Limits on Abortion

Prosecuting for murder women desperate enough to throw themselves down stairs in the hope of miscarrying seems unnecessarily harsh to the point of evil.I suspect most anti abortionists would not go that far. They would just make the act of abortion by chemical or medical operation methods illegal.However that would certainly lead to the sort of desperate methods of aborting being described (coathangers, stairs etc.) being used which is something any anti abortionist should consider carefully.Unless you believe in a soul there is no real reason to be absolutely anti abortion (the exact time limits might still be up for debate however).
We cannot have medical practices defined or restricted by faith in the existence of non physical, unprovable notions of an ethereal soul.

We seem to basically agree so we will have to see what NJ comes back with as regards Crashfrogs scenario. If NJ (and other anti abortionists) really would support the jailing of women desperate enough to injure and mutilate themselves then that really is quite appalling. I am unclear what the law in the US actually is. I thought abortion was basically legalised even if somewhat controversially so???

So I take it you are in favor of prosecuting women desperate enough to mutilate and injure themselves in a bid to do anything but carry unwanted foetuses to term?Surely people this desperate need help not condemnation?
Your desire to punish is not only heartless, it is inhuman and immoral.Does your video and therefore your argument (such as it is) apply to an embryo a few weeks old?I assume that the basis of all your abortion = murder beliefs are rooted in the existence of some sort of soul?
If so should we divert valuable medical resource to saving the 'lost souls' of all those embryos that miscarry naturally very early on in pregnancy often without the mother even being aware she is pregnant?Do identical twins share a soul?What is the basis of your unshakable faith in your anti abortion stance and how does this stand up to critical and scientific scrutiny??

Do not a lot of NI women wanting abortions come to other parts of the UK to gain access to this treatment.Thus slanting the figures on both counts

Those that oppose abortion are generally the same people who oppose contraception, sex education, publicly funded healthcare and liberalised adoption laws.All of which contribute to less abortions being required or make alternatives more easily accessible.It does seem a rather contradictory stance. No?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This tactic is also used in the wider political context. Conservatives (of the UK variety which seem to be wishy washy liberals in comparison to their US equivelents) will wilfully underfund public services to the point of failure and then declare that publicly funded organisations are inherently useless and need to be privatised. Then they sell them off to their friends in big business who go on to make huge profits from essential services.However this is completely off topic so please ignore my little rant!!Abortion...where were we....?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Crash says at birth. For the record at what point would you say humanity arises in terms of foetal development and what is the basis for this definition??To my mind a zygote evidently is not a person, human being, sentient lifeform etc. Whilst a new born baby evidently is. I personally would say that a baby capable of independent existence is a person too. However that is an arbitary definition that I happen to be comfortable with.The problem is that there is no fixed point at which something evidently non-human becomes something human. It is a gradual process. Attempting to define any such definite point is doomed to failure.Any definition is arbitary to some extent. Even a fertilised egg (if that is your definition) is an arbitary definition of what is human and what is not. Why is each individual egg or sperm not worth saving as a potential life?
Should we be diverting mass medical resources to save all those zygotes that naturally never make it to developing any further? If not why not?

Fair enough.I guess it depends what you mean by "independent existence". I meant that it is able to breathe, feed etc. without actually being physically connected to it's mother. Granted that this is very limited definition of "independent existence" and as with any arbitary definition it is no doubt subject to all sorts of contradictions and discrepancies when applied elsewhere. I do not dispute that at all.If anything this just reinforces my main point that whatever definition is chosen is effectively an arbitary one. There is no definite biological point at which something non-human becomes something human no matter how convenient this might be for our moral comfort.Therefore an arbitary decision is the best we can do. Hence the heated debate and inconsistencies in most positions on this topic.

I think you are largely right but even the forming of the soul at the moment of conception is subject to inconsistencies of logic in the light of biological evidence.Any pro lifer whose basis is the formation of a human soul should consider the following - (I am no biologist so anyone feel free to correct me if I am wrong in terms of the details)There is no moment of conception. Several sperm can in fact penetrate the outer membrane of the egg and the excess ones will be ejected over a period of time (up to 24 hours). What is the status of the soul during this period?Even when the single sperm does fertilise the egg it does not mix genes with the egg straight away and when it does it still takes time for the fully formed genome to take control of the cell. A period of a couple of days in total.
So at what point is the soul formed during all of this?Then less than half of these zygotes actually implant in the uterus. So does that mean over half of all the souls formed never actually become people??Even if formed this cell can go on to produce identical twins.
Do they share a soul?Each cell of an embryo is capable of splitting off and forming a whole person.
Does each cell have a soul?On rare occasions two seperate embryos will join together to form one which then develops into a single person.
Does this person have two souls?The whole idea of being anti abortion on the basis and definition of of the soul just becomes as difficult as defining human life in terms of sentience or any other graduated process. Those of the soul merchant position have as many physical inconsistencies in their view as any other arbitary position whether they realise it or not.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

