. Nothing is "murder" unless it meets very specific legal requirements. YOU introduced a specific legal term, then complained when I brought up the law. Steinbock thought the law was relevant, and in fact it's part of the title of her book, and she also published a redacted version in the Journal of Law Medicine and Ethics.

It is utterly fallacious Embryological nonsense to think that there is any real qualitative difference, between the (false) "instant" (which is not now, nor will EVER be determinable) that a fetus's neural tube is complete, intact, and begins to function, and differentiable from the period (nanosecond) before that occurs.
And even if it were, it is utterly impractical to attempt to determine it, on a case by case basis. No one is going to pay for any such testing, or do it, on a regular basis.

There are so many "fallacies of the false analogy" in Steinbock's (redacted) piece, I stopped counting. *"Abortion is seriously wrong for the same reason that killing an innocent adult human being is seriously wrong: it deprives the victim of his or her valuable future". Seriously ? The unspoken premises, and assumptions there are hilariously blatant. IF one agrees with her premises, she forgot to add.

(12-10-2013 11:06 PM)Chippy Wrote:  No I appealed to Steinbock's criterion and I referenced her multiple times. Steinbock's criterion of interest is satisfied with reference to the neurological development of the foetus. The precise point of the development of personhood varies from gestation to gestation and although we can't determine it precisely now we will be able to determine sufficient neurological development (for possession of interests) in precise terms soon. At this stage we need to rely on population means.

So what. Did anyone else say they agreed with Steinbock. Who died and made her god ? You may think she makes, sense, I certainly do not. Have you studied Embryology ? There is no "precise point". The fact that you think there is , or that in the cellular development PROCESS, that ever could be determined, proves how little you really know about gestation. And your utterly hilarious assertion that "person-hood varies from gestation to gestation" is just more proof. There is NO Embryologist who would assert such nonsense, and it depends 100 % on the definition given to "person-hood", which no one is ever going to agree on.

There is no absolute moral standard. What is immoral for one person is not immoral for another. If a woman honestly believes her health, (which includes her mental health), would be irreparably harmed, (or even slightly harmed), or her existing family would be less well off, (and that may be her highest value), by carrying a pregnancy to term, and she believes it is moral to terminate, then that IS a moral choice for her, and in fact would be IMMORAL not to terminate the pregnancy.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2013, 03:34 AM (This post was last modified: 13-10-2013 03:40 AM by Chippy.)
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(13-10-2013 12:49 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You forgot one thing. In YOUR opinion. Steinbock isn't all of a sudden the moral arbiter here.

No but she at least has an argument which is something you conspicuously lack.

Quote:Yet you used an emotional appeal anyway.

No I stated the consclusion that my premises produced.

Quote:Murder is a legal term, with emotional overtones, whether you like it, or recognize it.

That doesn't entail that I was seeking to appeal to emotion.

Quote:Nothing is "murder" unless it meets very specific legal requirements.

The concept of murder relies on a philosophical conception of personhood which the notion of legal personhood in turn relies upon. Why can't we murder an apple tree?

Quote:YOU introduced a specific legal term, then complained when I brought up the law. Steinbock thought the law was relevant, and in fact it's part of the title of her book,

Yes of course the law is relevant, the purpose of most moral discussion about abortion is to influence public policy. The problem with your invocation of the law was that you did so in a ham-fisted manner as if the notion of legal personhood--which is a circular concept--could have elucidatory value. It doesn't.

Quote:and she also published a redacted version in the Journal of Law Medicine and Ethics.

The purpose of bioethics is to influence the law.

Quote:It is utterly fallacious Embryological nonsense to think that there is any real qualitative difference, between the (false) "instant" (which is not now, nor will EVER be determinable) that a fetus's neural tube is complete, intact, and begins to function, and the period (nanosecond) before that. And even if it were, it is utterly impractical to attempt to determine it, on a case by case basis. No one is going to pay for any such testing.

No one proposed neural tube closure as the criterion for personhood. That is entirely your own invention. The neurological substrates of self-consciousness, self-interest, intentionality i.e. personhood, are a pattern of activity in the brain--they can be nothing else. When the brain of the foetus is able to be imaged an objective determination of personhood will become possible. Until that time population means regarding developmental milestones stand as indirect measurement of that phenomenon.

Who and how this is paid for is besides the point.

Quote:There are so many "fallacies of the false analogy" in Steinbock's (redacted) piece, I stopped counting. *"Abortion is seriously wrong for the same reason that killing an innocent adult human being is seriously wrong: it deprives the victim of his or her valuable future". Seriously ? The unspoken premises, and assumptions there are hilariously blatant. IF one agrees with her premises, she forgot to add.


