World Clock

[Seamus]

Its also my understanding that this is the root of the abortion debate: is a fetus a human being? Does a fetus have a soul? If you kill a fetus, are you violating its free will and destroying its right to life? If I recall correctly from a discussion we had in a college Anthropology class, some cultures believe that the act of naming is what gives a child a soul, and they don't give their children names for some time after they are born in part because of high infant mortality rates, but also because of traditions of infanticide. Someone who is "Pro life" may believe that a fetus is imbued with a soul at the very moment of conception. Someone else may consider an infant a human being, but not a fetus.

If a soul is a conscious entity wouldn't it know about abortions and so plan ahead by not entering a body that is likely to be aborted? Unless it just happens to need that particular lesson. Plus, a soul is immortal, so I don't see why it matters if something has a soul or not since you can't harm the soul anyway, you're just killing the body. Given that we don't know what a soul is and what does or doesn't have one, I don't think it makes any sense at all to use that as any sort of yardstick for what we can kill and when. I think a better criteria is just the level of consciousness of the thing itself weighed against the context (like consequences to the mother if no abortion is done).

I agree with you also, context being the key. The whole argument serves primarily to divide people by playing on their emotions.

I also think it's interesting that most people don't even think about the fact that some FULLY GROWN human beings don't have a soul- or don't show signs of one, because they are fully psychopathic and don't care about anything at all. So how can one be sure that a fetus has a soul when in some cases a fully grown human doesn't?

And a fetus may turn out to be a psychopath or an OP, there's no way for us to know.

Ideally killing anything with any kind of consciousness should be avoided and definitely never done lightly, but it also makes sense to value the life of a higher consciousness over a lower one. If choosing between the life of a human or a dog, save the human (typically). Causing trauma to fetus vs a much more grown and conscious mother? Go with the fetus. Of course, lower life form does not necessarily mean free of pain or consciousness despite the fact that many vegetarians assume they can just determine what does or does not feel pain. So in a sense I agree with them that we must make distinctions and prioritize by consciousness level, I just disagree with black and white thinking that plants are the same as rocks. I also think that all life is precious and will feel trauma upon death. Yet we must still make distinctions (otherwise cannibalism would be normal), and a fetus is closer to a plant than a human, so its life must be of less value than a human that is already alive. Nobody likes "killing" fetuses, it's just a the better of 2 evils - the other one being ruining the life of a grown human.

This is an issue that I have with many vegetarians as well. I guess we are closer to dogs, or cows for that matter, than plants, so it is easier for us to relate to their level of conscious. That does not necessarily mean that a plant can't be more conscious than a dog. Or that it can't experience fear or pain, just because we are unable to relate to that experience.

There is a bit from the transcripts that might fit in this discussion:

Q: (L) {First question} L*** A*** just had to have her two old sick doggies put down yesterday partly so she could start her new life, but also because there is simply no other choice considering the situation. {Note: The individual is moving to a new city where she has an offer to live and work, and the apartment does not accept dogs. Both of them were quite old and on various meds so not good candidates for adoption.} She's very upset and missing them. Is there anything I can say or anything you can say to give her any kind of pointer as to whether or not this was the right thing to do?

A: Right 5D for pets

Q: (L) Okay. Is there any particular goal for her to focus on at the present time?

A: Getting well will be facilitated by focusing on others as the reason to get better. Giving her life to dogs didn't give much to the world nor did it bring much return except subjective illusion. As Gurdjieff said, you get back what you give to life.

Q: (L) Well, for a long time she didn't have anything except the dogs, and now the dogs are gone. I think she's feeling pretty bereft. And you're saying the doggies went to doggie 5D so to speak...

A: One day she will have a dog that will return the favors.

Q: (L) She made the remark that since her dogs were old and sick and on medication, and she was sick and on medication, that maybe she wasn't worth keeping alive either.

A: Apples and oranges. Dogs are subjective and personal and a human can be objective in terms of what can be given to others.

