Abortion: What do you think?

[Zeena]

I withdrew from the discussion a while ago, because I feel I lack any common ground for a sensible discussion of key matters with some participants.

But still I'd like to ask Zeena what you'd make of the numerous and well documented evidence that brain damage induces sometimes drastic personality changes.

Some examples:
Brain Damage and Personality Change after Subarachnoid Haemorrhage -- STOREY 117 (537): 129 -- The British Journal of Psychiatry
Personality Changes | Traumatic Brain Injury Recovery
Brain damage and personality

As it stands, not one of those articles you cited attempted to define personality but rather relegated personality to the character bin.

It is Character that is developed through experience.. Personality is in-born. Character is the determinate of temperment, whilst personality is the animation of our soul, by our body. (See SARX Lexicon entry in Kione Greek, since this portion of philosophy is borrowed from Judaic Christianity (the very term psychology is derived from two words meaning the study (of the) soul, (eg;psyche) ergo, psychology itself is built around the premise of an inner man in spite of, or working in concert with, an outer reality;

-a living creature (because possessed of a body of flesh) whether man or beast

Personality is the foundation of character, for character is built upon personality.
Each person being responsable for said building (of character) before God;

1 Corinthians 3:11-13
For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is.

Mathew 7:24-27
Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell not: for it was founded upon a rock. And every one that heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them not, shall be likened unto a foolish man, which built his house upon the sand: And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and beat upon that house; and it fell: and great was the fall of it.

The Science of Personality: Character and Personality

Temperament and Character Inventory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Character is personality evaluated, personality is character devaluated.

As you can see, the 'forefathers' of this 'doctrine' (if they and it can rightly be called such) have already set the parameters, which are being torn down, day by day, in a blatant attempt to define death as being solely biological in order to assuage fear of God and the Righteous Judgement of the same.

While memories may be lost, and character be backslidden (so to speak, though God acknowledges (knows) our 'former' character), the personaility remains intact. A person who has gained a measure of patience through the trails of this life, stands to loose this temperment as thier experiences, and thus wisdom (gained upon learning from such experiences), are disolved.. But, we don't change the persons name, nor give them a new 'birth date' as a new 'person' upon being made thus.. No, it is the SAME person, but in a different circumstance.. Differing circumstance leads to differing character traits, depending on the choices made and the trait being built upon, or not.

One can be said to be "acting out of character", "out of their minds" or "not themselves lately", but there is no expression available for "I'm not home right now", unless of course you subscribe to out of body experience(s)

2 Corinthians 5:8
We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

PS: I think the whole brain dead or not discussion is rather pointless. Noone has yet shown any signs of personality while brain dead, and if personality can indeed be restored after being brain dead for a while, this merely means that all necessary information about the personality was still stored in the brain..

I don't believe it's pointless to this discussion, for a lot of unfavorable decisions are made in regards to the abortion of babies who have underdeveloped biological features, such as brains.. As well, the abortion of the babies being tantamount to their involuntary murder, as no alternative means of life support is offered (or, yet available to be offered by our medical professionals).

 

[clep]

For me to buy that argument, you'd have to show that your god exists...

And for me to buy your argument, you would have to show that my god doesn't exist.

 

[KarateCowboy]

Perhaps we should extend abortion to include post-birth abortions of pro-choicers? I'm all for post-birth abortion if the person is fine with abortion

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

And for me to buy your argument, you would have to show that my god doesn't exist.

I think people born on a Tuesday are better than people born on a Wednesday, because the faeries at the bottom of my garden told me so. Until you can prove that they don't exist, I can't engage with you.

 

[A Rhys]

In a perfect world…

A woman would always have the option of carrying or terminating a pregnancy regardless of the effect of either choice on her health. If it is shown that carrying the pregnancy to term may put the mother’s life at risk, she must have the choice of taking or not taking that risk.

A woman would always have the option of carrying or terminating a pregnancy resulting from rape. She must have the option to choose to terminate, or to carry and assume full parental rights and privileges, or to put the child up for adoption at her discretion.

A woman would always have the option of carrying or terminating a pregnancy based on the findings of a genetic defect screening. She must be allowed to opt against carrying a pregnancy to term after the fetus is shown to be affected by any defect; conversely, she may choose to carry the pregnancy to term and assume the responsibilities of caring for a special needs child or put the child up for adoption.

A woman should not have the option of terminating as a form of retroactive birth control. The woman should not be able to undergo a legal termination with excuses such as: foregoing the use of contraception or “forgetting” in the heat of the moment, failure to procure “morning after” medication unless it can be shown that a pharmacist refused to dispense it based on personal belief as still happens, resistance to anticipated lifestyle change, or general unwillingness to be held, at the very least, and strictly in the case of consensual relations, partially responsible for the pregnancy.

