Abortion >12 weeks

[AdHoc]

Hypothetically, if a person saw pictures of human development from 12 weeks of pregnancy onward and at the same time was able to see pictures of the abortion methods used on those beings do you think this information would support the pro-abortion or the anti-abortion movement?

I looked on wikipedia and was not able to see any pictures and I was wondering if there was a reason for that?

[AdHoc]

Hypothetically, if a person saw pictures of human development from 12 weeks of pregnancy onward and at the same time was able to see pictures of the abortion methods used on those beings do you think this information would support the pro-abortion or the anti-abortion movement?

Depends what you mean by "support." If you mean as rational support then pictures would not support either position. If you merely mean change people's mind then it will put people off from abortion. That's why pro-life people do it, to get an emotional response from people.

This my thinking as well but are you implying photographic evidence is not rational? When I look at a picture of a fetus/unborn child at 12 weeks its obvious to me its a human being and when that is juxtaposed with the awful way their lives are ended it makes for a fairly compelling argument.

I looked on wikipedia and was not able to see any pictures and I was wondering if there was a reason for that?

Are you implying wikipedia is pro-choice? Seems to me it's just this policy being put into action: "Shocking or explicit pictures should not be used simply to bring attention to an article."

I definitely don't think wikipedia is anti-abortion if I were to guess I would assume they are pro-abortion as it seems the vast majority of people in the western world are, save possibly south america.

So, this is a human being??

Umm... I would say yes that looks very much like a human being. Are you suggesting its not?

[Goat]

So, this is a human being??

Umm... I would say yes that looks very much like a human being. Are you suggesting its not?

Yes, I am suggesting it is not. It is a chimpanzee fetus.

When trying to figure out what is human, and what is not, appearances can be deceiving, and your emotions will get in the way.

[Furrowed Brow]

So, this is a human being??

Umm... I would say yes that looks very much like a human being. Are you suggesting its not?

Yes, I am suggesting it is not. It is a chimpanzee fetus.

When trying to figure out what is human, and what is not, appearances can be deceiving, and your emotions will get in the way.

Erm...looked at another way the picture might also be the beginning of an argument for accepting we share a humanity with chimps. I studied a picture of an Orangutan the other day and it felt like I was seeing something of myself.

Why do emotions get in the way of making a moral choice?

[preacher]

Genesis 38 : 9-10
But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his. So whenever he went in to his brother's wife he would waste the semen on the ground, so as not to give offspring to his brother. And what he did was wicked in the sight of the Lord, and he put him to death also.

even the act of wasting sperm (which is way more "undeveloped" compared to 1-second old fetus) offended God enough to put Onan to death. Wait a minute, what about nocturnal accidental discharge ?

Leviticus 15:16:
When a man has an emission of semen, he must bathe his whole body with water, and he will be unclean till evening.

So God even considers accidental discharge as unclean. I think this issue should be crystal clear from bible's point of view.

[AdHoc]

So, this is a human being??

Umm... I would say yes that looks very much like a human being. Are you suggesting its not?

Yes, I am suggesting it is not. It is a chimpanzee fetus.

When trying to figure out what is human, and what is not, appearances can be deceiving, and your emotions will get in the way.

Very good point. I felt there was something not quite right about the hands and now it seems quite clear but not before I walked into your photographic argument.

[Goat]

So, this is a human being??

Umm... I would say yes that looks very much like a human being. Are you suggesting its not?

Yes, I am suggesting it is not. It is a chimpanzee fetus.

When trying to figure out what is human, and what is not, appearances can be deceiving, and your emotions will get in the way.

Erm...looked at another way the picture might also be the beginning of an argument for accepting we share a humanity with chimps. I studied a picture of an Orangutan the other day and it felt like I was seeing something of myself.

Why do emotions get in the way of making a moral choice?

That is another way to look at it. Moral choices ARE emotional. The emotion of sympathy is one of the basics that drive morality.

[JoeyKnothead]

I studied a picture of an Orangutan the other day and it felt like I was seeing something of myself.

