Foetuses 'cannot experience pain'

[JAG]

Just thought I might post this new study, thought the moral majority needed to show their damnation again.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4905892.stm


Foetuses 'cannot experience pain'
Pregnant woman
The debate about whether foetuses feel pain is long-running
Foetuses cannot feel pain because it requires mental development that only occurs outside the womb, says a report in the British Medical Journal.

Dr Stuart Derbyshire, of the University of Birmingham, said a baby's actions and relationships with carers enabled it to process the subjectivity of pain.

Pro-life groups say foetuses respond to stimuli from 20 weeks.

The US is considering legislation to make doctors tell women seeking an abortion it will cause the foetus pain.


We know for certain is that by the age of 20 weeks unborn children can respond to external aural stimuli such as music and conversation
Anna Pringle, Life
It is also being suggested that, if the pregnancy is over 22 weeks, foetuses should be given pain-relieving drugs.

Dr Derbyshire, who is linked to pro-choice groups, said there were various stages of a foetus' gestation at which certain parts of the body's pain "alarm system" developed.

He concludes that pathways in the brain needed to process pain responses and hormonal stress responses are in place by 26 weeks.

But he says the crucial factor is the environmental difference between the womb - where the placenta provides a chemical environment to encourage the foetus to sleep - and that of a newborn baby, who is exposed to a wide range of stimuli and environments.

'Unnecessary' procedures

"Pain is something that comes from our experiences and develops due to stimulation and human interaction.

"It involves concepts such as location, feelings of unpleasantness and having the sensation of pain.

"Pain becomes possible because of a psychological development that begins at birth when the baby is separated from the protected atmosphere of the womb and is stimulated into wakeful activity."

Dr Derbyshire said whether or not foetuses felt pain did not affect the abortion debate because it did not change the moral viewpoints of the pro-choice and pro-life lobby, or the legality of terminations.

But he said: "Avoiding a discussion of foetal pain with women requesting abortions is not misguided paternalism but a sound policy based on good evidence that foetuses cannot experience pain."

And he said giving foetuses painkilling drugs - which would have to be given through the placenta - involved procedures which may expose the woman to unnecessary risks and distress.

But Anna Pringle, a spokeswoman for the pro-life charity Life, said: "This complex debate has been ongoing for a long time.

"Of course, if the unborn child can feel pain - as has been suggested by other research - then it makes abortion all the more horrifying.

"What we know for certain is that by the age of 20 weeks unborn children can respond to external aural stimuli such as music and conversation, and the 4-D ultrasound techniques used by Professor Stuart Campbell have shown that a child also responds to physical stimuli."

But she agreed that the issue of whether foetuses felt pain was irrelevant to the abortion debate.

"A human person is a human person, and as such has the right to life, which is quite literally fundamental to all other rights."

[Crazed Rabbit]

His argument seems to be that since babies can not experience pain until they are outside the womb, like people ahve to learn the experience of pain before they can be hurt. What a load of rubbish. Pain is nervous signals to the brain, not a developed thought process.

And, as was said in the article, the whole thing is irrelevant. You can't harm someone becuase they can't feel pain.

Crazed Rabbi

[Xiahou]

What a load. By his definition, you could wait til the baby is born and then strangle it- no pain, no harm right?

Honestly, how many months old does a baby need to be to understand it's "location"? :dizzy2:

[Rodion Romanovich]

Honestly, how many months old does a baby need to be to understand it's "location"? :dizzy2:

Varies between 1.5 and 2.5 years, I think. The question isn't really about whether the fetus can feel pain, but whether we consider it morally correct to kill a fetus after conception. I'd say the main reason isn't that you're killing a fetus that can't feel anything, but that a couple that can't make up their mind on whether to have a baby or not before they go to bed aren't fit to have a child, and then should never allow a conception to take place in the first place, therefore the need for abortion would never occur. As for rape victims, it's important to make sure people who don't rape carry on their genes to another generation, therefore abortion for rape victims is a necessity.

Edit: when I say a person should have made up their mind before sex aren't grown-up enough to have a child, then it might look like an argument for abortion. But as long as there is abortion, they'll keep repeating this behavior because they know they can always stop the pregnancy. So it's an argument against abortion. The matter is complicated because if rape victims are the only to be allowed abortion, then women who want an abortion might accuse their partner of rape in order to get permission for abortion. Not an easy question at all IMO.