Emergency “morning after” contraception would always be freely available over the counter, and all pharmacists must be required by law to dispense it regardless of their personal religious or moral convictions. Failure to do so would result in probation, and a repeat offense would result in permanent disqualification from that profession.

Justice Byron White, dissenting, Roe v. Wade: “At the heart of the controversy in these cases are those recurring pregnancies that pose no danger whatsoever to the life or health of the mother but are, nevertheless, unwanted for any one or more of a variety of reasons – convenience, family planning, economics, dislike of children, the embarrassment of illegitimacy, etc. The common claim before us is that for any one of such reasons, or for no reason at all, and without asserting or claiming any threat to life or health, any woman is entitled to an abortion at her request if she is able to find a medical advisor willing to undertake the procedure.”

In short, the dissenting justices (White and Rehnquist) objected to the legality of what they see as non-medical, elective abortions out of vain concern for status and/or lifestyle and with this I absolutely agree that ending a life should have some kind of extenuating, preferably medical, circumstance beyond social attractiveness, economic hardship, and/or undesirable responsibilities.

The above scenarios generally apply only to single mothers. In the case of parents, absolute authority should not be given to the mother for if she chooses a course of action against the father’s will then the whole pretense of fairness and informed choice is thrown out the window. The father, if a) known, and b) participating, would always be consulted prior to any severe medical action. A termination would never be performed without the knowledge of the father, unless it can be proven that the father a) has waived his parental rights, b) cannot be contacted within a reasonable time period, or c) cannot be reasonably identified. Should a unanimous decision fail to be reached between mother and father, additional third party involvement such as counseling or further medical advising must be initiated by the attending health professional(s) before taking any course of severe action unless the pregnancy is threatening the mother’s life and the father objects to her terminating – the “do no harm” clause presumably trumps in this situation.

 

[Zeena]

n/t

 

[JGG]

I have no problems with abortion up until the stage where the brain is able to function in such a way that it can accumulate information from the world around it, and ideally purposefully respond to it. It is at this point that a being can learn, create memory, show will, and purpose, and begin to develop an identity. This is when it is actually a person, an individual, or a human being.

At that point, I have problems with abortion.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I have no problems with abortion up until the stage where the brain is able to function in such a way that it can accumulate information from the world around it, and ideally purposefully respond to it. It is at this point that a being can learn, create memory, show will, and purpose, and begin to develop an identity. This is when it is actually a person, an individual, or a human being.

At that point, I have problems with abortion.

That's my opinion as well. Which means I tend to get argued at by both sides of the issue...

 

[Zeena]

I have no problems with abortion up until the stage where the brain is able to function in such a way that it can accumulate information from the world around it, and ideally purposefully respond to it. It is at this point that a being can learn, create memory, show will, and purpose, and begin to develop an identity. This is when it is actually a person, an individual, or a human being.

At that point, I have problems with abortion.

*emphasis added*

So then, you have no qualms in murdering the disabled who cannot do for themselves any of the above criteria you mentioned? [For example;such as those suffering from alzheimer's disease] Or is it just babies who should be treated thus?

 

[Beechwell]

It is Character that is developed through experience.. Personality is in-born. Character is the determinate of temperment, whilst personality is the animation of our soul, by our body. (See SARX Lexicon entry in Kione Greek, since this portion of philosophy is borrowed from Judaic Christianity (the very term psychology is derived from two words meaning the study (of the) soul, (eg;psyche) ergo, psychology itself is built around the premise of an inner man in spite of, or working in concert with, an outer reality;

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I take this to mean that you believe in a soul - containing the essence of our being - seperate and more or less independent from our bodies. That is why I said I see no common ground for our discussion. You may well believe in an immortal soul, but that can be no basis for a discussion with people who don't share this belief.
If you think that a foetus has a soul that is already self-aware, and capable in some way of emotion and a desire to live, then I understand your position. But know that this is not self-evident. Indeed aside from religious tradition there is no indication that a foetus possesses anything we would call a personality or soul in the common sense. From my point of view you might as well claim that a stone has a soul, or a plant (some of which are as capable of reflex-like movements as an early foetus).
You may well claim that from the viewpoint of your religion abortion is bad. And I can respect that. But that can not be a basis for a pluralistic society. Laws concerning all kinds of people, whether Christians, New-Agers or atheists need to be created on a basis that all can relate to.

If my matrialistic definition of a soul/personality, as an emergent property of the functioning of a sufficiently complex brain, is nothing you can relate to, then that can't be basis for our discussion either. So let's try something else: Could you justify the right to live of a (fully grown) human without refering to god? If so, how would you do it?

