Roe vs Wade - getting overturned?

[jeremyp]

This doesn't justify killing a foetus or embryo, though. People die of natural causes at all ages.

So why did your god design humans that way? Christians would have us believe that their god is responsible for almost all abortions.

Your god is a monster.

[ProfessorDavey]

So why did your god design humans that way? Christians would have us believe that their god is responsible for almost all abortions.

Your god is a monster.

Or perhaps their god is impotent and actually unable, rather than unwilling, to intervene.

Occam would, of course, suggest an alternative explanation again

[jeremyp]

Or perhaps their god is impotent and actually unable, rather than unwilling, to intervene.

That is the case IMO since gods that don't exist are impotent by definition, but the Christians don't believe that, so I'd like to hear their excuseexplanation.

Occam would, of course, suggest an alternative explanation again

All these difficult questions are so much easier to answer if you believe that humans are a product of evolution by naturals selection rather than the creation of the all loving god.

[Anchorman]

 Hmmmmm....... This might open a can of legal worms.
https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/pregnant-woman-carpool-fine-unborn-child-passenger/?fbclid=IwAR0DtxqAXmSzg4G2BAFd3bZbTAAapcDi13gKd8zmoeBOqKMAvVd43vPlV3Y

[ProfessorDavey]

That is the case IMO since gods that don't exist are impotent by definition, but the Christians don't believe that, so I'd like to hear their excuseexplanation.
All these difficult questions are so much easier to answer if you believe that humans are a product of evolution by naturals selection rather than the creation of the all loving god.

And the Spuds and ABs of this world can't even answer what should be a really simple question for them if they think human life begins at conception - namely whether the zygote is Bob.

[Alan Burns]

And the Spuds and ABs of this world can't even answer what should be a really simple question for them if they think human life begins at conception - namely whether the zygote is Bob.

You were once a zygote

[SteveH]

You were once a zygote

So what?

[Anchorman]

My issue with Christians who oppose all abortions is simple;
In doing so, they ignore the command to love in every situation.
It's all very well fling Scripture and 'tradition' which isn't Scripture at the situation and washing thier hands....but Christ died for the mother who carries the product of rape, or incest, or afoetus which when brought to term will have no quality of life or a life measured in minutes, leaving years of anguish.
Would the One who cares for the sparrow not care that many of these women, forced to deliver to term, may decide suicide is a better alternative, as was the case before the Abortion Act (introduced, incidentally, by a committed Christian in 1966.)

[ProfessorDavey]

You were once a zygote

Sounds like you do think that the zygote is Bob? Why are you still so unwilling to address the question directly. I'll ask again:

Is the zygote Bob?

[ProfessorDavey]

You were once a zygote

Only in the sense that I was once a spermatocyte and an oocyte and was once some specific pre-germinal tissue/cell in the ovary/testis of my mother/father etc etc.

I dispute the (unevidenced) assertion that the zygote was me - I've provided a clear rebuttal to that naive assertion. Just as I dispute the notion that the spermatocyte or oocyte etc was me. In none of those cases can you make a cogent argument that those cells are the same individual person that may exist in the future.

[ProfessorDavey]

So what?

Actually, not true, but even if true, so what?

[Sriram]

Only in the sense that I was once a spermatocyte and an oocyte and was once some specific pre-germinal tissue/cell in the ovary/testis of my mother/father etc etc.

I dispute the (unevidenced) assertion that the zygote was me - I've provided a clear rebuttal to that naive assertion. Just as I dispute the notion that the spermatocyte or oocyte etc was me. In none of those cases can you make a cogent argument that those cells are the same individual person that may exist in the future.

The body was once a zygote. Then the Consciousness (soul) gets linked at some stage. The mind and awareness then get build slowly after birth and the personality gets developed.

[ProfessorDavey]

The body was once a zygote. Then the Consciousness (soul) gets linked at some stage. The mind and awareness then get build slowly after birth and the personality gets developed.