[Navaros]

There is no such thing as a "foetus" or "fetus", only unborn babies.

They definitely can feel pain, no matter what any quack study says.

And murdering them will always be the epitome of evil, and proof that much of "society" are nothing more than evil barbarians rather than civilized human beings.

[Radier]

JAG, you do not feel pain either if I give you some pills and then kill you.
Just because very young babies do not feel pain you don't have the right to kill them. That's murder.

[Duke Malcolm]

I have to admit "Linked to pro-choice groups" suggests that this professor is somewhat biased on the matter. An independent study would be better -- this is comparable to those studies funded by tobacco companies into the effects of tobacco which come out saying cigarettes do no or very little harm...

[Vladimir]

It reminds me of another BBC story that claimed that the Black Death brought on the Medieval cooling period because of all the nasty tree cutting Europeans that it killed. Rubbish.

[Proletariat]

Sweet. I'm going to go torture a quadriplegic from the neck down.

[Devastatin Dave]

Sweet. I'm going to go torture a quadriplegic from the neck down.
:laugh4:

[Lemur]

This is the same argument people make for circumcising infant boys. And I don't buy it one bit. Watch a video of a male baby being circumcised (I have). He's feeling it, no question.

This is as stupid as people who declare that animals don't have feelings, because they can't tell you about them. At the pre-verbal phase, all you have is feelings.

[Vladimir]

This is the same argument people make for circumcising infant boys. And I don't buy it one bit. Watch a video of a male baby being circumcised (I have). He's feeling it, no question.



Hah! Good point. I guess there's no argument against infant circumcision now.

[Viking]

I cannot feel light pain while asleep, but don`t kill me, please!

[Rodion Romanovich]

lol some really good remarks ~:) about why fetus not feeling pain isn't the main argument in the abortion debate, and that it's other principles that matter :2thumbsup:

[Proletariat]

It's a bilateral strawman.

[A.Saturnus]

It's important to distinguish between 'pain' and 'suffering'. I'm certain that foetuses can feel pain, but I doubt that they can suffer. There are pathological conditions that render people inable to suffer from physical violations. The same people can still feel pain, their pain receptors are working normally and they know that these violations happen.They just don't consider them aversive. Obviously suffering involves higher brain functions that simply receiving pain does. Brain functions foetuses probably don't have because they have no operational cortex yet.
Thus foetuses can respond to physical stimuli inculding pain, but that's just a basal stimulus-response mechanism, they don't experience it.


This is as stupid as people who declare that animals don't have feelings, because they can't tell you about them. At the pre-verbal phase, all you have is feelings.

Higher animals certainly have feelings, but do you think invertebrate have feelings? They certainly can respond to pain.

[BigTex]

It's understandable that something without a fully developed brain wouldn't feel pain. Sure they might react to stimuli but thats just ingrained, pain is usually all psychological. If you don't know what pain is and your brain doesnt understand either you wouldn't feel the "alarm". I don't even understand the point of this study, why should it wiegh on the judgement to get rid of a fetus or not. Someone who is getting an abortion is probably more concerned about damage to their own bodies or if they could provide for that baby if it were to be born. Gotta love biased "sceintific" tudies done to advance politics points though, their kinda a good read.

[Soulforged]

If the foetus can feel pain or not is totally irrelevant for abortion cases. The point is that the human since it's conception should have the right to develop into a sentient who can feel pain, love, joy, etc... That's the point against abortion, it nullifies the freedoms of the people who cannot defend by themselves.

But she agreed that the issue of whether foetuses felt pain was irrelevant to the abortion debate.

"A human person is a human person, and as such has the right to life, which is quite literally fundamental to all other rights."

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Pro-Abortionists can't experience pain either, because they lack the mental development needed to. ~D

Don't insult fetii! And it doesn't matter if it can feel pain; shoot someone up with enough novacain they won't feel pain either, but that don't mean we can kill them.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Just thought I might post this new study, thought the moral majority needed to show their damnation again.I am not so sure about the merits of that study. But I do know you're still the king of working up the moral majority, JAG. :laugh4:


:2thumbsup:

[Strike For The South]

:no: Abortion. I dont understand it. Its a sign of the times. If dont want the kid (even though you made the damn decsion!) Have it and put it up for adoption. The child has done nothing to you.

