Abortion is really a simple issue

Nobody who rests comfily within the bed of Establishment thinking seems to want to take a position on the debate around abortion. All of what the venerable Ellen Tordesillas can add to the debate, for example, is a wish of “good luck” to those bold enough to take a position and slug it out in what is otherwise a splendid arena that pits the Forces of Ethical Thinking against the Forces of Primitivism. The highest profile players in this arena include New York-based Center for Reproductive Rights playing forward striker for the Forces of Ethical Thinking and on the other side is the 2,000-year-old bedrock of, well, 2,000-year-old thinking, the Roman Catholic Church, and its team of lumbering “morality” policemen, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines.

For me it is quite simple.

Take the soul out of the equation and the rickety house of cards that is the Primitivist position on the matter of abortion comes crashing down.

It is the role of the dubious concept of the “soul” that muddles the whole issue of abortion. Organised religion uses it as a spanner that continuously fouls up any attempt to take a level-headed and ethical view on the matter. For something being used to frame the “debate”, the “soul” is at best a nebulous and slippery construct. As such, the concept of the soul is a personal matter managed at a deep level on an individual basis. To use it in a very public debate that has far-reaching impacts in a society governed under the framework of a secular state is quite simply an abuse and perversion of religious dogma.

Remove the concept of the “soul” from the debate on whether or not to legalise abortion in the Philippines, and the guiding principle that then becomes the underpinning of this debate is the mind

Douglas Hofstadter in his book I Am A Strange Loop provides a compelling theory of what a mind might be, and I attempt below to summarise the conceptual cornerstone of his book:

The physical human brain is a complex machine for storing patterns, and the mind is an immensely complex pattern stored in this machine. The mind therefore forms in the brain starting from the time we are born and increases in size, complexity, and sophistication as we go about living the rest of our lives. The nature our mind is an outcome of how our brain organises data captured in the course of our interactions with the world around us into a pattern.

The mind can therefore be thought of as having two measurable properties: size and complexity. Size and complexity of one’s mind could be a function of the extent of a mind’s cognitive abilities — how broadly and deeply one could think, let’s say.

Granted, our current level of understanding of our minds and measurement technologies available currently fail to give us a clear basis for measuring the defining properties of the mind. The point is, such properties are definable. It is the approach and basis for calculating the values of these properties that lie beyond today’s science a the moment.

In contrast, there is no such hope of an intellectual grip around the concept of the “soul”. And therein lies the power of organised religion. Organised religion is able bypass the rigours of modern thinking and hold an entire society hostage using an undefinable construct.

Philippine society is being held hostage by an irrational fear of the “wellbeing” of the “soul” — what is essentially an unknowable unknown.

If only Filipinos can somehow bat away the pop-gun being held to our heads by the Roman Catholic Church and see the debate around abortion for what it really is. It is a debate around which of the two minds at stake here — the mother’s or the unborn child’s — does our society already have significant investment (time, effort, emotion and, yes, money) sunk into.

And we can regard it with this simple question:

Which is more valuable: the mind of an unborn child, or the mind of its mother?

To answer the question we can think of which between the above two is more replaceable, thus;

– A mother who loses an unborn child, can quite easily try again in the future

– A husband who loses a wife or a parent who loses a 16- to 20-year-old daughter to a botched abortion or complicated pregnancy cannot replace this loss ever.

While so much time, money, and emotion had already gone into the formation of the mind of, say, a pregnant 16- to 20-year-old not much in relative terms has gone into that of an unborn child. Indeed, other than hardwired brain activity inherited from our evolutionary legacy, the mind of an unborn child is basically empty — a mere vessel for containing a pattern formed out of life experiences that, perhaps, another vessel conceived at some future time could house.

About benign0

benign0 is the Web master of GetRealPhilippines.com
This entry was posted in Development, Featured, Religion and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

153 Responses to Abortion is really a simple issue

  1. GabbyD says:

    “To answer the question we can think of which between the above two is more replaceable”

    why is the unborn child more replaceable? why is it, in ur view, is the mother the ONLY unique “entity” in this situation?

    isnt the unborn child… a child? arent children unique individuals? their loss is REAL.

    if the mother chooses to abort with the argument that “she can try again”, there is a real loss in the loss of the unborn child.

    PS: “A husband who loses a wife or a parent who loses a 16- to 20-year-old daughter to a botched abortion or complicated pregnancy cannot replace this loss ever.”

    this seems to be an poorly constructed sentence.

    • benign0 says:

      Think about it Mr GabbyD (you know how to think, right?). The journey between Year 0 and Year 20 that, say a 20-year-old human being took can never be re-traced in an identical manner. That makes the patterns formed in the neural net within that person’s brain as a result of the data gathered during that journey unique.

      The journey from conception to the 9th month of gestation of a foetus, on the other hand, while physically unique for each individual, has practically no bearing on its mind. And even if there was, the number of lives touched by the unborn child is nowhere near as extensive and as profound as the network of lives that is touched by a 20-year-old human being over the course of her 20-year life.

      It’s simple, really™ — though not for the small-minded. 😀

      • GabbyD says:

        its OBVIOUS that a mother is older than her unborn child, therefore has done more, etc…

        but WHY is OLDER a reason to be more “irreplaceable” as a person? thats the question!

        why is “she can always try again” a good reason to abort a child? thats the question!

        its TRUE that “A husband who loses a wife” OR “a parent who loses a 16- to 20-year-old daughter to a botched abortion or complicated pregnancy” cannot replace this loss ever. its ALSO TRUE that a mother who aborts her unborn child is ALSO CANNOT BE UNDONE.

        PS: can u skip the “can u think” comments pls? i know its hard for you, but u’ll waste less time…

      • ChinoF says:

        I think it’s just this… in the case of “mother vs. child…” an unaborted child cannot make another child, or work and provide the usual needs a spouse provides. Or even if the mother survives… the child is still a burden (look up the Yahoo article I quoted in my comment below). A mother saved by abortion can still work after recovering, can be more contribute to the spouse and may try again to have another child. Thus, the latter mother is more useful and practical, especially for a hard place to live in like the Philippines.

    • benign0 says:

      its TRUE that “A husband who loses a wife” OR “a parent who loses a 16- to 20-year-old daughter to a botched abortion or complicated pregnancy” cannot replace this loss ever. its ALSO TRUE that a mother who aborts her unborn child is ALSO CANNOT BE UNDONE.

      Dude,

      (1) You are confusing the concept of replacing with undoing; and,

      (2) It’s not about who is “older”. It’s about whose mind is bigger (or for that matter, relative to an unborn child, which mind already exists.

      Think again. 😀

      • GabbyD says:

        1) ” It’s not about who is “older”. It’s about whose mind is bigger (or for that matter, relative to an unborn child, which mind already exists.”

        u are just replacing words! a mother will always be older, will always have a “bigger mind” (whatever that means).

        u question is, WHY do any of these things matter in the decision? how about any explanation?

        2) its the same concept! in the same way u cannot “undo” the death of a mother, u cannot “undo” the death of the child! if u cannot replace the wife (this is ur argument, again, why?), u cannot replace the unborn child (who is a DISTINCT PERSON, LIKE THE MOTHER/WIFE!)

      • benign0 says:

        Read my piece again, Mr GabbyD.

        (1) Nowhere there do I use the concept of age to frame the point I make. I do answer the question of “why”. But it is framed along the lines of the size and complexity of the minds of the parties at stake — (a) the unborn child, and (b) the mother of said unborn child.

        (2) No it is not “the same concept”. If you destroy something, you can replace. But you cannot un-destroy it.

        It’s simple, really™ — though not for GabbyD. 😀

      • GabbyD says:

        haha, yes, its not the “Same concept”, i agree :). but BOTH CONCEPTS apply to the situation equally,

        you cannot undo death for EITHER PARTY.

        you cannot replace EITHER PARTY.

        get it?

      • BenK says:

        You’re hung up on the SOUL, Gabby. Until you stop trying to make a relative-value judgment based on something that is undefinable and may or may not actually exist, you’re not going to get it, as far as this topic goes.

      • miriam quiamco says:

        Gabby, you are not a woman, many women in the Philippines would actually want to have the choice of legal abortion and avoid risks in the back alleys.

      • Jay says:

        Oh GabbyD, forcing PRO-LIFE huh? Do the women a favor and help take care of those children for them. Oh the sad reality is that in society, it also takes resources and MONEY TO RAISE CHILDREN! Even more if you are to further invest into their future, not just keep them alive for the sake of the sanctity of life.

        There is a reason why I laugh on TV when they show children born with strange defects and the parents who can’t help because child with defect is just 1 of 5 or 9 with the family who earns very little to even support 1 child. Can you say vicious cycle?

  2. ben says:

    Wow… The first AP article that I completely disagree with… I’ll get into it when I have time.

  3. The usual argument I hear against abortion is that every person has a right to Life, and the unborn child has the right to Life as everyone of us.

    I know a philosophy who favors abortion because it holds that the possession of fights apply to actual human beings, i.e. those already who came out of the womb, and not to potential human beings. I am still debating on this, but I have a reason to favor partial and selective abortion.

    Whenever a unborn child can be shown as life-threatening to a mother through objective means, can we show that it is proper and not immoral to do such abortion? We know that it is immoral to murder anyone. That’s a violation of his right to Life. But and if a person threatens your life, it is in your self-interest to hurt or to even kill him in an act of self-defense. I assert that this self-defense argument could also be applied in such cases.

  4. olivia says:

    I find it extremely hard if not impossible to think of a justification for murdering an unborn child, regardless of the circumstances the pregnancy came about.

    The pregnancy due to rape and incest easily come to mind which many thinks are enough justification to terminate the pregnance. This is not even about the soul but more on the manner on how the child was conceived.

    What about pregnancy due to irresponsible sex? Or pregnancy due to livelihood, as in the case of the “workers”? Or due to ecomonic reasons, another child would be an added burden to a poor family.

    There is also what we call clinical abortion which is obviously a medical need for the mother to live.

    Except for medical reasons, where can one draw the line between abortion and keeping the baby?

    My take on this is that, except for medical reasons, the baby, must by all means be welcomed to this stinking world of ours.

    There really is no solution to the root of the problem (which is sex) so we better address the problem at a later stage.

    I know that there are institutions who provide choices to the mother (or guardian) of the newly born whether to keep the baby or give it up for adoption. This I think is a really good program which should be expanded and be given more priority in terms of financial support.

    Such institutions provide support during and after the pregnancy. If possible we also allow foreigners to adopt the babies.

    I really dont buy the pro-choice mantra. Choice for me must be made after the birth not before. The choice is between keeping the baby or giving it up for adoption.