Not sure I would describe embryological development in such terms, but let's probe this a little more:

The body was once a zygote - not sure I agree with this - certain the body develops from the zygote, just as it does from the oocyte and spermatocyte, but that is subtly different from claiming that the body was once a zygote. Also you should note that most of what develops from the zygote during the early stages of development is not the body at all. More of the cells that develop from the zygote in the early stages produce the extra-embryonic structures, such as umbilical cord, placenta, membranes etc. So it isn't the case that the zygote turns into the body - it also develops into a whole bunch of other stuff.

[/i]Then the Consciousness (soul) gets linked at some stage. The mind and awareness then get build slowly after birth and the personality gets developed.[/i] - So at what point does the person first appear - when the zygote develops of when the soul gets linked (as you describe it). So is the zygote Bob, or does Bob only begin to exist when Bob's soul is linked?

Now I wouldn't use the terminology you do, and your terminology has no place in embryology, but there is an element of reality here. Effectively we ascribe a person and personhood to aspects of our neurological development - hence people being considered dead when they are brain stem dead, regardless of other bodily processes continuing. So surely the earliest point we might consider that the person appears would be when that unique neural identity begins to appear, or has developed to a certain stage. And of course this is way, way later than the zygote stage, which has no neuronal development at all.

[Sriram]

We can keep arguing about the zygote and the body.....but that is not the point. My point was that the zygote leads to the formation of the body only. Consciousness (which is what the person is) gets attached at some point during the development such that when a baby is born...it has consciousness.  It has no mind, no self awareness....but it has consciousness. This forms the core of the person.

Around this consciousness gets built the mind, ego and personality. This personality which includes his identity and memories...is what becomes Bob.

Bob is a set of memories, genetic traits, appearance, upbringing, social identity and so on. This personality will keep developing and changing and will finally get eliminated. Finally, the body will disintegrate, the mind will dissipate...but the consciousness that forms the core of his being will continue existing after death.

Bob will be no more but the consciousness that formed the core of Bob will continue. 

[ProfessorDavey]

We can keep arguing about the zygote and the body.....but that is not the point. My point was that the zygote leads to the formation of the body only. Consciousness (which is what the person is) gets attached at some point during the development such that when a baby is born...it has consciousness.  It has no mind, no self awareness....but it has consciousness. This forms the core of the person.

Around this consciousness gets built the mind, ego and personality. This personality which includes his identity and memories...is what becomes Bob.

Bob is a set of memories, genetic traits, appearance, upbringing, social identity and so on. This personality will keep developing and changing and will finally get eliminated. Finally, the body will disintegrate, the mind will dissipate...but the consciousness that forms the core of his being will continue existing after death.

Bob will be no more but the consciousness that formed the core of Bob will continue.

Which reads to me that you don't believe that the zygote is Bob - and although we may disagree on the reasons, and specifically on the manner in which we describe the development of Bob, on this point we agree. The zygote is not Bob, although we may also both agree that without the zygote existing then Bob also wouldn't, at some point in the future also exist.

So on these points you and I are in disagreement with AB, who appears to agree with the RCC official line (although he seems rather reticent to state that the zygote is Bob) - the RCC line being that the zygote is Bob, is the self same person and that to destroy the zygote is to kill Bob, rather than to do something which would prevent Bob coming into existence at some point in the future.

[Sriram]

I would agree that abortion at early stages would not amount to killing a person...though it does prevent the formation and subsequent birth of a person. As people have argued above, every sperm and egg is a potential person. Lots of it gets wasted in the natural course. Billions of potential persons go down the drain every day.

At what stage consciousness gets linked is a crucial matter.

[ProfessorDavey]

I would agree that abortion at early stages would not amount to killing a person...though it does prevent the formation and subsequent birth of a person. As people have argued above, every sperm and egg is a potential person. Lots of it gets wasted in the natural course. Billions of potential persons go down the drain every day.

I don't think we have a moral obligations towards potential people, only towards actually people.

At what stage consciousness gets linked is a crucial matter.