As an anti abortionist for what I presume to be religious reasons (??) I would be interested in your take on the points raised in post 151 above?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

But the whole point is that there is no "moment" of conception. There is no "moment" at which human life is started.
It is a graduated process.
There is no instant at which something non-human becomes human no matter how morally convenient this would be it is just not the case.If you think there is a moment when is it exactly?So "respect for human life" (which pro choice people absolutely have too don't forget) whatever your view of abortion ALL depends upon the arbitary point that you decide something is actually a human life.You choose very early on in the process. Crash chooses much later. I choose somewhere between the two. None of us consider ourelves to be killing humans.I could equally validly claim that human life does not start until a child is able to communicate and that we are all blessed with souls at the stroke of midnight on our third birthday.Utterly arbitary but equally valid and with equally as much physical evidence (i.e. none - there is no evidence for the soul in a zygote, embryo, fetus, baby, toddler, child, adolescent or fully formed adult) I am afraid that the evidence is against you there as well. The randomness of a particular sperm fertilising a particualr egg (never mind the random events that lead to those two people copulating at that exact time anyway) is pretty astronomical.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

It is not so much that we don't know. It is that there is no sensible biological answer to this question.
For convenience, moral comfort and practical legislation we need definite cutoff points. BUT a natural biological definite cutoff point just does not exist.
Human and non-human, life and non-life biological cutoff points do not exist in the way that are required here.Taken to it's logical conclusion the whole pro life stance does end up with the every sperm and every egg is sacred (to paraphrase Monty Python) which is obviously impractical and pointless.So all we can do is accept that our decisions are arbitary and decide what our false and arbitary cutoff point will be.You have decided that this lies at some indefinite point after the sperm and egg have hooked up but this could just as arbitarily have been chosen well before that event or, (as with the pro choicers) much later.It is all arbitary. Including your own cutoff point. As stated earlier I too adhere to the independent existence concept (to which Raz pointed out some inconsistencies)
BUT I know it is an arbitary cutoff point (like all others) and that there are going to be potential inconsistencies regards adult humans who are dependent on life support etc.
I accept these inconsistencies as I know they are inevitable with arbitary cutoff points no matter how rational they may be.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Then you oppose contraception on logical religious (not two words I put together often) grounds I assume?
Contraception surely constitutes 'messing with it' in this context?If it is all arbitrary then you accept that your cutoff point regards abortion is as arbitrary as Crash's?

At least you are consistent.However (well you must have known there would be one) - Surely the trouble with the 'not messing with it' philosophy is that unless you take everything natural as good (disease, illness etc. etc.) there are still arbitrary (that word again) decisions that need to be made as to when to intervene in nature and when not to.We both agree that a liver transplant is a good thing if it alleviates suffering.
I believe that an abortion is equally justified for the same reasons.Both are 'messing with it' as you put it.Therefore your opposition to abortion is based on two arbitrary decisions
1) When you decide that a human life is a human life
2) When you decide that intervention in nature to alleviate suffering is appropriate and when it is notPro choicers are making equally valid but different arbitrary decisions about the same things. All the evidence suggests that you will be fighting a losing battle against human nature and it's most ingrained needs and desires. Is there any evidence at all for any such society ever existing anywhere ever?

Intriguing. So would removing cancerous growths, providing medication for pain relief and treatments to hold off the onset of AIDS also constitute 'messing' and would you be opposed to all of those too? What medical pratices are not 'mesing'?? Are you opposed to medicine on principle? Well we are back to our arbitrary definition of the start of human life again. I could claim that male masturbation destroys lives too. Not at all. But defining as evil things that are deeply ingrained in human nature will almost inevitably lead to conflict, hypocrisy and a failure to eradicate that behaviour. If you are going to take that path you sould have very good reasons for doing so. I am not convinced your reasons for enforcing the sexual morality you outline are good enough to be either workable or desirable given that you are opposing the most basic elements of human nature.