    Of course there will be another problem that is where to get the funding for such programs. Funding is and will always be a problem, so why stop? This scheme can be government or private initiative. It can also be done in a form of an enterprise – adoption for a fee.

    A company can “collect” babies from mothers who have chosen to give up the baby for adoption. The company will rear the child while searching for prospective parents.

    This is a far more humane endeavour than abortion.

    • GabbyD says:

      mahirap na kung may unborn baby na. the moral calculus is unclear, and no matter what ur decision is (abort or not), there are losses in society.

      in a sense, this is one goal for which a RH/responsible parenthood program should strive for: eliminate abortions as much as possible.

      • Hyden Toro says:

        This is a question of whether the Embrayo in a Mother’s womb is a blob of flesh, or meat…or a stirring baby with life…the question of origin of life itself, is not clear to us…it is still a mystery.

        So, we are all confused on this issue on the reason that: we cannot debate on the issue, that we don’t know…the Religious institutions will be up in arms on this issue…while the progresives and radical thinkers will surely prod the approval of legal abortion…

    • The Judge loves Olivia says:

      @ Ms. O.

      “I really dont buy the pro-choice mantra. Choice for me must be made after the birth not before. The choice is between keeping the baby or giving it up for adoption.”

      Transfer of affection …. loading….99.9% 💡

      Now, I have new crush. 😳

      Abortion is a modern-day holocaust . Such a position amounts to saying that the value of innocent, unborn, human life is intrinsically bound to the comfort level of a pregnant mother about the circumstances surrounding her pregnancy.

      Benigno or more like Maligno is a soulless freak. Since it’s difficult to prove that the soul exists then it’s okay to murder the unborn. How many of your own have you aborted Benigno? Just wondering… 😕

      yah, right, killing our own children is an act of responsibility to ourselves and to others. cool! 🙄

      Your mom … she’s a heroine for not aborting you, give her a kiss for me, will you? 👿 👿

      • benign0 says:

        Benigno or more like Maligno is a soulless freak. Since it’s difficult to prove that the soul exists then it’s okay to murder the unborn. How many of your own have you aborted Benigno? Just wondering

        Indeed Mr The Judge. At the end of the day, that’s all you pretty much bring to the table — a futile exercise of wondering on your part. 😀

        That’s kind of the outcome of one who hinges his entire argument on the nebulous concept of a “soul” when the debate is best left to its clear debatable aspects, namely ethics and economics. That’s pretty much how real debates in secular societies get resolved, dude. You make it about the “soul” or any nebulous construct that defers to religion or the supernatural and you guarantee the entry of the noise of organised religion and the jibberish of wankers from every sect and cult in the land. And that is what imprisons primitive societies like the Philippines in a vicious but SMALL circle of useless chatter.

      • Jay says:

        Well when you do go to the religious practicality of it, you end up eating your own morals, especially with the brave soul below who was proud to be part of a sheep of a 2,000 year old institution of a religion.

        When you talk about it pragmatically, you get solutions. Solutions that can help educate about the nature of abortion not as a stigma, but on how it affects society as a whole. You can get educated citizens that care and know the deeper meanings of alternatives and choices for matters like those.

      • benign0 says:

        That’s the tragedy that is Pinoy society, People wonder how a relatively educated country (by Third World standards) with a high literacy rate (by most standards!) can be, at the same time, such a wretchedly backward society.

        It comes down to how our society allows undebatable dogmatic concepts to infest the secular debate. What use is modern education (that best serves a modern secular discourse) when conversation-enders coming from primitivist dogmatic concepts are allowed to foul up the elegance of enligtened discussion?

        Quite simply: Tragic = Philippines. 😀

    • Jay says:

      Abortion is a modern-day holocaust

      Yeah, and pre-meditated genocide is just as accidental isn’t it? I like how pro-lifers like you try to concentrate on conserving life when you miss the most important aspect, probably since you have yet pulled it our your collective a$$e$; Their short and long term future.

      I’ll admit, Olivia’s adoption idea has worked before my eyes. I’ve made friends with a Filipino who was adopted by an affluent family during my high school years. He is now married, working and pretty much a proud member of society. I can’t expect cases like these every time however it does work.

      If anything the idea should not be focused on trying to save as much of these fetuses as much as possible, as the counter-arguments made by GabbyD, Judge Joker and among others who like to usually pick the opposing argument for the sake of it. Where is the justification when you bring these babies to the sick, sad world, only for them to struggle living for themselves as children? Where is the morality there to give them to give them the illusion that they can survive exactly?

      I can see exceptions but whatever the program is, it must practice prevention and birth control. I’ve met my share of single mothers who have hardened themselves for the sake of their child and the definitely deserve them due to their unconditional love for them to give them a future. That is what the program should be, not the one where you go on a conditioned crusade to attempt to save children from abortions because its not a christian thing to do.

      Ultimately I stand by pro-choice because in a proper society, the women should have a choices like what Olivia has mentioned but already be educated beforehand. Not the kind of society where a mother kicks out 2 or 3 children then complains why life is so hard.

  5. mel says:

    I have mixed views on abortion.

    As a Tibetian Buddhist, I believe from one birth to the next. That all phenomena are projections of the mind and that the mind is “empty” in essence. Although empty, everything constantly arises in it. It is the Karma – the cause and effect – that I am concerned of.

    As a Nurse, when it is a life question between the mother and the child, I am for the saving of the mother.

    When it comes to an abortion involving woman’s right to decide for herself, I think there should be strict guidelines, just like in Germany, so I quote from Wikipedia:

    “A new law was passed by the Bundestag in 1992, permitting first-trimester abortions on demand, subject to counselling and a three-day waiting period. The law was quickly challenged in court by a number of individuals – including Chancellor Helmut Kohl – and the State of Bavaria. The Federal Constitutional Court issued a decision a year later maintaining its earlier decision that the constitution protected the fetus from the moment of conception, but stated that it is within the discretion of parliament not to punish abortion in the first trimester[citation needed], providing that the woman had submitted to state-regulated counselling designed to discourage termination and protect unborn life. Parliament passed such a law in 1995. Abortions are not covered by public health insurance except for women with low income.”

    Illegal abortion is a growing problem in the Philippines and our society must find solutions to solve the matter. Those who need abortion will always find ways. Why not offer it the legal way? Saving a life is always better than losing two lives.

  6. John Amend-All says:

    Anyone would think the debate is about the right to have an abortion or not. Actually the debate is about having a legal or illegal abortion. Make no mistake about it, a woman who desperately wishes to be rid of her foetus will find someone to do it for her, plenty of old ladies with bent coathangers around. Or would it be better done by a doctor in a sterile environment with the correct instruments and, hopefully, counselling afterwards.

    Who are these people who claim rights over a woman’s body? I don’t think that stuff about a complex neural pattern matters much. It is simply a woman’s right to choose what to do with her own body, no-one else’s business.

    • Miriam Quiamco says:

      I agree with John Amend-all’s opinion, it is the woman’s body we are talking about here, it only the woman who has the right to decide whether to terminate her pregnancy or carry it through full term. Our hypocritical society avoids debating this very relevant issue, many young girls die from botched abortions in the back alleys, there should be a systematic study on this. We all make mistakes and when on one occasion, a woman has forgotten to take precaution, she shouldn’t be punished for a one time indiscretion, she should be given the right to choose. She should know there is always the morning after pill, but she has to take it the next morning after the act. Trouble is, we cannot even talk about prevention in our country, because everyone pretends you only have sex within marriage when it is a fact that everybody has sex now even before getting married. Our teenagers are at a loss, we should have TV programs advising young people to avoid unwanted pregnancy instead of pretending they are not engaging in sex cause they are not married yet.

      I am for the legalization of abortion up to one month of pregnancy, beyond that, I think no abortion should be performed anymore.

      • BongV says:

        @mel – I agree with you and John Amendall – baseline is one month.

      • UP nn grad says:

        Spain, Venezuela, Chile (Canada, USA, Australia) has no calendar-baseline for abortion when woman life at risk. Mexico (and Malaysia) has first-trimester(3 months) for abortion when woman life at risk.

        The Vatican (and Saudi Arabia, also Pakistan) does not allow abortion by reason of rape/incest. Spain does (in first trimester only). First trimester is baseline for abortion by reason of rape/incest — for Chile, Uruguay and many other countries.

  7. John B says:

    Not only is this article 100% anti-pinoy but100% ANTI-HUMANITY!!!!, I do not agree with the author of this article one bit. I was just thinking, If i can build a time machine I would go back to the time this author was inside his mother’s womb and convince the mother to abort him. LAKAS NG LOOB MO MAGSALITA NG PABOR SA ABORTION DAHIL PINANGANAK KA NA!!!!

    • mel says:

      @John B

      Why react with emotions? You are attacking the writer, not the topic. If you disagree, that is fine but WALANG PERSONALAN!

      Any suggestion/s how to solve the abortion problem in the Philippines or you are not concerned at all what those young women do with their unborn child? Hmmm, I guess you do not give a damn, kasi PINANGANAK KA NA!

    • benign0 says:

      .
      .
      @ John B: Any moron can disagree. But what sets apart the men from the boys is the ability to articulate why they disagree. 😀

    • Jay says:

      @JohnB

      If you were to do that with my mother, she’d say no. She raised only 2 of us and was kind enough to not give me and my brother life, but a future.

      Can’t say for your dumb, redneck mentality but that argument would be to discuss with your parents then.

  8. Roborat says:

    @benign0: you think its simple because you’re a robot and condescending snob.

  9. GabbyD says:

    guys, lets skip the name calling for now.

    we have yet to hear what B0’s real argument is.

    he is saying: “mental complexity and size” determine whether u can abort a baby or not. he has NOT said why. i look forward to his explanation.

    btw, his argument, if u accept it, is also a reason to abort due to other issues with the baby, i.e. if there is a test that determines that the baby is likely to be mentally retarded, then his brain isnt complex, then he u can abort him.

    once he’s explained, if u dont like his explanation, then feel free to name call.

    • benign0 says:

      he is saying: “mental complexity and size” determine whether u can abort a baby or not. he has NOT said why. i look forward to his explanation.

      Guess again Mr GabbyD. I already did.

      Try to keep up. 😀

      • GabbyD says:

        huh? where in the blogpost? go ahead. copy and paste it.

        again, why is ur criterion THE criterion? go.

      • benign0 says:

        @ GabbyD

        Two things for your little mind to chew on:

        (1) On what basis do you make the assertion that an unborn baby is irreplaceable?