[Reverend Joe]

Being anti-life myself, I really can't say I give a good goddamn whether the little bugger feels it or not. The fact is, it is fully inside the woman, and therefore it is her goddamn choice whether to kill it or not. Until it can survive independantly of the mother (i.e. when the umbilical cord is cut) it is her property, because it is part of her.

Also, look at it this way: if you had a person inside you, wnd you wanted them out, would you really care what they thought?

Edit: I should make it clear that this is all my deranged, fevered opinion. It is not an attempt to state fact.

[Strike For The South]

A child is a beuaifual thing. A sign of a time we are debateing this sort a thing. This sort of thing should be celebrated not put on a scale. If my mum thought like of some of yall I might not be here. DONT YALL LOVE ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111

[Divinus Arma]

Sweet. I'm going to go torture a quadriplegic from the neck down.

Well said.

By Jag's logic, you could also kill the quadriplegic by stabbing her in the chest. Or better yet, take a chain saw to their back! They wouldn't even have to know they are being murdered until it is too late! Yay!



HERE IS A PERSONAL STORY THAT ILLUSTARTES HOW EVEN A 13 WEEK OLD IS A HUMAN:

My wife is pregnant and has Hyper eEmecis. Very difficult since she is a little person naturally. Anyway, we went to the emergency room for the fourth time in 30 days because she was so dehydrated.

The nurse used a doppler radar to search for the baby's heartbeat. She kept looking, but couldn't find it. This is at about 13 weeks old, so it is very tiny. Anyway, she kept looking and I started to get very nervous. She called in a second nurse to help her, and I was starting to think that maybe the wife might *god forbid* miscarry. I was starting to freak.

And then the second nurse found the heartbeat. I could hear it through the radar device. thumpa thumpa thumpa thumpa. Quick, but healthy- perfectly normal she said. *SIGH*

I can't describe how I felt. My Child became real to me right then and there. It was no longer some intangible concept of what *might* be. It became a real and living human being, my son or daughter, alive and growing, waiting to be born and experience our world.

I instantly fell in love with him/her. Total attachment. And that shocked me, because I did not expect to become that attached to this little 2 inch long fetus so suddenly.

So, this convo has become permanently moot to me. That is my child. It is a human being. It just happens to be really tiny and completely and totally helpless.

So make no mistake, that independant heartbeat is another living human being. When that heartbeat stops, he or she dies. And if we make it stop, then that is murder.

[Reverend Joe]

So I'm a murderer. Or I would be willing to be.

I need to take a break from the backroom. I almost posted a few extremely blunt words that are fully inappropriate for this setting.

[Divinus Arma]

So I'm a murderer. Or I would be willing to be.

I need to take a break from the backroom. I almost posted a few extremely blunt words that are fully inappropriate for this setting.


It's all good my man. I understand your point of view. I just don't agree with it.

People have different world views, so all is well. You are an atheist anyway right? So its not like murder has a consequence in your perspective of reality. Kill a fetus, kill a thousand. How about partial birth abortion? Just as it is born the doctor stick a metal spike in its head, yay! Kill a baby, kill a few dozen million jews, bomb an abortion clinic, nuke Washington DC, fly planes into buildings, blow up children, install dictatorship, kill kill kill. It's all the same to an atheist right? No God means no rules. And no rules means that you can act anyway you want and not worry about the consequences. Is a law keeping you from what you want? Then get rid of the law. Rape, murder, etc. If there is no God, then there is no evil.

Yay Blood Orgy!

[Quietus]

Abortion is like losing a winning lottery ticket, even though it isn't technically money, it will be eventually.

Hence if the "winning" ticket was stolen, it's not the paper that is lost but the value of the paper. Nobody tears up a winning lottery ticket because it is only a "paper".

[Lemur]

DA, I've also experienced that phenomenon, falling in love with the image on the sonogram. Very weird, isn't it? Rationally, you know that there's still a very good chance that things won't work out, and that the proto-human in there might not wind up being viable. Every good bit of reason tells you to stay mellow, to not get too attached. But you hear the heartbeat, or you see it squirming on the ultrasound, and you fall madly, helplessly in love.

The ultrasound tech who helped us with the first child said she saw the effect just about every time. I'm not sure I have a good explanation for it.

I think we're all in agreement that the "not feeling pain" argument is not applicable to abortion, so let's see if we can salvage a good debate here -- how do you all feel about male circumcision? With our boy we had a long debate about it, and after extensive research, I came down hard against. But as always I'd love to hear what the Orgiasts have to say.