EDIT: Sorry, had to respond to this as well, since I pretty much with what JGG said:

So then, you have no qualms in murdering the disabled who cannot do for themselves any of the above criteria you mentioned? [For example;such as those suffering from alzheimer's disease] Or is it just babies who should be treated thus?

Someone with alzheimer can very much still accumulate outside information and purposefully communicate with the environment in some way. The same goes for all other mentally handicapped humans as far as I'm aware of. If a human being is indeed incapable off any such ability to think and communicate with the outside world, and is not part of any society whatsoever (i.e. no relatives who still value its life) then I for one would indeed say it is morally all right to kill this human being.

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

*emphasis added*

So then, you have no qualms in murdering the disabled who cannot do for themselves any of the above criteria you mentioned? [For example;such as those suffering from alzheimer's disease] Or is it just babies who should be treated thus?

You have no qualms comparing someone with impaired brain functioning to something that doesn't even feel?

 

[yasic]

*emphasis added*

So then, you have no qualms in murdering the disabled who cannot do for themselves any of the above criteria you mentioned? [For example;such as those suffering from alzheimer's disease] Or is it just babies who should be treated thus?

Someone with Alzheimer's can still think, feel emotions, make plans, feel empathy, have aspirations. A fetus prior to 20 weeks cannot.

If a human is brain dead, then he is not a person, but simply being disabled is not brain-death.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

*emphasis added*

So then, you have no qualms in murdering the disabled who cannot do for themselves any of the above criteria you mentioned? [For example;such as those suffering from alzheimer's disease] Or is it just babies who should be treated thus?

The only comparison to a pre 25 week fetus would be someone with such significant brain damage they'd be comparable to Terri Schiavo. There's just no "person" left. I'm not opposed to letting those bodies die.

 

[Zeena]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I take this to mean that you believe in a soul - containing the essence of our being - seperate and more or less independent from our bodies.

A unique individual soul, yes, but neither separate from the body, nor independant of it. Rather, entwined and dependant. Just as every faculty of your body is dependantly entwined with each other, so the soul and it's faculties are entwined with each other, and it (the faculties of the body).

Though separation of the soul from the body is Scriptural, so also is the ressurection of the body for the soul, to the Glory of God in Christ;

Revelation 6:9
And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

As Saint John was in the Spirit, he was privy to witness the 'souls' under the altar, separated off from their body (for the ressurection has not happned, yet)

And here, in the following verse;

Revelation 6::10
And they cried with a loud voice, saying, How long, O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?

We are made privy to the fact that they cry to God to avenge their blood, their life-blood of the FLESH upon them that dwell on the earth. Ergo, they have empathy for their bodies. In fact, Saint Paul speaks along this line as well;

Ephesians 5:29
For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

IOW; We are a whole creature, Spirit and soul and body. If one part is lacking, we give it greater honour, as I also quoted from Saint Paul earlier, and if one part is missing, we do grieve for it, as a part of ourselves. BUT, only the WHOLE can be construde as the whole. To say that I am my brain, or my toe, my mind or my soul is error, for all these are parts of who I am, not the whole.

That is why I said I see no common ground for our discussion. You may well believe in an immortal soul, but that can be no basis for a discussion with people who don't share this belief.

I take it as a given that people are intuitively informed of this reality, at least until the point that they sear their conscience. but really, what would you have me do?

John 3:11
Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

I have attempted to speak with you, to the best of my ability, on your own terms, but beyond that, I do concurr, there is not much else to be said or done but continue in prayer.

If you think that a foetus has a soul that is already self-aware, and capable in some way of emotion and a desire to live, then I understand your position.

Self-awareness does not a soul make, a soul requires a body to live and a body to die (even at the second death). Nor does a soul require emotions and desire to be properly named a soul.. All that is necessary is a body which God has prepared;

1 Corinthians 15:38,29
But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all? why are they then baptized for the dead?

But know that this is not self-evident. Indeed aside from religious tradition there is no indication that a foetus possesses anything we would call a personality or soul in the common sense. From my point of view you might as well claim that a stone has a soul, or a plant (some of which are as capable of reflex-like movements as an early foetus).

Everything that has breath, has a soul.. And everything breathes, even rocks. Everything has a pulse, even the sun and the moon. This is most evident (at this time in technological progress) when viewing motion capture video.

You may well claim that from the viewpoint of your religion abortion is bad. And I can respect that. But that can not be a basis for a pluralistic society. Laws concerning all kinds of people, whether Christians, New-Agers or atheists need to be created on a basis that all can relate to.

Which is why I was attmpting to speak with you on your own terms, using (worldly) philosophical idealogies.

If it were up to me, and you would have believed every word from my mouth, I would have spared myself and simply said that God created the life. But, I studied so that I could convince gainsayers on their own terms.