Again that is besides the point. I referenced Steinbock's "interest view" of personhood which I think is sound.

Quote:So what. Did anyone else say they agreed with Steinbock. Who died and made her god ?

Again that is besides the point. Do you have a rebuttal of Steinbock?

Quote:You may think she makes, sense, I certainly do not.

So what? Publish a paper answering her conception of personhood and I'll read it.

Quote:Have you studied Embryology?

Yes.

Quote:There is no "precise point". The fact that you think there, or that in the cellular development PROCESS, that ever could be determined, proves how little you really know about gestation.

No precise point of what?

Since we are ultimately concerned with whether the foetal brain is exhbiting the kind of activity that we associate with self-consciousness and intentionality we are seeking a method of imaging the foetal brain's activity. We already have the ability to MRI the foetal brain. The functional neuroimaging of the foetal brain is an extension of current fMRI and PET technology. My conjecture is that tunctional neuroimaging of the foetal brain will eventually replace routine sonography.

Quote:And your utterly hilarious assertion that "person-hood varies from gestation to gestation" is just more proof. There is NO Embryologist who would assert such nonsense.

The precise time at which any developmental milestone is reached in gestation varies from mother-to-mother. The Carnegie Stages are defined in terms of days not hours. If you are trying to say that there is a universal isomorphic mapping between the hour of gestation and a specifc embryological/foetul development then you are wrong. Human gestation varies in length by as much as 37 days and its length and rate differs between ethnic groups. African foetuses mature faster than Asian and European foetuses.[1][2][3]

Merely because we can't now identify the precise time at which a specific foetus gains consciousness/intentionality/self-interest doesn't mean that no such time exists. Somewhere between zygote and perinatal foetus, personhood emerges--we can be sure of that. Given that we know that higher cognitive processes are produced by certain parts of the brain we can narrow the window of observation on gestation. We are also quite confident that the properties identified with personhood originate in the brain. The functional neuroimaging of personhood is well within the trajectory of neuroscience and imaging technology.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2013, 04:33 AM
Why I am no longer pro-choice.
The point where a fetus becomes a person with consciousness, intention, ability to feel pain etc. cannot precisely be determined because growing into a person is a gradual process. There is no time t where we cans say that the fetus was not a person
just before time t and is a person just after time t. people like it to be black and white but unfortunately it is grey. To make the law not too complicated we may have to choose some point, some objective measureable criterion where personhood starts, but it going to be somewhat arbitrary.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2013, 07:08 AM (This post was last modified: 13-10-2013 07:18 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(13-10-2013 03:34 AM)Chippy Wrote:  Who and how this is paid for is besides the point.

It absolutely is not. Obviously you have no clue how much MRIs and PET scans cost, and the preposterous notion that a woman considering abortion would expose the fetus and herself to dangerous unnecessary radiation, which traditional sonography does not, or that any OBGYN professional is actually considering that, or that anyone would routinely pay for such examinations, proves exactly how little you know about what YOU, (not "we") are talking about.

(13-10-2013 03:34 AM)Chippy Wrote:  Since we are ultimately concerned with whether the foetal brain is exhbiting the kind of activity that we associate with self-consciousness and intentionality we are seeking a method of imaging the foetal brain's activity. We already have the ability to .... My conjecture is that tunctional neuroimaging of the foetal brain will eventually replace routine sonography.

("tunctional neuroimaging")
Hahahahaha. Really ? Post ONE peer reviewed article from an Obstetrics journal proposing that. You have obviously NEVER had anything to do with, nor do you know one thing about that field. "Eventually" ? Didn't you just say "The precise point of the development of personhood varies from gestation to gestation and although we can't determine it precisely now we will be able to determine sufficient neurological development (for possession of interests) in precise terms soon.

(13-10-2013 03:34 AM)Chippy Wrote:  The precise time at which any developmental milestone is reached in gestation varies from mother-to-mother. If you are trying to say that there is a universal isomorphic mapping between the hour of gestation and a specifc embryological/foetul development then you are wrong.

No shit, Sherlock. I'm talking Biochemistry.
There is no way most women who are considering abortion will undergo amniocentesis, nor is there any way anyone is going to pay for the EXPENSIVE, RISKY examination.

(13-10-2013 03:34 AM)Chippy Wrote:  Merely because we can't now identify the precise time at which a specific foetus gains consciousness/intentionality/self-interest doesn't mean that no such time exists. Somewhere between zygote and perinatal foetus, personhood emerges--we can be sure of that.

No "we" can't, if "we" have not accepted all your presuppositions.
YOU are talking milestones, and "points" yet now you're saying they can't be identified ?
How EXACTLY will it be possible to tell abortion is "murder" one day, but wasn't "murder" 24 hours before, or even 1 hour before.