Or phrased differently at what point a person actually starts to exist. And I'm not sure it is that simple in moral terms. It is possible to argue (many do, including me) that the real issue is the moral status of the embryo as it develops and that there isn't a single point at which full moral status and rights arises, but that the moral status increases gradually over time, as therefore does our moral obligations towards the developing embryo/fetus. But you also have to factor in the potentially competing rights of the mother - there are plenty of situations where we balance rights, including the right to life where protecting the right to life of one person significantly infringes other rights held by other people. Self defence and just war arguments being the most obvious.

[Spud]

I read this morning an idea that many embryos have chromosomal abnormalities (The Fall?). Apparently it is better that they are aborted as this saves the mother from having to nurture them to full term which would use a lot of energy and result in a baby that won't thrive. It means she saves her energy for any healthy embryos that come along, which will help them survive.

[ProfessorDavey]

I read this morning an idea that many embryos have chromosomal abnormalities (The Fall?). Apparently it is better that they are aborted as this saves the mother from having to nurture them to full term which would use a lot of energy and result in a baby that won't thrive. It means she saves her energy for any healthy embryos that come along, which will help them survive.

What on earth do you mean by The Fall? I thought they were a band!!

But on the general point - if there are abnormalities, whether chromosomal or not, in an embryo which means it won't survive to term or will die shortly thereafter then surely the correct thing to do is to terminate the pregnancy and to do so as early as possible. This will result in minimising the trauma for the mother as well as limiting any potential suffering for the embryo/foetus.

Challenges arise when abnormalities are detected late - which makes the case for comprehensive ante-natal screening, or when there isn't clarity whether the baby will die, but the issues are around whether the baby will have any meaningful quality of life if it is born.

[SqueakyVoice]

Removal of abortion rights from gender statement classed as ‘minor’ change by Government

https://liveapp.inews.co.uk/2022/07/28/alarming-removal-of-abortion-rights-from-gender-equality-statement-filed-as-minor-change-by-uk-government/content.html

Time after time, the tories are following the US like a baby chimpanzee, hoping that holding hands with a bigger bipedal gorilla will keep them safe.

[Spud]

What on earth do you mean by The Fall? I thought they were a band!!

But on the general point - if there are abnormalities, whether chromosomal or not, in an embryo which means it won't survive to term or will die shortly thereafter then surely the correct thing to do is to terminate the pregnancy and to do so as early as possible. This will result in minimising the trauma for the mother as well as limiting any potential suffering for the embryo/foetus.

Challenges arise when abnormalities are detected late - which makes the case for comprehensive ante-natal screening, or when there isn't clarity whether the baby will die, but the issues are around whether the baby will have any meaningful quality of life if it is born.

I don't agree with killing the embryo if it has abnormalities, unless the mother is at risk. There's a difference between dying of natural causes and being killed deliberately by a person.

[ProfessorDavey]

I don't agree with killing the embryo if it has abnormalities, unless the mother is at risk. There's a difference between dying of natural causes and being killed deliberately by a person.

I think that distinction is complicated by the fact that the embryo has no ability to survive on its own. We accept the removal of life sustaining interventions for babies after they have been born if that baby will die and sustaining life/medical intervention is considered to be futile and/or painful/distressing to the baby and therefore not in its best interests.

Indeed we do it for people at any age - see the recent tragic Archie Battersbee case.

[Roses]

I am of the opinion that all women should have the absolute right to have an abortion, for whatever reason, until the baby is viable.

I think getting Roe vs Wade overturned is a huge mistake and will lead to women going to back street abortionists.

[SteveH]

I am of the opinion that all women should have the absolute right to have an abortion, for whatever reason, until the baby is viable.

It's a bit more complicated than that. Should they have the right to a social abortion on the NHS, at others' expense? I'm just asking the question you understand, but it is a valid question to ask.

I think getting Roe vs Wade overturned is a huge mistake and will lead to women going to back street abortionists.

I agree with that.

[Roses]

It's a bit more complicated than that. Should they have the right to a social abortion on the NHS, at others' expense? I'm just asking the question you understand, but it is a valid question to ask.I agree with that.

Is that any worse than smokers getting treatment for lung conditions on the NHS?