If my matrialistic definition of a soul/personality, as an emergent property of the functioning of a sufficiently complex brain, is nothing you can relate to, then that can't be basis for our discussion either. So let's try something else: Could you justify the right to live of a (fully grown) human without refering to god? If so, how would you do it?

By employing societal standards of right and wrong, mercy and justice, as well as love.

EDIT: Sorry, had to respond to this as well, since I pretty much with what JGG said:

Someone with alzheimer can very much still accumulate outside information and purposefully communicate with the environment in some way. The same goes for all other mentally handicapped humans as far as I'm aware of. If a human being is indeed incapable off any such ability to think and communicate with the outside world, and is not part of any society whatsoever (i.e. no relatives who still value its life) then I for one would indeed say it is morally all right to kill this human being.

And so, I appeal to you now on those standards mentioned above;

If it is not right for you to do such to a loved one while they are in such circumstance, what makes you say it okay to do so to a stranger? Is society now all for one, or one for all? Is society now so cruel as to justify murder for lack of love?

 

[Zeena]

You have no qualms comparing someone with impaired brain functioning to something that doesn't even feel?

No, I erred in my example.

Still, though, I don't construed anyone who is still alive as DEAD!

 

[yasic]

No, I erred in my example.

Still, though, I don't construed anyone who is still alive as DEAD!

Not dead, they just lose the trait of 'personhood'.

 

[Mling]

The problem with the story sited in the OP is the same as the problem I've pointed out in one of the other abortion threads. It discusses only a minority of abortions (in the case of the second procedure discussed, an extreme minority) while portraying them as the average.

87% of abortions are performed via suction (the first procedure mentioned), and another 10% are "medical" abortions, meaning, essentially, miscarriage induced by drugs. (I'm running out of time, but my source is the CDC, as sited in my recent post on the "Why do my photo's offend pro-lifers?" thread).

To repeat the stats from there: 88% of abortions occur within the first trimester, and 62% during or before week 8.

I don't know if these procedures actually are what they're described as in the OP, but even if it's completely true, it's still a lie--it portrays rare events as if they were common.

 

[Zeena]

The problem with the story sited in the OP is the same as the problem I've pointed out in one of the other abortion threads. It discusses only a minority of abortions (in the case of the second procedure discussed, an extreme minority) while portraying them as the average.

87% of abortions are performed via suction (the first procedure mentioned), and another 10% are "medical" abortions, meaning, essentially, miscarriage induced by drugs. (I'm running out of time, but my source is the CDC, as sited in my recent post on the "Why do my photo's offend pro-lifers?" thread).

To repeat the stats from there: 88% of abortions occur within the first trimester, and 62% during or before week 8.

I don't know if these procedures actually are what they're described as in the OP, but even if it's completely true, it's still a lie--it portrays rare events as if they were common.

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

.

 

[Beechwell]

As it stands, not one of those articles you cited attempted to define personality but rather relegated personality to the character bin.

It is Character that is developed through experience.. Personality is in-born. Character is the determinate of temperment, whilst personality is the animation of our soul, by our body.

Again, I have to disagree. Personality is not inborn, it is acquired. The basis for a personality my be present in our genetic information, but not the personality itself. In a very early fetus, that is indeed nothing but a glob of cells, there is no hint of anything me might identify as a personality. In an 8 month old fetuts this is different, we may see (or believe to see) some hints of a personality by then, and the process continues after birth.
There is no clear boundary after which you could say a baby has a personality, it is a gradual development; but certainly one can place the beginning of this development after the formation of a rudimentary brain. No matter how important the rest of our body is, personality is still something that happens in our brain. This is an obvious and long accepted conclusion of neurology. Even the wikipedia article you posted speaks of a neurobiological basis of personality.

I don't believe it's pointless to this discussion, for a lot of unfavorable decisions are made in regards to the abortion of babies who have underdeveloped biological features, such as brains.. As well, the abortion of the babies being tantamount to their involuntary murder, as no alternative means of life support is offered (or, yet available to be offered by our medical professionals).

You are probably right in that this issue [wether brain dead people can come back to life] is also deserving of discussion. However I don't see how it applies to the topic at hand. Those coming back from (assumed) brain death only exhibit signs of personality when the brain is working again.

PS: Also wanted to say thanks, Zeena, for so patiently discussing this on non-religious terms. It is appreachiated.
And apologies for my infrequent posting.

 

[kittycat7]

The only comparison to a pre 25 week fetus would be someone with such significant brain damage they'd be comparable to Terri Schiavo. There's just no "person" left. I'm not opposed to letting those bodies die.

Personally, I see a difference between unplugging life support and actually killing.