Bucha fapping by creepy armchair wanna be's, who NEED to tell women what to do with their bodies.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2013, 07:43 AM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(13-10-2013 04:33 AM)black_squirrel Wrote:  The point where a fetus becomes a person with consciousness, intention, ability to feel pain etc. cannot precisely be determined because growing into a person is a gradual process. There is no time t where we cans say that the fetus was not a person
just before time t and is a person just after time t. people like it to be black and white but unfortunately it is grey. To make the law not too complicated we may have to choose some point, some objective measureable criterion where personhood starts, but it going to be somewhat arbitrary.

I don't agree and the consensus view amongst evolutionary psychologists (EPs) supports my position. Amongst EPs there is consensus that mind is created by a set of discrete neural structures. The only point of contention is the location of the specificity of the discrete structures. The two main hypothesis are the Massive Modularity Hypothesis (MMH)[1][2] and the Library Model of Cognition (LMC)[3]. In sum MMH holds that mind is entirely composed of domain-specific problem-solving modules that consist of both domain-specific computational capacity and knowledge representation. LMC proposes a small set of computational mechanisms and a multitude of domain-specific knowledge representations upon which the computational mechanisms operate. A analogy is that MMH proposes many computers with each their own software; LPC proposes a few computers with a library of software.

Either way both hypothesis entail discrete neural organisation at one level or another. It is only a matter of time before we can accurately localise these discrete neural structures and with imaging determine if they are active or not.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2013, 08:34 AM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(13-10-2013 07:08 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It absolutely is not. Obviously you have no clue how much MRIs and PET scans cost

The cost of MRI and PET has no bearing on whether their development in a particular direction is possible.

Quote:and the preposterous notion that a woman considering abortion would expose the fetus and herself to dangerous unnecessary radiation

MRI/fMRI is not nuclear and PET is not dangerous.

Quote:("tunctional neuroimaging")

Trying to score a cheap point off of a typo.

Quote:Hahahahaha. Really ? Post ONE peer reviewed article from an Obstetrics journal proposing that.

It doesn't have to be in an obstetrics journal but I have included references from obstetrics journals.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23349068
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24043616
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24032261
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23836580
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23542738
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23456749
http://www.seminperinat.com/article/S014...7/abstract
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...8604002687
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9545472
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12297730
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12136312
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16365776
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24102352
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15094650
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24069579
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22217594
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21680687
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20395321
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24056222
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23612626
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23714877
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19298991


Quote:You have obviously NEVER had anything to do with, nor do you know one thing about that field. "Eventually" ? Didn't you just say "The precise point of the development of personhood varies from gestation to gestation and although we can't determine it precisely now we will be able to determine sufficient neurological development (for possession of interests) in precise terms soon.

How is "eventually" inconsistent with "soon"? The point is at some later time.

Quote:No shit, Sherlock. I'm talking Biochemistry.

???

Quote:
There is no way most women who are considering abortion will undergo amniocentesis, nor is there any way anyone is going to pay for the EXPENSIVE, RISKY examination.

Who proposed amniocentesis?

Quote:YOU are talking milestones, and "points" yet now you're saying they can't be identified ?

???

Quote:How EXACTLY will it be possible to tell abortion is "murder" one day, but wasn't "murder" 24 hours before, or even 1 hour before.

By determining whether those patterns of neural activation that are present in a person are also present in a foetus.

Quote:Bucha fapping by creepy armchair wanna be's, who NEED to tell women what to do with their bodies.

Are you mentally retarded?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2013, 08:54 AM (This post was last modified: 13-10-2013 09:18 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(13-10-2013 08:34 AM)Chippy Wrote:  The cost of MRI and PET has no bearing on whether their development in a particular direction is possible.

Proof you live in an ivory tower, divorced from reality.

(13-10-2013 08:34 AM)Chippy Wrote:  MRI/fMRI is not nuclear and PET is not dangerous.

"Risks
By Mayo Clinic staff
Although a radioactive substance is used during a PET scan, the amount of radiation that you're exposed to is too low to affect the normal processes of your body.
However, this radioactive material might harm the fetus of a pregnant woman. You and your doctor can discuss risk to the fetus or infant versus the reasoning and benefit of having a PET scan performed."

(13-10-2013 08:34 AM)Chippy Wrote:  It doesn't have to be in an obstetrics journal but I have included references from obstetrics journals.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23349068
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24043616
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24032261
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23836580
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23542738
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23456749
http://www.seminperinat.com/article/S014...7/abstract
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/art...8604002687
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9545472
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12297730
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12136312
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16365776
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24102352
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15094650
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24069579
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22217594
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21680687
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20395321
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24056222
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23612626
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23714877
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19298991

Are you mentally retarded ?
Every single one talks about imaging fetuses for fetal abnormalities, and NOT ONE proposes their use for their routine use for the purpose you have fantasized.
No one questions that scanning can be done on a fetus. Nice attempted evasion. Fail.