Q: (L) So you're saying that keeping a dog alive {by extraordinary means} is just keeping alive something that's subjective and personal to you, while a human can be kept alive and give a great deal that's objectively beneficial to other people {depending on the individual, of course}. Is that it?

A: Yes

 

[1984]

@Leo40 : I just want to share, no other intention. I personally have interest in statistics, and the law of probability, ie. the almost equal distribution of male and female of the world's population. I always thought by nature, there's should be more female, and I was wrong.

I agree and thought male population numbers would be lower than females - or at least, that's what the general thoughts are, so that in itself is interesting. My comment re: abortion (and the subject has moved away from the topic) is that the statistics look skewed - why, is the question. :)

 

[Approaching Infinity]

Interesting. I've always considered an abortion to be a procedure that terminates a pregnancy and, thus, terminates the growth of a fetus - not killing a human being. I suppose my personal definition is certainly the source of many debates. My state recently put on the ballot an initiative to define a fetus as a human being in order to make abortion equal to murder, punishable by law, so it's an interesting distinction. Thankfully, that ballot initiative was voted down by wide majority.

The debate about "definitions" seems to me to be more along the line of "determining the number of angels that can fit on a pinhead", or verbalistic rationalization to justify or buffer emotional beliefs. The only reason the debate even exists (IMO) regarding when a "fetus" becomes a "human" is to determine when it's "okay" to kill it. Humans ordinarily have a revulsion to killing human forms, so they need justifications/rationalizations in order to do so. And the best way is to make something/someone "not human". In other words, the chain of reasoning isn't: "It's not a human, therefore it's okay to kill it." It's more like, "I need a reason to think it's okay to kill this fetus, therefore it's not human."

But really, if you think about it, what's the difference? SAO's approach makes more sense to me. Yeah, it's human (again, depending on "definition"), but in certain situations, it seems justified to kill it, regardless of how you define it. To use a contrary example, who is more human, a fetus or a total vegetable on life support? Barring factors we can know nothing about (i.e., potential for soul development, potential for a 'miracle', etc.), the question is silly, IMO. By the abortion definition, the old man is human (if I understand the definition correctly) and the fetus is not. If by some strange circumstance someone had to choose between the two of them, I don't think many would instinctively choose the old man to live and the fetus to die.

I also just find the fetus/human distinction odd. Does anyone really think of pregnant women as having "fetuses" in situations where they're NOT getting an abortion? It strikes me as thinking along the lines of what Cleckley describes about the guy who told the young boy, "Remember, when you're kissing a girl, you're kissing a tube that's full of ___ at the other end." But maybe that's just me!

 

[anart]

I also just find the fetus/human distinction odd. Does anyone really think of pregnant women as having "fetuses" in situations where they're NOT getting an abortion? It strikes me as thinking along the lines of what Cleckley describes about the guy who told the young boy, "Remember, when you're kissing a girl, you're kissing a tube that's full of ___ at the other end." But maybe that's just me!

Well, we've really wandered off topic now! I think the definition/distinction IS important - if only as it applies to law in the States and where defining a fetus as a human being results in a murder charge for a woman who chooses to have an abortion. This is the context in which I make such a distinction. In a sane world, the distinction would be unnecessary. We don't live in a sane world - thus such distinctions are necessary in order to protect an infinite number of women from untold suffering at the hands of authoritarian, fundie, right wing people. I still think the world clock is interesting, though.

 

[Brewer]

Wow! It did go off topic. I thought it would once the 'A' word was mentioned!

Anyway, for the record, I'm not anti abortion but am very much in favour of equal reproductive rights. Something the authoritarian left and right fundies seem not to acknowledge.

Anart, with the resources, abortion can be counted but as you say many would be done on the fly and impossible to record. I think the figure they use on the World Clock is taken from World Health Organisation estimates.

Take care

 

[sid]

I found the discussion on abortion to be more important than the world clock. I do not have much to add to the thread but perhaps the topics can be seperated?