[Divinus Arma]

Well, glad to see we agree on something. ~;)



I think we're all in agreement that the "not feeling pain" argument is not applicable to abortion, so let's see if we can salvage a good debate here -- how do you all feel about male circumcision? With our boy we had a long debate about it, and after extensive research, I came down hard against. But as always I'd love to hear what the Orgiasts have to say.

Isn't circumcision a massive deviation from the subject? Perhaps you should start a new thread on that. To answer your question, it seems your damned if you or damned if you don't. Seems the majority of the population is chopped, so a non-chopped kid may have some feelings of being "different". Also, isn't it, uhm, cleaner to chop? Seems the only arguments to keep the skin are (a) it preserves feeling in the glans, and (b) it's natural.

Not quite sure what to make of this one.

[Kanamori]

Really, I don't know that it was an argument that said it justified abortion, I think it was only a response to the argument that 'it causes them pain, and therefore it should not be done.':balloon2:

[Kanamori]

You are an atheist anyway right? So its not like murder has a consequence in your perspective of reality.

If the fear of some God is all that keeps someone from murdering, then there is something a bit screwy with them anyway.

[Ser Clegane]

When that heartbeat stops, he or she dies. And if we make it stop, then that is murder.


So I'm a murderer. Or I would be willing to be.

I need to take a break from the backroom.

Some words of caution here as we touch a very tricky issue here. I understand DA's point (and that of other pople who strictly oppose abortion) - if you consider a fetus at a ceratin stage to be equivalent to a human being - aborting/killing has to be consequently considered as murder.

However, if you - like Zorba do not consider the fetus the equivalent of a human being, then you do not consider abortion to be murder and naturally take exception to being called a murderer.

I think the discussion here would benefit from focusing on the core questions, e.g. (at what stage) is a fetus equivalent to a human being (or close enough to be considered one), thus subjects of the same (or similar) basic rights of a "born" human being.
The answer any of us would give to the above question already implies the opinion about what abortion is - no need for assigning potentially offensive labels to whoever disagrees with your view.


Isn't circumcision a massive deviation from the subject?
It is - if there is enough interest to discuss this issue, please start a new thread

:bow:

[Lemur]

Kanamori, I didn't say "justify," I said it wasn't applicable. As in, even if it's true, it makes no difference. And I find it impossible to believe it's true.

DA, I think we agree on quite a bit more than loving our unborn children. I figure you must have gotten off the Bush train some time ago. If circumcision is too much of a tangent, I guess I'll give it its own thread sometime. But since the article posted was entirely about whether or not fetuses and babies can feel pain, I thought it applied.

[Ser Clegane]

You are an atheist anyway right? So its not like murder has a consequence in your perspective of reality.

To say that not believing in any god is equivalent to having to moral code is at best a crass oversimplification, at worst quite an insult.

Actually this would also make for a potentially interesting discussion (in a separate thread) - although I believe we already had it in the past.

[Kanamori]

This research is applicable only in that it is a possible response to an argument against abortion. JAG did well in stirring everyone up while saying very little at all. In fact what he did say seems to gain validity, once there was a firestorm over nothing.

[JAG]

Interesting reading, exactly how I imagined it actually, which did cause me to smirk.

Keep plugging away moral force feeders, for thy shall gain thy laws and thousands upon thousands of people will die every year because of it.


The fallacy that people believe - even if they think an abortion = murder - that by banning abortion they will save 'lives' has been disproven time and again. It does not save lives, merely drives a problem underground and means more women die from shoving coat hangers up their vagina.

Keep plugging away though, you are doing Gods work.

[Ironside]

If the fear of some God is all that keeps someone from murdering, then there is something a bit screwy with them anyway.

It gets even better, as several of his examples is made by people that has preformed what they see as "God's will".

[Banquo's Ghost]

People have different world views, so all is well. You are an atheist anyway right? So its not like murder has a consequence in your perspective of reality. Kill a fetus, kill a thousand. How about partial birth abortion? Just as it is born the doctor stick a metal spike in its head, yay! Kill a baby, kill a few dozen million jews, bomb an abortion clinic, nuke Washington DC, fly planes into buildings, blow up children, install dictatorship, kill kill kill. It's all the same to an atheist right? No God means no rules. And no rules means that you can act anyway you want and not worry about the consequences. Is a law keeping you from what you want? Then get rid of the law. Rape, murder, etc. If there is no God, then there is no evil.