Funny, with me it only happens with penguins

One reason I enjoy my amateur study of primates (or primate Tuesday as I call it) is for the very reasons you present. I'm fascinated by our similarities, and see far more of 'em than I do our differences.

[Furrowed Brow]

Moral choices ARE emotional. The emotion of sympathy is one of the basics that drive morality.

Sympathy and empathy....but it looks like we reach an agreement...or do you mean to imply we should not let our emotions have the upperhand over our reason?

The question is deciding when we are just being emotional. I'm a meat eater. But I really think I am going to have to draw the line at eating Orangutan. But am I just being emotional? I think so, but justly so. If my choice not to eat Orangutan is a moral choice I am not sure how this compares to folk who do not eat any meat products. I don't feel immoral eating sirloin steak. Vegetarianism is maybe a good example where morality is subjective, and maybe it is also an example where different emotional responses are the deciding factor. Taking this point back to the question of a foetus/unborn child we all react to the question in our own way. Someone who insists on outlawing all abortion feels to me like someone trying to impose vegetarianism on the world. On the other hand aborting say an 18 week pregnancy does feel wrong, but if circumstances were desperate it may be warranted.

I find the religious response inadequate because at heart it assumes only a small sliver of the human emotional response is the moral answer. On the other hand I also find inadequate utilitarian morality that attempts to quantify pain and nervous system development and presumes this kind of rationality is the limit of morality.

Recently in the UK the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt backed a 12 week limit. He was immediately slated for "ignoring the evidence". I don't know exactly where Jeremy Hunt was coming from but whilst I know science and doctors are there to advise Secretaries of Health on the evidence, "evidence" is not the end of the moral discussion. A point that appeared to utterly evade his critics.

[Goat]

Moral choices ARE emotional. The emotion of sympathy is one of the basics that drive morality.

Sympathy and empathy....but it looks like we reach an agreement...or do you mean to imply we should not let our emotions have the upperhand over our reason?

The question is deciding when we are just being emotional. I'm a meat eater. But I really think I am going to have to draw the line at eating Orangutan. But am I just being emotional? I think so, but justly so. If my choice not to eat Orangutan is a moral choice I am not sure how this compares to folk who do not eat any meat products. I don't feel immoral eating sirloin steak. Vegetarianism is maybe a good example where morality is subjective, and maybe it is also an example where different emotional responses are the deciding factor. Taking this point back to the question of a foetus/unborn child we all react to the question in our own way. Someone who insists on outlawing all abortion feels to me like someone trying to impose vegetarianism on the world. On the other hand aborting say an 18 week pregnancy does feel wrong, but if circumstances were desperate it may be warranted.

I find the religious response inadequate because at heart it assumes only a small sliver of the human emotional response is the moral answer. On the other hand I also find inadequate utilitarian morality that attempts to quantify pain and nervous system development and presumes this kind of rationality is the limit of morality.

Recently in the UK the Health Secretary Jeremy Hunt backed a 12 week limit. He was immediately slated for "ignoring the evidence". I don't know exactly where Jeremy Hunt was coming from but whilst I know science and doctors are there to advise Secretaries of Health on the evidence, "evidence" is not the end of the moral discussion. A point that appeared to utterly evade his critics.

I personally don't care, I think a 12W limit is too short. .. and I definitely want it clearly defined what exceptions for later abortions.. look what happened in Ireland.. a woman DIED because they wouldn't perform a late term abortion.

[Bust Nak]

Who said ethics is rational?

Not me, I would have thought I've been around here long enough to be known as the token moral subjectivist.

So if a woman's child needs medical care and she makes an emotional plea to a doctor to save her child's life she is irrational?

The emotional plea itself is irrational. Pleading though is very rational, because we all know pulling at people's heart strings works.

I'm not understanding how simply showing pictures could be a logical fallacy?

It's a specific form of the red herring fallacy. Pictures is not relevent to the logic behind an argument.

Is it a logical fallacy to show pictures of starving children in Africa?

Yes, if you are using it to argue that one ought to help starving children in Africa.

I wasn't sure at the time but I accept the possibility that they are avoiding publishing offensive material.

Ok.