        (2) The argument on why size and complexity of the mind are bases for considering the debate on abortion is premised on replaceability of said two parties — (2.a) the unborn child and (2.b) its mother.

        Therefore, Mr GabbyD, your understanding of this “why” will be underpinned by how you answer the question in the first item above.

        Keep on trying. 😀

      • GabbyD says:

        “On what basis do you make the assertion that an unborn baby is irreplaceable?”

        aha! not reading 🙂

        in the same way u cannot “undo” the death of a mother, u cannot “undo” the death of the child! if u cannot replace the wife (this is ur argument, again, why?), u cannot replace the unborn child (who is a DISTINCT PERSON, LIKE THE MOTHER/WIFE!)

        maybe thats the KEY ASSUMPTION in your argument.

        for you: an unborn child/baby is NOT A DISTINCT PERSON. its a mass of cells, that responds to touch/light/heat, etc… nothing more.

        IS THIS THE REAL REASON?

  10. Lilly (logging in takes too long here) says:

    I think Obama said something like, instead of laboring over the legalities of abortion, why not eliminate the need for it in the first place?

    I’m not in favor of abortion, both for medical and somewhat ethical reasons. Also, eliminating the cause of pregnancy is much, much, easier. Just wear a rubber, dammit, or don’t forget to pop a pill, etc.

    As for pregnancies with complications, clinical abortions already take care of that–the doctor has the right to terminate a pregnancy if it endangers a woman’s life. As for pregnancies resulting in rape, I guess we can put some legal methods to have the pregnancy terminated.

    But for abortion just because a teenager played bahay-bahayan, or because a sex worker forgot to take her regular pills? No. That’s an utter disregard of accountability on the woman’s part. The women aren’t always the victims here.

    • kusinero says:

      I totally agree with you Lilly. Preventing pregnancy is what we should focus on. An ounce of prevention, anyone?

      Abortion should only be given as an option to a woman who was raped, or who has a dangerous pregnancy. Although I disagree with the catholic church on their stance on contraceptives, I do support their stance on abortion. Abortion is barbaric, and is a very twisted way of playing God. It is also an easy way out for people who do not want to face the consequences of their actions.

      Even if you legalize abortion, the risk of the mother dying from the procedure is still significant, so what’s the point? Thus preventing pregnancy is the solution.

      And to benign0, I disagree with your view towards the soul. The soul is real, even if you don’t believe it exists. If you say that “there is no such hope of an intellectual grip around the concept of the soul” then you basically say the same thing for love, hope, faith, anger, desire, and other emotions that you have. Not being able to define or quantify something does not mean we should ignore it or say it does not exist.

      • ben says:

        Totally agree here.

      • GabbyD says:

        “If you say that “there is no such hope of an intellectual grip around the concept of the soul” then you basically say the same thing for love, hope, faith, anger, desire, and other emotions that you have.”

        good point!

        the same criticism can also be levied on his notion of “brain complexity”. he admits no one can measure it.

        if u believe in brain complexity, yet cant measure it, or say much about it, then what is the difference between that and other complex ideas, like soul, love, hope,etc?

      • benign0 says:

        If your argument that the soul is real is true because you said so or because you believe so, then suit yourself. There is no counter-argument that can be made against summary belief. 😉

      • kusinero says:

        Not at all. My argument is that we cannot summarily dismiss something we cannot comprehend nor quantify. It’s the same with the reality of cold. We can’t measure it but we know it’s there because we can see it’s effects. Same is true with the soul. The evidence of a man’s soul is found all around us, from the simplest kite to the most advanced fighter jet. From lullabies to symphonies.

      • BongV says:

        if we are not able to comprehend then just say – we don’t comprehend – not it was created by an old man in the sky who will burn you to death for eternity if you don’t kiss his ass every sunday

      • benign0 says:

        How exactly does the existence of kites, fighter jets, lullabies, and symphonies serve as “evidence” that proves the existence of the soul?

        Explain, plez.

        And what do you mean by cold being something that cannot be measured? Cold is the absence of heat, and the heat of an object or region is the collective effect of the individual movements of all the molecules constituting said object or within said region. So the lesser molecules move or vibrate within a region, the colder said region gets. Or something akin to that principle. Heat can be measured. And its measure is called temperature, and whatever scale you use, it is a function of the average velocity of all molecules within the measured solid or region.

      • kusinero says:

        Well, kites and fighter jets fly, and they fly because of the principles of physics and the engineering involved. But why were they created in the first place? Entertainment for the kite, military necessity for the fighter jet, maybe, but why does man come up with such things?

        How come a lullaby can sound as sweet as the most complicated symphony? Rendition perhaps, but what compels man to sing or write a song? What compels man to dance or write a poem or a blog? We can come up with numerous answers to these questions, but still we would not be able to pinpoint exactly why. That’s the soul there. The missing ingredient that we cannot quantify.

        May sound gibberish, I know, but what can I say, we can’t quantify the soul in the first place 🙂

        As for the cold, yeah i know it’s common understanding that it’s the absence of heat, but we only quantify it as such because we have no other way of measuring cold. We measure cold by saying how “not hot” an object is. So technically and scientifically, there is no such thing as cold, there is only hot and not hot. But we cannot deny that there is indeed cold, because we can feel it.

      • BongV says:

        does a “soul” even exist – how do you quantify something that does not exist? 😆

      • ChinoF says:

        I think that the problem with the soul is that it’s hard to prove its existence. As stated, human sentience compared to animals is also theorized to be caused by physico-chemical processes… but even that can’t be proven. It probably falls under the “devil’s proof” idea – you mention that there’s supposed to be proof, but you can’t even find or present it. Even if I believe in a spiritual aspect in man, you can’t really look for proof for it. Thus, it falls under the concept of faith.

        The idea about the soul in relation to abortion is that clergy use it to justify banning abortion. Problem is, there is still that exercise on when exactly it starts to reside in the human embryo. At conception? During embryo growth? After one month? So far, it’s all theory and could not be ascertained. Thus, the presence of the soul is a difficult reason to use for anti-abortion stances. What’s more important is the immediate results and implications of deciding to allow or not abortion… or even birth control. Our growing population and increasing cases of poverty-stricken children should show us what to do.

      • Jay says:

        But why were they created in the first place? Entertainment for the kite, military necessity for the fighter jet, maybe, but why does man come up with such things?

        LOLNO, especially for the kite. Think beyond its childish, hobby like applications now and back when things were simpler. Where people thought of advanced concepts but didn’t have the technology or know-how to replace the simpler objects. Then you arrive with this answer (derived from Wiki but the source was from a book):

        Ancient and medieval Chinese sources list other uses of kites for measuring distances, testing the wind, lifting men, signaling, and communication for military operations.

        additionally;

        The period from 1860 to about 1910 became the “golden age of kiting”. Kites started to be used for scientific purposes, especially in meteorology, aeronautics, wireless communications and photography;

        Man makes these things with a form of practicality in mind to aid in explaining their advanced concepts when the technology has not existed to advance the research yet. The event at Kitty Hawk with Wright brothers would contribute to diminish the additional, specific tasks of the kite and reduce it to its application now.

        We not be able to quantify things, but if we can specify certain things that hold a practical application to it and give a reasonable explanation and its benefits, its much better than accepting a generalization with misplaced morals in mind.

  11. ChinoF says:

    I think Benign0 is saying that without religion’s chokehold on people’s thoughts, people can make a better decision on reproductive issues. If a religion or religious authority tells you to think about it and not feel about it only, that’s still good advice.

    Now when you apply it to a practical situation, like when abortion is necessary for saving the mother’s life, and you’re asked whether to save the mother or child, Benign0’s framework shows that it would be more practical to save the mother. Because after she’s saved, you could always have a child again. Plus, having a child is financial suicide. An article in Yahoo came out recently on what could drain half your lifetime income… and one of the things was having children.

    I’m not for abortion myself, but think… if abortion were banned, wouldn’t it also be a biased, unfair law? In addition, the RH Bill or other proposed laws that promote education on abortion and repro health would help people become more informed on abortion, and it may even dissuade them from doing it once they know the facts.

    And since the mother (or other adult present) can think, but the unborn child cannot… what does that tell you? It puts a big responsibility on the thinking people, and they should use this thinking wisely. Not resort to some ’emo’ sentimentalism that has been the cause of so much stupidity (like having the child in the first place because of sex).

    • ben says:

      This is more like it. Thanks Chino.

      The RH Bill’s stand on Abortion should be limited for necessary emergency practices, and not just because an irresponsible girl got knocked up.

      That’s all 🙂

      • ChinoF says:

        an irresponsible girl got knocked up

        Couple this with the irresponsible jerk who knocked her up. Most people tend to blame only one party when It takes two to tango… I want to stress that point so responsibility is attributed correctly.

      • Phil Manila says:

        “the irresponsible jerk who knocked her up. . .”

        Three biggest lies men say:

        1. The check is in the mail.

        2. I am with government, and I’m here to help you.

        3. Trust me, I won’t get you preggy. 😯

        Priceless.

      • Miriam Quiamco says:

        I think that irresponsible girl should be given a second chance, she should be given the choice to terminate her pregnancy, up to the first month. If she knows she has this option, then, she doesn’t have to go to a back alley and avail of the services of an abortionist and thus risk dying from it.

      • UP nn grad says:

        This is not about ➡ FORCING A WOMAN to obtain an abortion. This is about allowing a woman (or a girl!!!) to have an abortion when they want to, and only for certain cases.

        Many 16-year old and younger Pinay girls had gotten pregnant from rape and the girl’s parents insist that the girl should carry the fetus into pregnancy. Many Pinays just can’t got the rhythm method correctly, get pregnant with child number 5 or number 6 or number 7, and the mother still insists on completing the pregnancy. Nothing should change about this. No Filipina should be 😯 compelled to have an abortion even when:
        — life and health (physical and mental) of the woman are in jeopardy;
        — when the pregnancy is a result of rape and incest;
        — and in cases of fetal impairment.

        On the other hand, over half-a-million Filipinas want to have an abortion each year, and Pilipinas government says NO!! — there are criminal sanctions , 😐 jail-time, to have an abortion or to provide the medical procedures for an abortion. The Philippines should ❗ modify the Revised Penal Code. It should not be a crime when a woman wants an abortion when :
        –life and health (physical and mental) of the woman are in jeopardy;
        — when the pregnancy is a result of rape and incest;
        — and in cases of fetal impairment.

      • Jay says:

        @UPnGrad

        Which is hilarious since Judge put out an interesting line:

        What if a man claimed the right to rape, using the same principle found in the theory that it is his body and he has the right to choose?

        Well woudja look at that!?!? The rules are almost meant to give favor to the little scenario he concocted but EXISTS in the REAL WORLD!

  12. GabbyD says:

    B0’S reasoning also means that..

    there are valid reasons to abort due to other issues with the baby, i.e. if there is a test that determines that the baby is likely to be mentally retarded, then his brain isnt complex, then he u can abort him.

    is this something that people actually believe in?

    • ben says:

      I don’t believe in that.

      I actually read an article about 2 mothers who sued a hospital because they were not able to determine that their babies had down syndrome. The mothers said, if the hospital were able to tell them, they would aborted the babies.

      I think that just perverts the meaning of PARENTS.

    • kusinero says:

      As usual that will be a difficult choice, one that the parents should think about. For me personally I don’t think the possibility of a baby having mental retardation warrants abortion as the solution. It’s in the genes, and you can’t blame the baby for that. Even if you try again in the future, there’s no point since the same result will happen. In which case I would suggest having a vasectomy, then adopt a child from China instead.

      But then you also gotta ask, will you continue to have a child even though you know he is impaired, and have him suffer for the rest of his life? Is living more important than how you live?

    • ChinoF says:

      Not really mental retardation (Benign0 didn’t say that)… for me at least. I know people would attribute that to Nazism, since Nazis put to death mentally infirm people, because these are useless for their purposes. I believe Benign0 is saying that the parents themselves, or mother at least, should make a responsible decision on whether to abort the child because they really couldn’t take it, or bear it and slog it out with the difficulties of life – which include the child going hungry at some days. The parent/s should know themselves properly to see if they can deal with the child or not. Lawmakers should make responsible decisions on laws and rulings about abortion using thought, and not in favor of the bias of some religious party or some popular sentiments. And clergy should know their place and not insist on their religious principles becoming law.

      Basically, everybody should think, and not resort to doctrine or sentimentality when looking over this issue.

    • benign0 says:

      Tsk tsk, Mr GabbyD. You haven’t even come to grips around a clear definition on your part on concepts so far being used here, and now you introduce another one — person.

      So tell us then, sir, what is it that makes an organism a “person”?

      I’ll tell you one thing though: You’re getting warmer. As indeed, whether that mass of cells is a person is a question that goes back to my original premise: the size or, for that matter, the existence of a mind as far as the two key parties at stake in the “debate” is concerned — (1) the unborn child and (2) it’s mother.

      Size and complexity. Those are the properties I propose whose measurement contributes to clarifying the debate. So here we go:

      (A) Perhaps the ability to measure these is a hurdle when we try to compare two sentient individuals. But in this case, the difference is stark — the mother who we can consider to be sentient beyond all reasonable doubt and the foetus whose sentience is debatable (and, in fact, extremely likely to be nil).

      (B) Granted the difficulty in measurement of these two properties in any case, the properties are definable. The same thing cannot be said of the concept of “soul”. We cannot even BEGIN to identify properties that can be used to define it.

      As the late modern-day Pinoy philosopher Inday Badiday say: Careful careful… 😀

      • GabbyD says:

        aha! and there we have it….

        you think that:
        — babies arent sentient.
        — babies have no complex feelings.
        — babies have no “mind”
        — a baby ISNT a person.

        well, at least its all clear what u are really trying to say! ang tagal ring lumabas ang totoo mong paniniwala! its tiring…

        lets say ALL OF THAT IS TRUE. just for fun.

        would u concede that the baby will soon, at some point in the near future, have these properties?

        PS:
        oh, soul cant be “defined”? i submit, u cant even define mental complexity, using ur own words here:
        “The physical human brain is a complex machine for storing patterns, and the mind is an immensely complex pattern stored in this machine. “

      • Miriam Quiamco says:

        Gabby D, a month old embryo, a mere dot on the uterus is not yet a baby!!!!

      • BongV says:

        be careful of equivocation – how the word “complex” is used. for example the complexity of the human brain can be described in terms of neural networks, the transmission of information through the neurotransmitters – how it is linked to the CNS – it’s just another day in neuroanatomy – “complex” depends on your ability to ramp up your knowledge base. if you don’t step up – it ‘s “complex” – stick to the complexity of tying your shoelaces – 😆

      • GabbyD says:

        @miriam

        it will be. as surely as the sun will rise.

      • benign0 says:

        @ GabbyD

        Indeed that’s what I’ve been trying to say all the long. In fact that is what is implied in this excerpt from the above article:

        The mind therefore forms in the brain starting from the time we are born and increases in size, complexity, and sophistication as we go about living the rest of our lives.

        It’s just typical of you that all of that simply flew over your head. 😀

        And on the basis of that excerpt above, you could probably expect what my answer will be to your question “Would u concede that the baby will soon, at some point in the near future, have these properties?”, except that there is nothing to “concede” on my part, probably more on yours.

        As to your PS, I proposed complexity as a defining property of the mind. So what you say in that PS of yours comes across as quaint jibberish. But do keep on trying. You were getting warmer a while ago, but that PS sentence of yours plus your eureka moment that turned out to be no more than a restatement of what was already stated in the article set you back down a few degrees. 😀

      • GabbyD says:

        a restatement of the article? hehehe… it certainly is a more direct argument, that reveals the underlying assumptions!

        remember — mental complexity DOES NOT EQUAL sentience. you are assuming the baby isnt sentient, and asserting that moral complexity is the reason.

        recall further that the baby WILL NOT BE A BABY FOREVER. hence, even if true, once aborted, the baby’s identity in the future will also be quashed. ALL BECAUSE OF A TEMPORARY DEVELOPMENT PROCESS?

        tsk, tsk indeed.

      • benign0 says:

        Yeah, it reveals the underlying assumptions to you but was already made evident in the article itself. As I said, things like these consistently fly over your head, you being the usual chronic point-misser that you are. 😀

        Where exactly did I assert that mental complexity “equals” sentience? And certainly “moral complexity” (whatever that means) not only has nothing to do with any arguments tabled here, the phrase does not make any sense at all.

        The unborn foetus will be a person someday as a result of experiences it is yet to acquire. But because said experiences happen in the future, they by all intents and purposes do not exist at present and, as such, the potential to be a person of said foetus is nothing more than just that — mere potential and is not to be confused with its current state of sentience. The present state is what is being considered here in this whole debate around which of the two parties at stake — the unborn child, or its mother — is more valuable.

        Keep on trying, Mr GabbyD. 😀

      • GabbyD says:

        haha… look around. your article needs to put your assumptions out there so people can evaluate them! here’s a clue: when people have to write “i think benign0 thinks…” the writer has failed to communicate his assumptions and arguments…

        oh, u i had typo. i meant mental not moral complexity. sorri for the confusion.

        1) “Where exactly did I assert that mental complexity “equals” sentience?” –> seriously? we’ve been having this conversation this whole time and NOW is when u forget it? paano naman tayo uusad nyan, when u forget the stuff we’ve been talking about this whole time!

        ________ from you:

        Size and complexity. Those are the properties I propose whose measurement contributes to clarifying the debate. So here we go:

        (A) Perhaps the ability to measure these is a hurdle when we try to compare two sentient individuals. But in this case, the difference is stark — the mother who we can consider to be sentient beyond all reasonable doubt…

        –> implies DIRECTLY THAT mental complexity is tied to sentience…
        _____________________

        2)”The unborn foetus will be a person someday as a result of experiences it is yet to acquire. But because said experiences happen in the future, they by all intents and purposes do not exist at present ”

        nyek. but killing an unborn will result in destroying this future, THE SAME WAY that the death of anyone would.

        thats what death means.

        an aborted fetus will ALSO ABORT his future self… THIS IS OBVIOUS, so i cant believe i have to spell that out.

        the aborted fetus, unlike anyone else, cannot defend itself. [baka naman u’ll also say that “defending oneself” is a mark of sentience… hay… if u’ll do that, please define sentience too]

      • benign0 says:

        Guess again, Mr GabbyD. When people say “I think b0 says…”, it means they are using their brains to further build upon the concepts laid out here. Compare that to you who remains stuck on quibbling over the conceptual ruts you dig yourself into. 😀

        As to your…

        (1) Where exactly is this direct implication in what I say that made you conclude that i am asserting that “mental” complexity equals sentience? As a matter of fact even accounting for your typo, the term “mental complexity” is not a concept I even made use of. Again it is you who introduced it and not me. So the onus is on you to clarify it.

        (2) Dude, there is no future to destroy, because you cannot destroy something that DOES NOT EXIST.

        Keep on trying, Mr GabbyD. It’s not hard, because:

        It’s simple, really™ — though not for the small-minded.

        I think it is in the latter part of the statement above where you struggle. 😀

      • miriam quiamco says:

        Gabby D., you are getting poetic, “it will be as surely as the sun will rise”, trouble is, this tiny, little blob (first month) of blood in the womb could be dislodged or miscarried, so not as surely as the sun rising in the morning.

  13. Jay says:

    thank you Mr. Benign0 for making an Abortion article. =)

    finally another interesting topic that veers away from the usual “political and culture” articles of realization of AP.

  14. John B says:

    If defending life makes me a moron, why thank you B0. I’m also a member of the 2,000 year old primitive catholic church and I have a soul, too.

    • benign0 says:

      Where is this “defense” you speak of? Where? 😀

    • BongV says:

      where is the proof that you have a “soul”?

      • ulong pare says:

        … daaang

        … proof? soul train… groovy kinda 60s-70s show…

        … “soul” looks like a good, dependable, cheap ride from kia…

        … went to an egoy gig last night for a good “soul” food…

      • ChinoF says:

        Blues Brothers? 😛

        And “soul food” will make your soul leave your body quite early. 😆

      • ulong pare says:

        … daaang

        @chinof: as i bang my keyboard, the class 278 ceremony is being held outside my window…

        … these souls were pushed to the brink of mental and physical collapsed… survived… and now ready to do the dirtiest job no human being on their right mind would be able to … i guarantee that… peks man…

        … again, 99% whites… where are my fellow flips???

        … hooya

    • Jay says:

      I’m also a member of the 2,000 year old primitive catholic church and I have a soul, too.

      OMFG quote of the week for me there! The same primitive church that looked over genocides of Jews, promoted indulgences, the inquisition and promoted violence for political or against other religious under their own banner?!? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!

      Yes you have a soul. Sadly with no logic, you are nothing more than a sheep. Easily influenced, easily herded and easily manipulated by your emotions and your meaningless morality. Join the rest of your cult and set you and your people back where its more comfortable for you.

  15. NFA rice says:

    I am against abortion and by all means keep it illegal. But legalize contraceptives! Make them available at every DOH clinic all over the country. Then every couple will not have any excuse for murdering an infant just because they were denied contraceptives.

    • Miriam Quiamco says:

      Yeah, I agree, we should have condom vending machines everywhere in the country, or distribute them for free in the villages. Talk about it openly in social situations, I once told one farm worker how men should be careful when mating with their girlfriends, the least they could do is bring condoms with them all the time when dating with their girlfriends. He blushed and felt insulted, he could not help and retort, it is none of my business to say things like this and of course I said my piece about how being an educator, I just have to say what I have to say on this topic, considering overpopulation among the poorer classes is one problem that is keeping us underdeveloped. He saw the point he said, but I wonder how the non-discussion of condoms in our country is responsible for the attitudes of village men towards these safest form of birth control. They say pills are now safe, but as a woman, I am still quite wary of it for health reasons, why not let men take on the onus of responsible sex instead, condoms are cheap, safe and effective at preventing unwanted pregnancy.

      • BongV says:

        Condoms are standard fare in the gas stations/convenience stores; the clubs; the OTC. There’s condoms for all sizes. Comes with studs, ribbed or not. A newer version includes a clitoral stimulator – only $10 a pack at the Adam & Eve outlet store on I-95 – or any “adult novelty shop” – where you find toys for the big boys and girls. make birth control fun.

        Tell your daughter and son – unprotected sex is a no-no always insist on protection (unless they are a couple of good standing.. lol) – No rubber, no honey. Address the demand for unprotected sex in order to reduce abortion downstream.

        Be proactive, solve abortion even before it happens – educate the people who will be hit by unprotected promiscuous sex – our immediate family and their immediate families as well.

        But, shit always happens – and when it does happen to you (not anyone else… but you.. your sister.. your GF.. your wife.. your mistress.. any woman you care about.. any woman.. a fellow human being for that matter). You would like to know what your options are when shit does happen – legal and otherwise. At times you might find out that when you are about to decide – circumstances have made the decision for you. But for those moment when you have the real thing – say a woman was on the look out for a positive and at one point – took a pill to induce menstruation on the day she tested positive after the first month of missing her period. different people – different circumstances – different justifications- same approach.

  16. Tu2wad says:

    One of the most pernicious effects of religion is that it tends to divorce morality from the reality of human and animal suffering. Religion allows people to imagine that their concerns are moral when they are not—that is, when they have nothing to do with suffering or its alleviation. Indeed, religion allows people to imagine that their concerns are moral when they
    are highly immoral—that is, when pressing these concerns inflicts unnecessary and appalling suffering on innocent human beings.

    This explains why Christians like yourself expend more “moral” energy opposing abortion than fighting genocide. It explains why you are more concerned about human embryos than about the lifesaving promise of stem-cell research.

    And it explains why you can preach against condom use in sub-Saharan Africa while millions die from AIDS there each year. You believe that your religious concerns about sex, in all their tiresome immensity, have something to do with morality.

    And yet, your efforts to constrain the sexual behavior of consenting adults—and even to discourage your own sons and daughters from having premarital sex—are almost never geared toward the relief of human suffering. In fact, relieving suffering seems to rank rather low on your list of priorities.

    Your principal concern appears to be that the creator of the universe will take offense at something
    people do while naked. This prudery of yours contributes daily to the surplus of human misery.

    While abortion is an ugly reality, and we should all hope for breakthroughs in contraception that reduce the need for it.

  17. yoseph says:

    I agree with Lily. The thing here is we’re debating about the symptom/effect of the lack of options for mothers to plan their pregnancy. They wouldn’t arrive at this dilemma if they didn’t get pregnant in the first place. Also, what about adoption? If the Church is too soft in promoting natural family method and sucks at achieving its goals, why don’t they just step up, take another role: claim these unplanned, yet-to-be-born babies (either temporarily or permanently depending on their agreement w/ the parents) whose lives they put on the line. All this predicament stems all the way from their chastity & purity movement BS, anyway. Perhaps it’s time they shut their mouth, become accountable and start chipping in instead of criticising and cursing us down here from their ivory tower in the name of their jesus, moses, noah…

    • Jay says:

      See, this is what happens when people start group thinking in a constructive manner (brainstorming and conceptualizing for those familiar with western terms, sorry Phail Manila) for the benefit of society, not hoping and praying soley every Sunday with the bishops and priests.

      For those trying to create the argument to be a personal pro-life vs pro-choice, it is not. Society can do something about it and even more interesting, the government can intervene. Especially since they (the church in general) certainly have the resources to at least partially fund programs like these and even the influence to get the funds to maintain it.

      Their concepts of benevolence are about as archaic as the oligarchs in the country.

  18. famous wolf says:

    This may be the first article that I can disagree with on the basis that abortion threatens both the life of the mother and child as a medical student and health care professional.

    Abortion, due to irresponsible choices, is usually done when the parent discovers that she is pregnant during her second Trimester (around 3-6 months). During which, the fetus has already developed with a heartbeat and the placenta has already successfully lodged itself on to the mother’s uterus. The problem here is when the fetus is killed by way of shredding (the usual practice) the Placenta, which is now part of both mother and child, is usually damaged and the mother suffers profuse bleeding. The mother is at danger in dying from intra-vaginal hemorrhage which is why I don’t think it’s advisable unless the mother plans to have a baby in the future. (Hysterectomy is a serious matter)

    For me, the damages outweigh their benefits which is why I don’t advocate it on a patient and suggest contraceptives instead. The church can whine all they want but we need contraception.

    The stem cell research argument is used on the base of the placenta as well, it’s part of it. Therefore I don’t see the reason why it’s still invalid. A Muslim nation is using Stem Cell Research, why couldn’t a Christian?

    There’s also a pill that rape victims are given in the first 24 hours of their incident. DSWD gives out ECP’s or the Morning-After Pill if you all don’t know or IUD’s. We can all be logical most of the time but we have empathy as well. Maybe when Genetics remove that gene THEN humans can consider it.

    • famous wolf says:

      Not too sure about the DSWD thing, it’s mostly something I’ve read at least, five or six years ago. So I don’t know if it’s still valid.

      Also, abortion during the first month is dependent on the matter where the baby is placed which is an ectopic pregnancy.

  19. anatheist says:

    @yoseph I like the way you think. 🙂

    Well, like what the article says, humans can’t separate emotion from our way of thinking, no matter how logical a premise or solution is laid out. Therefore, legalization of abortion will always be a gray area.

    Example for me, I’m a non-theist and certainly do not believe in souls inside our bodies but my mind will always think that abortion is, simply put, inhumane. It’s a life in there (and please, none of that sentient being stuff, life started in this planet from uni-cellular organisms who were, I hope you agree, non-sentient), therefore, it has a right to live.

    I go for legalization, but with consent either from the government (which I’ll go to in a sec) or medical authorities. It’s not just your choice, it’s the society’s choice. That child could contribute a lot to the country twenty years from birth. All babies are born investments.

    For the betterment of society, I would wish that all pregnant women (and their husbands if applicable) be taken to counselling, tests, and lifestyle checks if they are worthy and capable of having a baby. Abortion is not without medical complications, so the choice to carry to term would be given first, with expense from the government, until the baby is born. Baby is sent to adoption.

  20. Perezoso says:

    Please excuse my lengthy comment to this topic, but here are my thoughts on the subject of abortion:

    Contrary to popular impression, abortion is not as such a religious question. It seems to me that amid the mass of arguments (some of which are brought up by others here) pro and con about abortion, there are two central questions that will determine all the others. How you answer these two fundamental questions will determine how you assess everything else. By focusing on these two central concerns, we can greatly clarify our thinking about the issue of abortion. Here are the questions:

    (1) Do human beings possess intrinsic moral value? (Philosophical in nature)

    and

    (2) Is the developing fetus a human being? (Scientific or medical in nature)

    Let’s think about that first question: Do human beings have intrinsic moral value? Something has intrinsic value if it is an end in itself, rather than a means to some end. Things that are valuable merely as means to some end have only
    extrinsic value. For example, money has no intrinsic value, in and of itself. Rather it has extrinsic value insofar as it’s a useful means of commerce for human beings and so is valuable to us for the ends it helps us achieve. But in and of itself money is worthless. It’s just paper. Now the question is, are human beings like that, or are they intrinsically valuable? I’m certain that most people, once they think about it, recognize that human beings are intrinsically valuable. People aren’t valuable merely as a means to some end; rather people are ends in themselves.

    So we now come to the second question we must address: Is the developing fetus a human being?Here it seems to me that it is virtually undeniable scientifically and medically that the fetus is at every stage of its development a human
    being. After all, the fetus is not canine, or feline, or bovine; it is a humanfetus. From the moment of conception on, there exists a living organism which is a genetically complete human being and which, if left to develop naturally, will
    grow into an adult member of its species. From the moment of conception we have a genetically com-
    plete and unique human being; in effect, youbegan at the moment of your conception. Moreover, the development of this individual is a smooth and unbroken continuum throughout. There is no nonarbitrary point in the process before which you can say the fetus is not human but after which he or she is.

    Thus, as I say, it seems virtually undeniable that the fetus—which is just Latin for “little one”—is a human being in the early stages of his development. Whether a “little one,” a newborn, an adolescent, or an adult, he is at every point a human being at a different stage of his development. Those who deny that the little one in the womb is a human being
    typically confuse being humanwithbeing at some later stage of development.

    Now, you will notice that the two questions I raised are not at all religious in nature, but rather philosophical, scientific and medical. So, once you grant that human beings have intrinsic moral value and that the unborn are human beings, the rest falls into place. There is simply no justification for the undeclared war being waged against the unborn.

    There are just my thoughts, you are free to disagree. 🙂

    • benign0 says:

      @ Perezoso:

      Nice insight on the matter. But hear me out:

      Firstly, perhaps a foetus is human in the sense that it is an unborn specimen of the species homo sapiens. But I note that you used the word “being” in what you say, that “the fetus is at every stage of its development a human being”.

      A “being” is by definition sentient. As such, a human foetus is undeniably human in the sense that it is a member of the species that we describe as “human”. But is it a being in that sense?

      You need to distinguish between your approach to classification. A human feotus is an unborn offspring of a specimen of our species. But as to what makes an individual a human being — a person — comes back to the nature of said individual’s mind. Our mind and its abilities is pretty much the only thing about us that sets us apart from other animals (although for that matter, how sure are we that our sentience is superior to that of other animals?).

      Second, how sure are we that we either as individuals or as a species are an end in ourselves? What makes us so sure that we are the crowning achievement of the universe and all its physical properties? How sure are we that the universe exists so that we may?

      Evolution through natural selection is premised on the notion that it was the survival — and extinction — of variances in inherited characteristics over millions of generations of life forms that drove increasing biological complexity. And these variances were brought about by random mutations. In essence, we are the result of a series of random mutations that survived the selection pressures of our environment. We — us as a species and as individuals — just happen to be the survivors of survival game where billions of other organisms perished.

      Trying to establish our place in the scheme of things only goes up to that point beyond which you will have to defer to religion for answers. And that is where the conversation ends and where the counter-argument cops out. 😉

      • GabbyD says:

        how do you KNOW its NOT sentient, B0?

        this is ur burden to prove.

        furthermore,

        “individuals or as a species are an end in ourselves” DOES NOT EQUAL “he crowning achievement of the universe and all its physical properties”

        no one is claiming the latter, but you.

        finally:

        “natural selection is premised on the notion that it was the survival — and extinction — of variances in inherited characteristics over millions of generations of life forms that drove increasing biological complexity. ”

        incomplete definition. species are “selected” for their advantageous traits. the shocks are, in some part random… the survival of certain species certainly IS NOT RANDOM.

      • benign0 says:

        Check the original premise of the ideas I introduce here, Mr GabbyD. I introduced the concepts of size and complexity of the patterns rendered in the brain as defining properties that frame the value of the unborn child vis-a-vis its mother.

        There is no intent to prove sentience here, dude.

        And indeed, genetic patterns are selected for advantageous traits. But don’t confuse the literal use of “selected” here with an anthropomorphic intent to select. Nature harbours no intentions in the sense that a conscious being does. The selection pressures at work in the evolution of the species have no personal bias and are also random within the frame of the structures in the environment that govern its application.

        Keep on trying. And try to grow your mind while you are at it. 😀

  21. ulong pare says:

    … daaang

    … let’s play semantics…

    … “abortion” – terminating a life of a fetus (who’d grew up to be either a gung gong or ___ )

    … “termination” – aborting a life of a gung gong (a fetus who grew/ended up to be a gung gong)…

    … by the way, i was in a biz of “aborting” the lives of gung gongs so y’all could live and enjoy the freedom to argue about stuff, i.e. abortion… :mrgreen:

    … “abortion/termination” is simple in its complexity… or is it complex in its simplicity? 😳

    • ulong pare says:

      … PS: Porgot Sumtin’

      … either abort now while in developing stages, OR terminate it later when he/she/he-she could do stuff (good, bad or indifference)…

      … nobody knows what the future holds…

      • Jay says:

        nobody knows what the future holes

        certainly if you raise your child with the intent of giving it no immediate future or long term investment.

        I actually understood you once pare.

      • ulong pare says:

        … daaang

        @jay naman naman namannnn…

        … fact: flipland comprise of 85% devout katolickdics gung gong /porn again kristyan;… 10% rabid gung gong allah hu ahkbar;… 5% with sentido kumon…

        … fact: flipland population is 90% gung gong .. 10% with sentido kumon…

        … fact: traposakals/ladrones garapales/magnananakaw/ganids (aka oligarchs) are 10000% devout katolickdics santo-santitas/porn again kristyans…

        … question: which group teach/mold their young the path to pagnanakaws???

        … sirit ka na? :mrgreen:

  22. Hyden Toro says:

    ABORTION is a very contentious issue. However, other predominantly Catholic countries have already approved the laws for legal abortions. Same as the GAY RIGHTS issues. Argentina, a predominantly Catholic country; has just approved the Rights of: lesbians, gays, homosexuals, transgenders to marry; with the same rights as straight couples.

    I am still AT ODDS with myself, on the issue of ABORTION. There are many aspects to consider. However, many young Filipino women are already doing Abortions illegally. Many Abortionist are practicing their illegal abortion businesses.

    I prefer, not to comment on the issue. On the reason that: Honestly, I really don’t know what to tell you…

    • ulong pare says:

      … daaang

      … am a practical flipass…

      … on economic standpoint, why bring ‘sang tambaks na pulubis into this world?

      … dead and dying due to malnutrition… disease… starvation…

      … in the animal world, mother nature abort fetus during lean years, scarcity of food…

      … what kind of human/animals are y’all?

      • Hyden Toro says:

        Hey DAANG:

        Chimpanzee males kill all the Chimpanzee youngs of a Chimpanzee mother; who the Chimapnzee males are interested in mating. They dispatch all the brood of the female, in heat; to start a new family. This is how the Chimpanzee world is doing selection of the species. However, we are not Chimpanzees. I have never seen a Filipino begining to grow tail, and enjoy hanging on trees. Except, maybe Pres. Noynoy Penoy Balut…watch out his rear…maybe,he may now start begining to grow tail…

  23. kimmuel says:

    This is another AP article I am not agreeing.

    Basically, B0’s argument compared the value of an unborn child (empty mind) with value of the mother, and asked us which is more valuable in the practical point of view.

    But If viewed in practical but with strict and more technical sense, the value of the child should be in the future value . But problem is that it is difficult to the determine the future value of an unborn child. The value (future) of the unborn child could be less or more than the value of the mother.

    But the value of the mother also is in doubt. We could measure the income she will earn but how sure are we that she can work after an abortion? How sure are we that she can be pregnant again? We don’t even know if she will be alive the next day.

    Only the future holds.

    The fact is the value of life cannot be measured. We must accept that there are things in life that cannot be measured. There are things which cannot be accurately grasp.

    And if the foundation of the B0’s article is the based on value of things cannot that be measured, then it is not even worth as a justification to kill a human being.

    I just believe, in total practical sense, that if your suggestion is to be followed now, there would be chaos in our country. There would be mass movements or even EDSA 5! Practically, we would lose millions in our economy and it would be a great loss to us. Definitely not a good idea.

    I just believe that our laws are reflections of our belief as a people. A change in belief is a change in our law. So continue changing our belief first.

    But based on your last comment,

    “Evolution through natural selection is premised on the notion that it was the survival — and extinction — of variances in inherited characteristics over millions of generations of life forms that drove increasing biological complexity. And these variances were brought about by random mutations. In essence, we are the result of a series of random mutations that survived the selection pressures of our environment. We — us as a species and as individuals — just happen to be the survivors of survival game where billions of other organisms perished”,

    I think you will have a hard time because your abortion roots from atheist beliefs, which is of course against the belief of our people.

    • ChinoF says:

      On the mother or child argument, I commented on it above.

      But on your comment, Kimmuel, I have to agree:

      I just believe that our laws are reflections of our belief as a people.

      And the laws have effects. Take a good look around, people… what does that tell us about our beliefs?

  24. NFA rice says:

    the catholic priests are anti banging so an attractive alternative alternative for the sex-starved flip is masturbation. but masturbation is a no-no also. Kaya pala abnoy si prez.

  25. GabbyD says:

    by the way, since we are using the word sentience now, thanks to B0’s introduction of the word, lets define it:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sentience

    “Sentience is the ability to feel or perceive. The term is used in science and philosophy, and in the study of artificial intelligence. Sentience is used in the study of consciousness to describe the ability to have sensations or experiences”

    B0 is mistaking sentience for the ability to read and speak (which are part of the NATURAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, which the baby will by definition undergo). in which case, the baby will fail that test.

    see b0? no insults? just pure facts. its not that hard eh? i believe you can do it.

    • UP nn grad says:

      If Pilipinas senators and congressman carry on for 5 more years talking and contemplating over itlog and langonisa about souls and the Ten Commandments and this thing called “separation of Church And State”, if they keep gabbing but they don’t change Pilipinas laws on abortion, then these:
      — 5,000 deaths (Pinas, so Gabby is not at risk);
      — 450,000 mutilations (Pinays only, so again, GabbyD is not at risk);

      GabbyD, Bishop Lagdameo, pederozo and Hyden do not want safe legal abortions for 22-year old kolehiyalas who don’t want to disrupt their studies. GabbyD, Bishop Lagdameo et al entitled to their opinion. This is probably how every other Pinoy and Pinay voter thinks anyway.

      GabbyD et al do not want a Pinay 14 or 15 year old to have safe legal abortion by reason of rape or incest. Again, GabbyD et al entitled to their opinion. But when it comes to abortion when woman’s life or health in jeopardy, I believe that Pilipinas citizenry share the thinking of mel, olivia, JohnAmendAll, Miriam — that Pilipinas laws should be changed so that when a a woman whose life or health in jeopardy wants one, then she can obtain a legal abortion. safely, by doctors, in clinics or hospitals.

      1,000 Pinays a year dying; 90,000 Pinays mutilated. Talk is cheap; action is needed.

  26. HusengBatute says:

    Allow me my two cents…

    If our faculties such as the intellect or mind are reducible to mere patterns in our brain, then everything you or I believe we know are merely subjective beliefs, because they don’t really transcend the confines of our neurological reality, given they are merely “impressions” which are the actual content of our views or opinions. There would then be no such thing as objective knowledge given they are just patterns, only subjective opinions–i.e. “impressions.” This makes “truth” a label for a delusion–there is neither knowledge nor truth, only opinions.

    The belief that consciousness, the mind, or the “soul” are just offshoots or by-products of the brain is referred to as epiphenomenalism, which is a kind of materialistic reductionism. Because our thinking is expressed or accompanied by brain activity doesn’t mean that thinking is caused by said activity.

    My own self-existence, or the existence of the “I” or “ego” is self-evident. I don’t need to collate external data to discover this fact, because it is not necessarily discovered through outward observation but through inward introspection. One’s own existence is a self-evident truth. Also, I am able to recognize self-evident truths or so-called axioms. Animals and machines cannot “recognize” axioms. Machine or artificial intelligence reasoning begins by axioms being humanly programmed into the machine. Only then are these machines able to proceed by deriving or proving theorems from “humanly predefined” axioms (in the form of “rules”–i.e. IF-THEN statements, and/or “facts”–i.e. “A is B” type declarative statements.)

    I am capable of reflection the way animals and computer software are not. In other words, I am led to believe that I have an immaterial consciousness which transcends the inherent restrictions of matter.

    The order of discovery is not the same as the order of reality. Just because we discover or learn that this tiny organism is distinguishable as a person only at a certain stage of its development, does not mean that the reality did not begin before that.

    • benign0 says:

      @ HB,

      Indeed. Knowledge is just a projection or perhaps a model constructed from data streamed through the senses which, for their part, generate said data from being stimulated by the externality.

      The nature of this externality can only be deduced from the model constructed in our minds, and these models can only be validated with other models constructed in other minds by agreeing on a common framework or convention for expressing and sharing these (perhaps subjectively in language and closer to objectively using mathematics and logic).

      Hofstadter in his book I Am A Strange Loop, proposes that consciousness is an illusion — an emergent property arising from the immense complexity of the patterns created by our brains.

      We perceive heat as being hot (and often painful) in our minds, for example, because our whole physiology and neurological make-up is programmed to react (highlighting that the creation of the perception of hot pain in our minds is also a reaction — one that is neurological) to hot objects that way. We share the same reaction to intense heat with most other species. Perhaps the only difference is that we have an ability to regard the reaction as a sensation that can be reflected upon by internal introspection. And whereas other non-sentient (as far as we assume so) animals react in the same observable way to a hot object with the same mechanics, that they feel pain is reasonably debatable.

      That ability to regard a sensation introspectively is one of the pillars of what we call consciousness or sentience. Whereas we succumb to the temptation to regard consciousness as the whole point of the human mind, I propose that perhaps this consciousness of ours is just one among the other properties of a functioning brain — perhaps one that only Homo Sapiens possesses, but just one among many properties just the same. It just so happens that we experience this property and therefore have organised our entire regard for our singlular existence around it and have defined ourselves — our ego — around it.

  27. ChinoF says:

    I see the problem with the soul argument is that it more likely makes both contraception and abortion evil. Anti-abortionists would say, “There’s a soul already incarnated, you’re killing off a person!” While anti-contraception would be, “you’re killing off the vessel that would have taken in a soul! You have murdered the human before he was born!” Now, notwithstanding the logical fallacy of the latter’s 2nd sentence, this is most likely the reasoning for the church’s stance on the two issues.

    That’s why Benign0 here says we should drop this focus on the soul. You let souls proliferate like ants, and that means more souls who’ll suffer unnecessarily and go hungry. Though contraception, don’t create an unnecessarily incarnated soul, and it won’t suffer. Abort, then you take away the person’s misery before it goes through suffering. Children never asked to be born… and they never asked to suffer. The growing population and how it contributes to poverty is the more pressing sign to focus on.

    By the way, if you want to apply the 10 commandments… remember that the right wording is not “though shall not kill,” but “thou shalt not murder…” It is possible to kill and not murder. If you abort a child because the mother’s health is at stake, it may be killing, but not murder. You can argue over that, but this is my stance.

    • NFA rice says:

      @ChinoF

      We can abort Prez Abnoy. Walang drive, therefore walang soul.

    • HusengBatute says:

      I suppose, what you are suggesting is “mercy killing” or, in other words, euthanasia to end the poor saps’ future miseries, being unfortunate to be born a Filipino 😦 .

      • ChinoF says:

        Another way of saying it would be preemptive euthanasia. But the complexity of that concept is troublesome. I’ll just call it prevention.

      • HusengBatute says:

        There was this episode in the Twilight Zone way back 2002, titled “Cradle of Darkness” starring the beautiful Katherine Heigl in which she played the role of a time traveler who went back to 1889, with anti-Semitic sentiments already brewing in Germanic Austria, to pose as a nanny to infant Adolf Hitler with a mission to find a way to kill him before he grows into this monster/mass murderer we all know he’d turned out to be, i.e. “nip the evil at the bud” so to speak.

        Typical of these series, it leaves one pondering “what-if” scenarios and big questions that most people tend to push to the wayside. This seems to raise moral/ethical questions similar to the movie “Minority Report“, one of which is, “if endowed with the ability to “see” or predict a future crime, would it be anyone’s right to punish, chastise, or deprive the person who will, particularly prior to even his or her intending to, commit said crime?”

        ***

        IMHO, the demarcation was placed at the moment of “conception”–i.e. at which the sperm is united with the egg, given that at that point in time, the “ingredients”, core operations or essential conditions that make such entity already a distinct or “separate” person are in place. It has its own DNA signature distinct from its parents. It has also commenced its process of development and growth as a distinct individual (or individuals if twins, triplets, or so on.)

    • Jay says:

      The hilarious part about pro-lifers is they put humans on top of the priority list but they forget the other living creatures that we on top of the food chain kill on a daily basis. On the extreme end are the PETA people who put animals of all forms higher on priority list of protection than humans. Yet despite the sweet sounding morality that they try weave in, they always leave out a part of others that live in the world.

  28. Tu2wad says:

    It is no exaggeration to say that millions could die as a direct result of this single efflorescence of religious dogmatism. As Nicholas Kristof points out, “sex kills, and so does this kind of blushing prudishness.

  29. ChinoF says:

    Recently, Patricia Evangelista posted an article condemning the criminalization of abortion in the country, showing its effects.

    • mel says:

      The legalization of abortion is urgent. Our lawmakers and the churches are co-criminals when they continue to ignore this social problem.

  30. Migs says:

    I generally agree but I think arguing by comparing the relative value of two people is specious. Every person’s life is of equal value regardless of the wealth of experience one has over the other; I think it’s more productive, then, to show (as some are trying in the comments) that the mass of cells in early term pregnancies does not have the qualities one would ascribe to a person.

    One could then counter-argue that potential life is as valuable as actual life, but if so, then in terms of moral weight the distinction would be blurred between abortion, masturbation, engaging in dangerous activities, and even just plain not having sex.

    • Jay says:

      Its not just saving what you can. Its also providing them with an answer to an immediate and long term future. Abortion arguments are always moot but there is certainly a practicality in how to implement ways to help those affected by it in society, in forms of education, awareness and choices. its the idealistic people you’ve read in here that focus so much on the aspect of life and divinity in itself that they don’t see the practical side of things.

  31. Jih says:

    It’s quite refreshing to read your articles Benign0, and I agree with your argument re abortion, as a Muslim, I have the same opinion and rather my religion, Islam, is what taught me that, anyway allow mo to put forward the the point of view of Islam in this matter:

    – Abortion in general is forbidden in all stages of development of the fetus from the time of conception till birth, however:

    – In the 1st period of development of the fetus (40 days below) then abortion is permitted only for a justified reason e.g raped and other damages.

    – After 40 days and specially after 120 days (which according to the traditions of our Prophet, “Life/Soul” was still not given), abortion is ONLY permissible after a team of specialized doctors confirm and testify that the mother’s life will be in danger if she continues with her pregnancy, thus is applied the argument of Mr. Benign0 to prevent the occurrence of the more damaging of the two i.e. death of the mother who is irreplaceable and death of the unborn fetus who is replaceable.

    – Generally the more developed the fetus is, the more forbidden abortion is, but then again there are always exceptions when life is at risk.

    I just thought I’d present the point of view of Islam, seeing as it is the more ‘easy’ than the more ‘radical’ Catholic doctrine.

    Peace!

    • Jih says:

      CORRECTION:

      – After 40 days and specially after 120 days (which according to the traditions of our Prophet, “Life/Soul” is given) instead of was not given.

    • benign0 says:

      @ Jih: Thanks for the Muslim perspective you provided! 🙂

      Catholic dogma does not seem to prescribe a specific point in the human gestation period where the foetus comes to acquire a “soul”. If Catholic dogma does indeed lack such a metric and given the draconian application of such a belief in our legal system then Islam having such a doctrine and providing guidelines that govern when and under what circumstances abortion is “permissible” makes it a bit more of a progressive framework.

      That said, in both cases, deference to the concept of a “soul” makes it difficult for a secular state such as the Philippines to implement a legal framework to govern abortion procedures independent of religious influence. This is why I propose that the “soul” — a religious construct — be taken out of the abortion debate to make it the intellectual and ethical discussion it should be — one that truly befits a secular society as what we aspire the Philippines to be.

      • Jih says:

        Well, I won’t argue with you whether to use “soul” or “mind” as a basis for when abortion should be deemed forbidden or not (with the exceptions mentioned before) after all, I think we agree somehow.

        Plus, though I’m not sure, I could somehow consider soul and mind to be of equal status, since I believe the mind of a fetus does not start to function unless after a certain period of development e.i given life, yeah? I mean you can’t expect a fetus’s mind, a newly conceived one to be exact, can start functioning inside the embryo immediately after conception, right?

        Therefore when it is determined the mind has started to function, thus “soul/life” has been given. Heh, Just trying to reason the use of “mind” instead of “soul” so that no disagreement between the two of us would occur.

        As for the issue of separation between church and state, I stand at the other side of the fence here, because it is a part of my religion as a Muslim to believe, rather I am convinced that Islam has a comprehensive system, a complete way of life, thus it is political and legal as it is spiritual and moral, and that’s where the MILF (Moro Islamic Liberation Front, just to be clear) comes from when it demands for the Bangsamoro, of which I belong, the right for self-determination because Muslims want to rule themselves by the divine legislation that they have which has mainly the Qur’an and Prophetic Traditions as its source of legislation and jurisprudence.

  32. Jih says:

    And also I wanted to present this since it seems “religion” here is somehow considered more of a “hindrance” or “shackle” than anything else, I say: Look at other religions.

    • Jay says:

      @Jih

      Religions are mad made constructs, usually at someone’s benefit. The religion I was introduced to, Seventh Day Adventist is one of Catholicisms’ many offshoots which also has its own structure on how funds are used to spread their ministry. Even in the Philippines, there is certainly politics with that as people see churches not as strong, tight knit communities but buildings where they spend time inside but go back to their old, mindless self-serving agendas after wards.

      Of course one of the things I pride about my religion is there are certain communities where they are active with the people around them. Their ministry goes outside the building, teaching others and giving solidarity by giving back to the community. They don’t have to preach why you should join and have your souls be saved, when you can take an active role in helping someone and saving them in our troubled society.

      • Jih says:

        Man made construct? Hmm.. I disagree, not all religions are man made, three major religions are not man made, namely Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.. although Judaism and Christianity has been quite ‘modified’ by man.

        Although, not to sound self-righteous, notice the names of all religions, they are all derived from the main people or idea they belong too: Christianity to Christ, Judaism to Judah, Buddhism to Buddha, Seventh Day Adventist.. I don’t know to which but I think you get my drift. With the exception of Islam, which means total submission, thus Muslims are named as such for their total submission to the teaching of the Almighty, notice not to the teaching of man.

        Anyway, just trying to point it out. Peace!

      • Jay says:

        @Jih

        The concept of Christ hilariously takes parallel to anther diety that existed parallel or before his time line. Check out the characteristics of Sun God Horus. Or even Krishna.

        What I mean is there are beliefs that never really had origins of proper instruction of organization and correct process. I mean Judaism we can argue since that is pretty old in itself and Islam. Christianity throughout the times has constructed organization and process (or manners) in carrying out its ministries.

        The religion I was born into is nothing more than an offshoot, like Eastern Orthodox, Lutheran, Protestant and even the FIlipino variants like El Shaddai, Jesus our Lord are all offshoots of Catholicism. Its process and organization is modified from the source and with their concepts and priority of faith.

  33. Whew says:

    @benign0

    Ang mga kagaya mo kasi, ang hindi nag iisip ng mabuti.

    Sure, think all you can for all I care, pero wala ka paring PUSO. Kasing lamig at tigas ka ng bakal.

  34. The Judge couldn't stop thinking about Miss Olivia...could he be in-love? says:

    I’m pro-life and most proud of it. I’m not against abortion because I want to force anyone to do things my own way or because I believe I possess the ultimate truth like most hypocritical bloggers here. Sure other people have wrestled with abortion and have sincere convictions other than mine. The debates will never end.

    My belief is simple. I believe that life begins at conception and that exterminating a fetus is justifiable only when it is necessary to save a mother’s life. I am pro-life because I am a human being who feels a sense of duty to civilization. When we take actions to cheapen life, we are contributing to an overall decline in our society’s moral values.

    Abortion cheapens the sanctity of human life . We are now making decisions as to who lives and and who dies on the basis of whether it is convenient for the LIVING. That in my book is dangerous.

    Ah, it is her body and she has the right to do with it as she pleases – her right to choose! tsk! What if a man claimed the right to rape, using the same principle found in the theory that it is his body and he has the right to choose? Society will disintegrate my friends.

    And then there’s the argument espousing spurious compassion. Simply stated, the argument is that for a pregnant woman living in poverty to give birth to a child would be unfair to both. Bringing a child into the world under those conditions isn’t right, they’d say. You see, if a child is born, rather than aborted, it might suffer. An unwanted or poverty – stricken child won’t suffer if it isn’t born, therefore it’s better that it not come into the world. The logic of that escapes me. We should kill a child in the womb so that it won’t feel pain and suffering growing up? We should prevent suffering by killing?? hmmm shoot p.noy already!

    @Miss Olivia: I think I’m in-love, I think I’m in-love with ehem … My Lola would be proud of you Ms.O… So, where can I send you flowers? 😳

    • benign0 says:

      Ho hum,

      Stocktake of undefinable concepts you use as the groundwork for your “argument”, Mr The Judge

      😀 Ultimate truth. Since when has there been an “ultimate truth” much less a claim on the part of any AP blogger to “possess” it? What is tabled here are assertions that serve as agruments to fuel debate.

      😀 Life begins at conception. Mmmmbut of course it does, Mr Bond. Even an amoeba is a form of life.

      😀 Moral values. What is the foundation of said “moral” values? Is it Catholicism, Islam, Buddhism? This is a debate on the policies of a secular state, last I heard.

      😀 Sanctity of human life. What exactly is it that sanctifises human life? Is it the existence of a “soul”? If so, then you simply bring the debate back to Square One.

      😀 Right to choose. False analogy in likening a rapist’s “right to choose” and a woman’s right to choose in reference to the welfare of the foetus growing inside her. If at first at first you don’t success, trial again.

      😀 kill a child in the womb. Comes back to the question as to whether or not abortion is an act of “killing” which brings us back as to whether an unborn foetus is a person and, of course, back to what it is that makes a mass of cells a “person”. Back to Square One, in short.

      Hmmm, isn’t that the sweet sound of a House of Cards built on a pile of sand crumbling in the background…

    • ulong pare says:

      … daaang

      @da judge: … “My belief is simple. I believe that life begins at conception …”

      … my belief is simple >>> i believe that life begins at ERECTION… 😳

      … kasi, kung limpdick… allah eh pang-gulo lang ng bulbol… panay daplis… walang bullseye… :mrgreen:

  35. Matthew says:

    No use arguing with religious fanatics, Benign0, so don’t even bother.

    Really, how different are these people who are binded by faith from those who have been blinded by the Aquinos. Jesus, I expected more from these regular followers of AntiPinoy.com. Guess I was wrong.

    • Jay says:

      @matthew

      You’d know who the regular followers are and those asinine people who try spice thing up by trying to go against facts and resort to strawman arguments since they feel its actually an academic approach.

      Besides compared to the other sites that banish people through moderation, AP takes them in as long as they are being relevant to the discussion at hand. Even if they are apparent in their trolling methods.

  36. The Judge says:

    Arguing with the herd of the tribe rarely change anyone’s thinking. You have made up yours, I have made up mine. You choose to play God and kill babies, it’s your choice. I choose to preserve life.

    After conception, life begins. Abortion advocates like yourself would argue that it ain’t life. It’s an unviable tissue mass. You dance around tissue, because once you concede that a fetus is alive, you’ve lost your argument.. But if there is doubt about something as all-important as existence of life, isn’t it imperative that we resolve that doubt on the side of life?

    Abortion is eroding our respect for human life.

    Are there too many people in the world, and you wouldn’t want to bring in more people who wouldn’t have a happy life?

    The world is filled with people who’ve accomplished greater things that you have, Mr. Benigno, even though their parents didn’t want them. Beethoven had a positively wretched childhood, Charles Dickens lived in indescribable poverty. Would you have wanted to abort them?

    Ah, the arrogance … I can hear dead babies singing you to sleep tonite dude … tell ’em I blew kisses. 😉

    • benign0 says:

      @ The Judge re:

      You have made up yours, I have made up mine

      Suit yourself. 😀

    • benign0 says:

      Pardon me, Mr The Judge, as I cannot resist this gem of yours:

      The world is filled with people who’ve accomplished greater things that you have, Mr. Benigno, even though their parents didn’t want them. Beethoven had a positively wretched childhood, Charles Dickens lived in indescribable poverty. Would you have wanted to abort them?

      All roads lead back to the same question I pose. Was Beethoven already the Beethoven we now know when he was but a foetus? Or is his being a Beethoven an outcome of the life experiences his mind acquired (and built itself on) since birth.

      Quite simply, there is no concept of a foetus that in hindsight we now know will have gone on to become Beethoven already being Beethoven at the time it was a foetus.

      Catch my drift? I know, I know. Too many dimensions in the above statement for a one-dimensional mind such as yours to grasp. Consider the above statement made for the benefit of those who enjoy the benefit of possessing a couple more dimensions in theirs then. 😀

      • bokyo says:

        And this is the premise where the debate of a person’s legacy is determined between the idea of “destiny” and the idea of “free will”. 🙂

    • Jay says:

      Beethoven had a positively wretched childhood, Charles Dickens lived in indescribable poverty. Would you have wanted to abort them?

      So are you implying that in any point is our random history that they could have been killed off before they became legends in their own right? Hell with your little argument there we could use anybody, lets not stop with those two.

      Your little creative writing there made absolutely no sense to the argument. But keep on trying as you are as clever as Joe when it comes to writing these whimsical embellishments of yours.

      • The Judge says:

        I’m a man dude! di ako mahilig sa kapwa ko lalaki, you’re making so much papansin naman. 😉

        “keep on trying as you are as clever as Joe when it comes to writing these whimsical embellishments of yours.”

        NGIORK!! So there pinansin na kita, happy? 😆

  37. The Judge says:

    You’re lucky to have a mom who has “one-dimensional” mind. Seeing all these “dimensions” you are desperately trying to auction in an attempt to sell abortion would have given her an idea on how to snuff you out early on dude. sayang! 😉

    • benign0 says:

      @ The Judge, Unfortunately for you, my mom did not snuff me out, nor was there any way she would have known even the least bit about how I had turned out today to give her the slightest inkling of a basis for deciding whether to “kill” me or “have” me at the time I was a foetus.

      Which is essentially the point I make. Note how the above is no different from my response to your Beethoven argument.

      As I said, all roads lead back to my original assertions no matter which way your one-dimensional mind tries to approach the limited landscape of your argument. 😀

    • Jay says:

      Seeing all these “dimensions” you are desperately trying to auction in an attempt to sell abortion would have given her an idea on how to snuff you out early on dude. sayang!

      So you’re implying that given the idea to women about the concepts of abortion that they would automatically treat the decision as a 50/50 deal, as opposed to thinking critically about it and planning things out like a good parent and a responsible adult?

      Judge loves omitting the idea of potential and change. Apparently in his mind people aren’t capable of such things.

  38. The Judge: Miriam, may kapalit ka na sa puso ko... says:

    So, how should things be? How best to resolve this issue? What is needed is a little responsibility. We have countless ways of preventing pregnancy ( sex education,condoms, pills etc), which if utilized, would negate the need for so many senseless abortion. Our society would be much better off if that responsibility were exercised, rather than abortion used as a selfish way of escaping what is, in truth, careless and reckless behavior.

    @Olivia: lady, i’m your knight in shining armor and … *blushing 😳

  39. The Judge says:

    @Miriam : miss kita ata kita girl. 😉 I really will not lose a sleep if you are a baby killer/ soulless creature like benigno. i have stated my belief and not even the pope can change that.. di ko na problema ang mga paniniwala nyo. i just don’t understand though why being pro-life freaks out some people. i’m for pro-choice too ms. miriam, and my choice is to preserve and defend the unborn. 😉

  40. UP nn grad says:

    THE JUDGE is not as hardhearted as he presents himself to be. The JUDGE did say “…My belief is simple. I believe that ➡ exterminating a fetus is justifiable only when it is necessary to 💡 save a mother’s life. “

  41. juanon says:

    Oh no the abortion debate. I can’t believe AP went there.

    Since discussing the abortion debate online is one of the “dont’s” of the internet, I’ll just say this:

    My concern is that knowing the Philippine masses’ culture of stupidity, abusiveness, and lack of responsibility, I’m afraid that giving the masses the option of abortion will just make them more irresponsible since now they have an “escape” if ever things don’t go well.

    I mean come on, we all know how “garapal” Filipinos are.

  42. bertwilpc says:

    @benign0 Sir, good choice for a talking point.. this is such a lengthy topic!  
    However, the essence of the article, though, is utilitarian — almost tragic in a sense.

    My views are (almost) identical with Olivia’s on this, having foresight and being pragmatic in a sense.  Sang-ayon po din ako sa views nina Lily, Mel, Chino at  Kusinero.

    Haven’t finished reading everyone’s comments, but can’t help but comment that:
    (1) A month old embryo, might seem to be a mere dot on the uterus but it is alive.  It is alive.
    (2) Even if the existence of a soul cannot be proven, it is *erroneous* 
    to assume that it does not exist.  

    The *opposite* of a positive number is a negative number,
    but a third alternative is also possible: zero.  

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s