DA, I tend to find myself respecting your views, even though I often disagree. You have written some very moving posts on the subject of your faith, and in this thread you were very eloquent about the feelings you have for your baby. It was a good and thought-provoking response.

However, the quoted paragraph is deeply insulting to many people whose belief system is different from yours.

Just think how many children have died at the hands of those who profess that they are doing their God's work. It wasn't non-believers who flew those planes you speak of.

Evil is not the sole preserve of the atheist.

[BDC]

I was under the impression this research was actually more relevant to whether to give unborn foetuses painkillers for operations in the womb.

[Viking]

The fallacy that people believe - even if they think an abortion = murder - that by banning abortion they will save 'lives' has been disproven time and again. It does not save lives, merely drives a problem underground and means more women die from shoving coat hangers up their vagina.


Of course, but abortion isn`t the only solution. Think of all the involuntary childless people out there.
The easiest solution is not necessary the best one.

[A.Saturnus]

I can't describe how I felt. My Child became real to me right then and there. It was no longer some intangible concept of what *might* be. It became a real and living human being, my son or daughter, alive and growing, waiting to be born and experience our world.

I instantly fell in love with him/her. Total attachment. And that shocked me, because I did not expect to become that attached to this little 2 inch long fetus so suddenly.

So, this convo has become permanently moot to me. That is my child. It is a human being. It just happens to be really tiny and completely and totally helpless.

So make no mistake, that independant heartbeat is another living human being. When that heartbeat stops, he or she dies. And if we make it stop, then that is murder.


Oxytocine. A very normal reaction induced by release of this hormone, due to the scoial and emotional evaluation of the situation. Actually, the stress you felt before it may have increased or even caused the effect.

Don't get me wrong, this is not a pro or contra abortion argument, I'm just pointing out that we should not base the answers to socially relevant question as what a heartbeat constitutes on your emotional reaction.

[Strike For The South]

JAG you are right. No matter how abortion is handeled women will continue to get them and there realy isnt much we can do to stop them. Abortion is disgusting vile and a quick and easy way to get rid of what they precive to be a "mistake". Saying that abortion has to be ilegal. No matter how many women decide they need to try to get rid of it. If they want to stick a clothes hanger up themselves whatever. People need to live with there decsions. The child did nothing to you you have no right to choose wehter it lives or dies. Disgusting:no:

[Soulforged]

The fallacy that people believe - even if they think an abortion = murder - that by banning abortion they will save 'lives' has been disproven time and again. It does not save lives, merely drives a problem underground and means more women die from shoving coat hangers up their vagina.Well it will serve the lives of the foetuses.~;) As for the mother's life, that's a different question. What I use is more than morals, of course we evaluate morally almost every subject, it's also logic. What I propose is only moderation, that's, the woman can only abort if there's a serious risk to her health by giving birth or having a foetus in her belly. Though the article's point is not one about abortion, it's impossible not to touch the subject I see. So, without entering the metaphysics, everytime you destroy a foetus you're ending with a chain of events that will develop eventually in a complete human being, when does that happens, well it doesn't matter, the point is that in some point he'll be, right, perhaps not always healthy but he'll be physically independent from the mother. In that I assume that we agree. Now the problem is that this little thing cannot think or act by itself, perhaps not even feel pain, then what do we do, do we allow anyone at any moment to simply cut that chain of events or do we stand together against that kind kind of actions. To me no one can cut that chain of events, it goes against the basic human right, the right to life, and this right is beyond all conceptions and missconceptions of society, it's previous to all that. By letting anyone under any conditions to do what they please to this object, this human being, call it what you want, you'll be obstructing the eventual human, the one that you're right now. It doesn't matter if you see the foetus as a thing, as an human, as an animal (most probably), the point is that he'll become an human, so who defines the moment in wich we should stand for life first and freedom later, or viceversa. No one does, as an eventual human the child has the right since conception for his life to be respected. Doing the other way around we'll end putting freedom, in some kind of wicked form, first to life, one cannot be free if we don't live. Therefore there's only one occassion in wich we can justify abortion, and that's when two lives are at stakes, in wich case the mother has no obligation whatsoever to leave his life in order to let his child live.