(13-10-2013 08:34 AM)Chippy Wrote:  How is "eventually" inconsistent with "soon"? The point is at some later time.

Seriously. That desperate ?

Quote:???

Exactly. You have no clue.

Quote:Who proposed amniocentesis?

Exactly. You have no clue what goes on in the real world.

I should have known better to say anything in the "tilting at windmills" section. Tongue
Carry on. Drinking Beverage

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2013, 09:59 AM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(13-10-2013 08:54 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Proof you live in an ivory tower, divorced from reality.

No it just shows that I can think clearly and you can't. The consumer cost of the technology has no bearing on how it could be developed. Whether what I anticipate is possible or not is determined entirely by our neuroscientific understanding.

Quote:"Risks
By Mayo Clinic staff
Although a radioactive substance is used during a PET scan, the amount of radiation that you're exposed to is too low to affect the normal processes of your body.
However, this radioactive material might harm the fetus of a pregnant woman. You and your doctor can discuss risk to the fetus or infant versus the reasoning and benefit of having a PET scan performed."

It says "might" not "definitely will". The evidence suggests that the risk is low:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22217594
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21680687

Furthermore, PET technology can be improved to make it safer. Again that is merely a matter of time.

Quote:Are you mentally retarded ?
Every single one talks about imaging fetuses for fetal abnormalities,

Wrong and irrelevant. Many of the papers are concerned with the use of MRI in relation to normal foetuses. Also it is besides the point whether the application is in relation to normal or abnormal foetuses. My point is that the technology is already being used to image the brains of foetuses.

Quote:and NOT ONE proposes their use for their routine use for the purpose you have fantasized.

Nowhere did I suggest that imaging is currently being used to determine personhood. Also, it is premature to make that proposal in a journal because brain function hasn't been fully mapped. I am arguing that when imaging technology matures and we arrive at a more complete neuroscience a determination of personhood will be made in the manner I have described. That is my prediction based on the science and technology we now have.

Quote:
No one questions that scanning can be done on a fetus. Nice attempted evasion. Fail.

I wrote:
"My conjecture is that tunctional neuroimaging of the foetal brain will eventually replace routine sonography."

You responded:
"Hahahahaha. Really ? Post ONE peer reviewed article from an Obstetrics journal proposing that."

I answered with a multitude of references. Yes the brains of foetuses can be scanned--that is my point--hence my prediction is entirely plausible and very probable.

Also, amniocentesis is irrelevant what I have posted. Amniocentesis is used primarily to diagnose chromosomal abnormalities and infections. How is that relevant to the neural development which would permit personhood?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2013, 10:44 AM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
Muffs. I'm not even going to pretend that I read all 23 pages of this thread, so I'm sorry if I'm just repeating what everyone said.

My question would be to ask you if you're aware of how many children are homeless/orphanages etc already?

Well here in the states its around 400,000 in foster care alone. For example.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/fil...port19.pdf

This site has statistics on foster care.

If its lucky it might get adopted out of that 400,000....and stay....in that home.

Why force a child into an uncertain, and most likely not a fantastic, future just because "hey, why cant she just carry it to term then give it away"

Maybe this child could just end up homeless like the 6.1 million children here in the states.

http://www.horizonsforhomelesschildren.o...finitions/

I'm just saying that the children are already there for that "demand" which is not even close to fast enough for these poor kids. Why risk another child to that if it really doesn't have to happen?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-10-2013, 12:39 PM
RE: Why I am no longer pro-choice.
(12-10-2013 05:07 PM)Mr Woof Wrote:  While the law is often an ass I do not see a self serving anarchy, devoid of any consideration for others views, a might is right, survival of the toughest, as a very positive way to go....
No, I don't want an anarchy society, and i deplore a might makes right approach.
We need government for monetary policy, for essentials (school, hospital, roads, police etc)

We need laws to ensure society is functioning, we can't accept most forms of killing humans, we can't accept most forms of theft.
But society functions well when we don't have laws against abortion (a form of killing humans), euthanasia (a form of killing humans), prostitution, gay marriage ..., these laws are examples of "Might makes right" mentality, they show that those with power often go overboard and want to control and force people to conform to their own beliefs and ideals.

If you are worried about people being self serving, not having consideration for others views, then maybe you could campaign and educate rather than force people at gunpoint towards this viewpoint.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: