So I don't think this finding will effect much of the debate since the 2 sides prefer to rest their arguments on Faith and Philosophy rather than Science.
The real reason this finding is important is that there has been federal legislation proposed in the U.S. which would make it mandatory for providers to tell women considering abortions that the foetus will feel pain. The idea is that this will make her less likely to go through with the operation. Which, to my mind, is another example of politics butting in where it does not belong... The Pro-Life faction knows that it cannot win the debate outright. It simply does not have the support. So its strategy is to weasel its way into our lives via legislation like this.
Anyway ... since we are here at ET, what's the scene in Europe? I keep hearing the Pro-Lifers are gaining support there. True? Is this just a Catholic thing or is it more mainstream? Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
While I am firmly pro-choice, I am not sure that from the fact that a being cannot feel pain or have experiences or even interests, it follows that it is ethical to kill that being.
Well, like I said there are other arguments for outlawing abortion, notably that 'human life has intrinsic value' whether or not it has rights. So the argument above is insufficient by itself to justify a pro-choice position. But it's absolutely necessary. Indeed, if not for it I'm not sure I would be pro-choice in the first place.
But it is a philosophical argument. And half the people in this debate frankly are not swayed by philosophy. Much in the same way that I am not swayed by the Bible.
Philosophical argument is what I do, though not so much here on ET (philosophy is no spectator sport). Such argument may or may not make for good propaganda, but that, to me, is a side concern.
since we are here at ET, what's the scene in Europe? I keep hearing the Pro-Lifers are gaining support there. True? Is this just a Catholic thing or is it more mainstream?
I can only speak for Scandinavia, where pro-lifers have given up long ago with respect to swaying the mainstream. The demographic in question seem much more preoccupied with writing LTEs about Israel. The world's northernmost desert wind.
And even if they were, in order to have a philosophical debate on the subject, those participating should be versed familiar with the basic rules of the game, which they are not. At some point, the statement "Cuz that's what I believe," came to pass as a valid proof here in America.
I'm just saying that while your argument might be spot on, and I am inclined to think it is, I don't see it being an effective tool for protecting American women's rights from being steamrolled by the Christian Right. That's all. It seems that the most vocal on both sides have given up on tring to win "hearts and minds" and are just going for the hearts now... Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
Appologies all around. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -Voltaire
The law requires that the counselling service encourages here to continue the pregnancy. If, however, at the conclusion of the counselling she still wishes an abortion, she is entitled to one. (German Penal Code, Art. 218a/219).
Three guesses as to which antiquated Roman organization (run by old guys in long dresses yet!) fought hard to insert this language in the counselling provision... "Ideas or the lack of them can cause disease." - Kurt Vonnegut
Abortion increased by 4% in the last quarter of 2004 compared with the previous year. Reasons given are mostly financial and insecurity about the future.
