|
Post by Noelfitz on Jan 26, 2009 9:03:29 GMT
Here there is a problem that has ended up in the supreme court.
The Irish Constitution guarantees the right to life of the unborn.
However is a fertilized in vitro ovum, before implantation in a womb, an unborn human with a constitutional right to life?
Lawyers and scientists are involved in the case, but not theologians.
Please give me your opinion.
|
|
|
Post by mrsreneoriordan on Jan 26, 2009 11:10:42 GMT
What a mess! Things are getting that confused that I think we have to look to the teaching of the Church on all issues being presented. And yes a fertilized ovum is recognized by the Church as worthy of all the protection due to human life and worthy of respect. From the moment of conception to natural death we have the right to life - not a right given by Governments but given us by God - therefore "inalienable". Governments have no right to take these rights from us, they didn't give them to us in the first place. Barack Obama does not have the right to sign FOCA i.e. giving mothers the right to choose to kill their own unborn babies. - Blessings - Rene
|
|
|
Post by Hemingway on Jan 26, 2009 12:48:19 GMT
This is a topic I find extremely difficult to square up in my mind.
I am a former Roman Catholic who is now unrepentantly an Atheist. I am very comfortable with that fact and I am a very happy, law abiding and (I feel) morally sound person without religion in my life.
However, abortion and my understanding of when life actually begins does not sit well or come easy to me . This is an area where I struggle.
As an Atheist I usually have a rational reason to explain why I feel a certain way regarding most issues such as theology, nature, science, politics etc. But on the issue of abortion I am stumped and I am big enough to admit it.
I cannot come up with a good scientific or rational reason as to why I am uncomfortable with abortion and the associated debates with this topic. I just feel within myself that the act is not in keeping with my morals.
I'd love to play the smart-alec Atheist here and quote to you scientific papers that tells us that the unborn child has no consciousness up until a certain point in the gestation period, but as far as I know the information in this area is inconclusive.
I do not think that we have a right to life given to us by god, or Zeus or Horus or Baal (insert your particular god here) but I do regard our right to life as a constitutional right afforded to us and protected by the State.
I am open to arguments from both sides on this issue. However, to convince a person like me that life should be protected from the moment of conception, bringing your personal god into it is a very unconvincing way of trying to talk me round. Give me facts and demonstrable evidence to back up claims.
Its probably a throwback to my days as a catholic but yet still, after all the books I have read and all the logical thinking I have partaken in, abortion still feels morally wrong to me and I cannot explain why.
It is, if you will, the chink in my rationalist armour.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Jan 26, 2009 15:11:55 GMT
Well you all know my position on this one, it has no right to life. The fertilised cell is no more a human than a set of instructions for making a table is in itself a table. Hemingway, maybe you would like to read this post on the topic. It addresses the fact that we cannot conclusively determine a point where consciousness rises, but can instead determine a point at which it is definitely not there to work with instead. www.atheist.ie/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1554&sid=a1556b492f133913d872f5005ba4780a&start=0
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Jan 26, 2009 23:04:12 GMT
The fertilised cell is no more a human than a set of instructions for making a table is in itself a table. Well if it is not human, what is it?