 

[Brewer]

I found the discussion on abortion to be more important than the world clock. I do not have much to add to the thread but perhaps the topics can be seperated?

Indeed

 

[Alana]

Well, i think that the abortion discussion developed organically because of the World Clock statistics, so i think it can remain as one thread.

I checked their sources, to see where these statistics come from. Interesting enough:

The stats in the World Clock updated as of July, 2010, using several resources for statistical data:

* World Health Organization
* CIA Factbook
* US Census bureau
* UK HomeOffice
* Avert.org
* International Union Against Cancer
* StateMaster
* NationMaster
* Center for Immigration Studies
* National Wildlife Federation
* EarthPolicy.org
* Wikipedia

We will do our best to keep this data current. This is not an easy task as much of it varies widely throughout the year and many sources report contradictory figures. We recommend that you double-check any stats with other sources.

I wondered about the "updated as of July, 2010" bit, but then i figured that it's probably when they last added another source in their database.

 

[Seamus]

The page for abortion on Wikipedia at _http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion gives some estimated numbers:

Worldwide 42 million abortions are estimated to take place annually with 22 million of these occurring safely and 20 million unsafely.

42 million abortions equals ~115,000 per day, which seems to be the number they are using to estimate for their clock (38.139 million/334 days).

This is the source wikipedia gives for that number:
Shah I, Ahman E (December 2009). "Unsafe abortion: global and regional incidence, trends, consequences, and challenges".

With a link to this website: _http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20085681

Unsafe abortion: global and regional incidence, trends, consequences, and challenges.
Shah I, Ahman E.

Special Programme of Research, Development and Research Training in Human Reproduction, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This review aims to provide the latest global and regional estimates of the incidence and trends in induced abortion, both safe and unsafe. A related objective is to document maternal mortality due to unsafe abortion. The legal context of abortion and the international discourse on preventing unsafe abortion are reviewed to highlight policy implications and challenges in preventing unsafe abortion.

METHODS AND DATA SOURCES: This review is based on estimates of unsafe abortion and maternal mortality ratios. These estimates are arrived at using the database on unsafe abortion maintained by the World Health Organization. Additional data from the Demographic and Health Surveys and the United Nations Population Division are used for further analysis of abortion and mortality estimates.

RESULTS: Each year 42 million abortions are estimated to take place, 22 million safely and 20 million unsafely. Unsafe abortion accounts for 70,000 maternal deaths each year and causes a further 5 million women to suffer temporary or permanent disability. Maternal mortality ratios (number of maternal deaths per 100,000 live births) due to complications of unsafe abortion are higher in regions with restricted abortion laws than in regions with no or few restrictions on access to safe and legal abortion.

CONCLUSION: Legal restrictions on safe abortion do not reduce the incidence of abortion. A woman's likelihood to have an abortion is about the same whether she lives in a region where abortion is available on request or where it is highly restricted. While legal and safe abortions have declined recently, unsafe abortions show no decline in numbers and rates despite their being entirely preventable. Providing information and services for modern contraception is the primary prevention strategy to eliminate unplanned pregnancy. Providing safe abortion will prevent unsafe abortion. In all cases, women should have access to post-abortion care, including services for family planning. The Millennium Development Goal to improve maternal health is unlikely to be achieved without addressing unsafe abortion and associated mortality and morbidity.

42 million abortions per year sounds like a lot at first glance, and that number could be used to shock people, but the authors of the paper seem to be in support of better family planning, use of contraception to prevent unplanned pregnancy and providing women with the option of "safe" and "legal" abortions so as to reduce the risk that the mother will be injured or killed.

This is a World Health Organization paper however, so there are undoubtedly other motives in play here as well. The paper sites "modern contraception" as "the primary prevention strategy to eliminate unplanned pregnancy", so the paper is supporting population control efforts, and also any companies that make and sell contraceptives (pharmaceutical companies?).

What does everyone else think?

 

[RAJAWANG]

Out of curiousity, how many members of the Forum are females ? Albeit it's taken for granted that male is more curious, technologically speaking. Although, I am in the opinion, in general, that the world would be better off if the females rule the world.

 

[knowledge_of_self]

Out of curiousity, how many members of the Forum are females ?

Why does that even matter?

Albeit it's taken for granted that male is more curious, technologically speaking.

Sez who? Do you have statistics and studies to back up this claim?

Although, I am in the opinion, in general, that the world would be better off if the females rule the world.

Sez who? The world would be better off if it was not run by psychopaths. A psychopathic female can be as bad for the world as a psychopathic male.

 

[Buddy]

The only reason the debate even exists (IMO) regarding when a "fetus" becomes a "human" is to determine when it's "okay" to kill it.

I've always insisted that "The only reason the debate even exists (IMO) regarding when a "fetus" becomes a "human"" is for purposes of passing laws that criminalize one action for the benefit of special interests. Not to mention justifying the existence of "policy makers" pretending to pass laws that the people want.

But then, I've never had a view of this issue that would endear me to many folks.

I also just find the fetus/human distinction odd. Does anyone really think of pregnant women as having "fetuses" in situations where they're NOT getting an abortion?

Well yes, I tend to. In my mind, until the "baby" can physically exist independently of the mother, wouldn't it be good to have a distinction that points to that fact? Maybe the the unmentioned human tendency to anthropomorphize is involved in the issue? It just never occurred to me to assign the same sense of "humanness" belonging to someone who epitomizes all the best that a self-developed human is capable of, to a blob of protoplasm which is mainly potential (hopefully).

Given a particular individual, perhaps it comes down to the question: What do you consider as the defining essence of a "human" being? For me, the defining essence is conscious awareness and conscious functioning. But that doesn't necessarily mean it can't be improved upon. I just hadn't thought a lot about it lately.

--------------------------------

...I am in the opinion, in general, that the world would be better off if the females rule the world.

Well, "rule" might not be the best word to use if I'm interpreting your intent correctly. The danger here is that any effort to apply this generality to elevate a particular female (or anyone else for that matter) is out-of-context.

Deedlet said it better, OSIT, but I just wanted to draw attention to the possible abuse of generalities as such.

 

[Leo40]

Somewhere in this thread was a remark about cannibalism.
Athropologists may know that certain tribes honour their dead by consuming
the body.
The logic to do so is quite convincing. Instead of providing food for the worms
or burning the body it serves as nourishment for the tribe.
Context!

 

[John G]

Well yes, I tend to. In my mind, until the "baby" can physically exist independently of the mother, wouldn't it be good to have a distinction that points to that fact? Maybe the the unmentioned human tendency to anthropomorphize is involved in the issue? It just never occurred to me to assign the same sense of "humanness" belonging to someone who epitomizes all the best that a self-developed human is capable of, to a blob of protoplasm which is mainly potential (hopefully).

Given a particular individual, perhaps it comes down to the question: What do you consider as the defining essence of a "human" being? For me, the defining essence is conscious awareness and conscious functioning. But that doesn't necessarily mean it can't be improved upon. I just hadn't thought a lot about it lately.

Well the problem with that is 'fetus" is used until birth. There's obviously a life with a brain long before that and even a life with a brain that could survive an early birth a few months before full term. Pre-brain abortions should be obviously no problem. After that I really don't know what to think.

 

[Buddy]

...
After that I really don't know what to think.

Why not? All I'm talking about is knowing the difference between seeing what is there and only what is there and the alternative of using the conventional perception. That is to say, taking the traits and characteristics you've abstracted from those people who you know and have categorized as human and then projecting them onto a life form not yet capable of manifesting such traits and characteristics.

There's no real problem with using conventional perception, I don't think. From the perspective of external consideration, we have to use it to deal with people, but as long as we're conscious of what we're doing, it doesn't have to be a source of confusion, OSIT.

IOW, maybe it's not about "What should I think?" Maybe it's about "How do I justify what I do think?"