[Kralizec]

Saying that something has to be legalized because it will happen anyway, and legalization allows the practice to become safer, is a fallacy because:
1) the fact that it's illegal doesn't eliminate it, but may very well reduce it. and
2) following this line of argumentation, we should legalize hard drugs, child prostitution and tons of other bad stuff, a conclusion that most pro-choice hardliners would reject.

As to wether the government should allow it or not...
I used to be vehemently pro-choice, but I've drifted away from that. Some pro-choice people (some!) believe that fetuses are disposable waste, a thought that I abhor. I think late term abortions are sick (and not allowed here anyway), but don't have the same aversion to 'morning after' pills, wich are essentially abortion too. What makes it bad is that I don't believe in some magical line at XX weeks that seperates a clump of cells from an 'unborn baby'.
So basicly, the earlier, the better. At some point you inevitably realise you're pregnant (there are rare exeptions, of course), and if wait to long with making a choice, I think you should lose your choice.

Sex ed should put a very strong emphasis on prevention (Bush' statements about "abstemation is the only way" make me very, very angry). Ideally, abortion would never be necessary, though that will never happen.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Sex ed should put a very strong emphasis on prevention (Bush' statements about "abstemation is the only way" make me very, very angry). Ideally, abortion would never be necessary, though that will never happen.

Indeed. It would also be a good idea to put a great deal more money into adoption support, and educate people away from the belief that a child has to be one's own genetic material for it to be lovable. If childless couples spent less time and resources on trying desperately for a child of their own, and more on adopting, the future for babies born unwanted might be brighter.

If more women had a real choice, ie the knowledge that the baby they feel they cannot bring up will be looked after and loved by others rather than abandoned to a half-life in an orphanage, they may choose more often to bring the child to term. Perhaps gay couples should be allowed to adopt many more children - surely it is better for a child to be in a loving home, even if not the conservative model family, than to be 'murdered?'

Choice must still be there to have an abortion, but it should be informed and supported - both ways. If one is pro-choice, you have to support those who choose to have the baby too - and what happens next.

And yes, it is a crying shame that many of those politicians who are pro-life are also against expansive and supportive sex education. They also tend to have the position that single mothers are bad people who sponge off the state. Go figure.

~:confused:

[Divinus Arma]

Hmmm. Some passionate responses to my post and some via PM. Allow me to clarify the somewhat ambiguous overgeneralization I made earlier in this thread.

In my comment I have linked the debate on human development, the perception of value on that developing individual's life, and morality. I do not think it at all unreasonable to place the debate on the value of developing human life into the broader context of social ethics.

The question is not so much whether or when a fetus is human. I would say that the argument is on the value of this fetus from an ethical perspective. To look upon the topic from a frame of convenience, ownership, or medicine alone denies the subject a rightful trial of ethical standards. We should look upon the topic objectively and apply the same ethical theories as we would corporate social responsibility, social justice, purpose of government, etc.

There are two ways that we can apply the ethical theory: spiritual Will or philisophical models such as those offered under Kant, utilitarianism, relativism, rights theories, virtue ethics, and etc.

In my comments, I argued that abortion is tantamount to murder. I elaborated on this my placing abortion into an atheist perspective, whereby there is no true good or evil, only what we believe to be good or evil. To believe that something truly is evil, you must have the counterweight of divine morality. Otherwise, against what standards do we determine evil? In the existential perspective lacking divine morality, evil is relative instead of ultimate.

Ethical relativity lacking absolute values undermines every philosophical ethical theory. For example, in Kantian ethics the means are as important as the ends, whereby people should be treated as ends unto themselves. By designating a fetus a non-human, one can simply bypass the Kantian requirements to treat people as ends. Furthermore, Kant expects people to make the right decisions, for the right reasons. The problem resides in the motivation because there exists no absolute standard from which to judge motivation against. It can thus be a dictator's self-designated purpose to form a benevolent government where the people can live mostly free, but for limited government intrusion and regulation. The dictator is thus free to carry out evil in implementation under Kant because the reasoning for the action is just and so are the consequences.

Utilitarianism seeks "the greatest good for the greatest number of people". Thus we are free under utilitarianism to murder an entire popluation of people in order to facilitate the growth of a larger population. The American extermination of Native Americans would be a good example here. Utilitarianism also jsutifies abortion because either (a) the fetus is not human and thus irrelevant, or (b) the value of the fetus is less than that of the desires of the woman.