|
|
|
Post by Michael O'Donovan on Jan 26, 2009 23:16:58 GMT
Its probably a throwback to my days as a catholic but yet still, after all the books I have read and all the logical thinking I have partaken in, abortion still feels morally wrong to me and I cannot explain why. It is, if you will, the chink in my rationalist armour. In my view there are strong rationalist arguments against abortion and you are by no means alone among atheists. I have seen atheists acknowledging that abortion is the taking of human life but contending that it can be defended on utilitarian grounds, i.e. that the well-being (psychological, physical, emotional or even material) of a human with an adult consciousness can be set against the actual existence of a human which has not yet achieved consciousness (in the sense of self-awareness or reason). That is actually a perfectly coherent and tenable position in its own terms. Other atheists don't accept that utilitarian calculation on its merits, or consider it dangerous on the grounds that if the lives of weak or undeveloped humans are to be considered less valuable than those of the adult and able-bodied, then all our lives are less secure as we get old or perhaps have our mental capacity diminished by illness or injury.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Jan 27, 2009 8:39:24 GMT
Well if it is not human, what is it? My apologies, I should have been clearer. I thought my table analogy pre-empted this question. It is a set of instructions for constructing a human. This is why I said it is no more human than a set of instructions for building a table is in itself a table. All the instructions for what materials to obtain and how to utilise them in the construction of a table are there. You would not call it a table and sit at it for dinner however. I do agree with what you said after this however. I do not subscribe to notions that one life is more important than another and so would not support abortion in the terms you refer to here. Once consciousness rises the cells have achieved humanity and from this point I think they should have rights from then until they die. The reason I support abortion until 12 weeks is that it can be shown beyond any reasonable doubts that consciousness has not even begun to arise here, let alone has actually arisen. At this point therefore its not one life Vs. one less important life. It is just one life with a right to choose.
|
|
|
Post by Hemingway on Jan 27, 2009 9:00:56 GMT
Well you all know my position on this one, it has no right to life. The fertilised cell is no more a human than a set of instructions for making a table is in itself a table. Hemingway, maybe you would like to read this post on the topic. It addresses the fact that we cannot conclusively determine a point where consciousness rises, but can instead determine a point at which it is definitely not there to work with instead. www.atheist.ie/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1554&sid=a1556b492f133913d872f5005ba4780a&start=0Thanks for the link Hazel. I havent been over there in a while and I missed this post. I'll take a look at it.
|
|
|
Post by Hemingway on Jan 27, 2009 17:01:38 GMT
An excellent essay Hazel. I enjoyed reading it very much. You have obviously put a lot of research into it. I was not aware of the work carried out by K.J.S. Anand and P.R. Hickey. Its definitely given me food for thought as have many replies to the inital post.
I would encourage other members of this site who feel strongly about this issue to follow the above link to the thread and let me know their thoughts on this issue.
I'm open to all opinions on this.
|
|
|
Post by Harris on Feb 9, 2009 10:37:56 GMT
An excellent essay Hazel. I enjoyed reading it very much. You have obviously put a lot of research into it. I was not aware of the work carried out by K.J.S. Anand and P.R. Hickey. Its definitely given me food for thought as have many replies to the inital post. I would encourage other members of this site who feel strongly about this issue to follow the above link to the thread and let me know their thoughts on this issue. I'm open to all opinions on this. It would appear no one took you up on your offer.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Feb 10, 2009 5:01:17 GMT
It would seem so. But who needs good essays and arguments on the subject when you can just come out with something like this huh.....
|
|
|
Post by Hemingway on Feb 10, 2009 8:51:25 GMT
It would seem so. But who needs good essays and arguments on the subject when you can just come out with something like this huh..... Ah yes. That old chestnut. Pick a natural disaster and proclaim god is punishing us for our sins. They are still reeling that one out after thousands of years. The ancient Egyptians, the Greeks, the Mesopotamians, the Sumerians, the Hebrews, the Israelites, the Romans, the Persians et al all used this bad boy when a natural disaster happened. Pity some peoples mind sets have not progressed any in the intervening years.
|
|
|
Post by hibernicus on Feb 10, 2009 13:12:45 GMT
The table analogy is not a good one. An organism, given the right nutrients and conditions, will develop spontaneously. The set of instructions will not grow into a table; they are only a blueprint which requires an external craftsman to act on it. Hazel seems to assume a type of mind-matter dualism, whereby consciousness is externally added to the body rather than something which is inherent within it, inseparable as form from matter.
|
|
|
Post by hazelireland on Feb 10, 2009 14:06:04 GMT
Back to talking about what I "seem to suggest" rather than addressing what I actually say?
The analogy serves only to show that the instructions for making an item does not make it that item. No more, no less. The instructions for making a table does not make it a table. The DNA that tells the cell how to compose proteins to form the baby does not make it a baby.
|
|