I don't argue that this is an easy discussion. I see that people will decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong and justify their actions by claiming that there exists no absolute morality.

If my original comments were viewed as inflammatory, I will accept that they were vague. I hope that this post then will serve to clarify the thinking behind my original post.

[Divinus Arma]

Just think how many children have died at the hands of those who profess that they are doing their God's work. It wasn't non-believers who flew those planes you speak of.


Evil in the name of God is Evil. That is why I have such a problem with organized religion. In seeking the truth we must first acknowledge that we do not know the truth, we may only seek it and become closer. Elements of every text offer clarity, and no man has a closer relationship to God then yourself. Imams, Popes, and et al all profess to have a closer relationship to the Lord than the underclass within their respective religious system. Nothing can be further from the truth. We are each our own salvation, our own messiah.

That reminds me, I never got around to answering your questions in that thread. I'll have to dig that up because you raised some valid questions that every man has a duty to ask. The essence of truth is in logic, not in abstract concepts like "faith". I have no use for faith.

[Quid]

Hmmm. Some passionate responses to my post and some via PM. Allow me to clarify the somewhat ambiguous overgeneralization I made earlier in this thread.

In my comment I have linked the debate on human development, the perception of value on that developing individual's life, and morality. I do not think it at all unreasonable to place the debate on the value of developing human life into the broader context of social ethics.

The question is not so much whether or when a fetus is human. I would say that the argument is on the value of this fetus from an ethical perspective. To look upon the topic from a frame of convenience, ownership, or medicine alone denies the subject a rightful trial of ethical standards. We should look upon the topic objectively and apply the same ethical theories as we would corporate social responsibility, social justice, purpose of government, etc.

There are two ways that we can apply the ethical theory: spiritual Will or philisophical models such as those offered under Kant, utilitarianism, relativism, rights theories, virtue ethics, and etc.

In my comments, I argued that abortion is tantamount to murder. I elaborated on this my placing abortion into an atheist perspective, whereby there is no true good or evil, only what we believe to be good or evil. To believe that something truly is evil, you must have the counterweight of divine morality. Otherwise, against what standards do we determine evil? In the existential perspective lacking divine morality, evil is relative instead of ultimate.

Ethical relativity lacking absolute values undermines every philosophical ethical theory. For example, in Kantian ethics the means are as important as the ends, whereby people should be treated as ends unto themselves. By designating a fetus a non-human, one can simply bypass the Kantian requirements to treat people as ends. Furthermore, Kant expects people to make the right decisions, for the right reasons. The problem resides in the motivation because there exists no absolute standard from which to judge motivation against. It can thus be a dictator's self-designated purpose to form a benevolent government where the people can live mostly free, but for limited government intrusion and regulation. The dictator is thus free to carry out evil in implementation under Kant because the reasoning for the action is just and so are the consequences.

Utilitarianism seeks "the greatest good for the greatest number of people". Thus we are free under utilitarianism to murder an entire popluation of people in order to facilitate the growth of a larger population. The American extermination of Native Americans would be a good example here. Utilitarianism also jsutifies abortion because either (a) the fetus is not human and thus irrelevant, or (b) the value of the fetus is less than that of the desires of the woman.

I don't argue that this is an easy discussion. I see that people will decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong and justify their actions by claiming that there exists no absolute morality.

If my original comments were viewed as inflammatory, I will accept that they were vague. I hope that this post then will serve to clarify the thinking behind my original post.

Thank you for that explanation, DA. Also I found your previous comments hard on the limit of insult to many as they were written in haste and, perhaps, anger, I am sure. I now see your point of view and will further look forward to others contributing to this discussion.

I am well aware, of course, that JAG found this piece of news and immediately thought it would provoke a rather hefty reaction from some. He was not wrong although mainly it has remained civil.

Quid

[Divinus Arma]

Thank you for that explanation, DA. Also I found your previous comments hard on the limit of insult to many as they were written in haste and, perhaps, anger, I am sure. I now see your point of view and will further look forward to others contributing to this discussion.

I am well aware, of course, that JAG found this piece of news and immediately thought it would provoke a rather hefty reaction from some. He was not wrong although mainly it has remained civil.

Quid

My initial comments were not at all out of anger. Haste? Perhaps. They certainly lacked the necessary eloquence needed to make my argument clear, and that much is fact.

As for JAG: meh.