Uvic Abortion Debate Oct 21st '09 Part 6 of 10

On October 21st 2009 a debate took place at 3:30pm on the Uvic Campus. The debate featured Philosophy professor Dr. Eike-Henner Kluge, one of Canadas top bioethicists, and Stephanie Gray, executive director of the Canadian Centre for Bio-Ethical Reform (CCBR).

Unfortunately, the only recording device I had was an iPhone, and because of my seating position the audio may be hard to hear at times, and I could not capture the slides each presenter used.

Also, at the end of part 2 and beginning of part 3 Gray plays a graphic video, that I didn't capture. It probably wasn't youtube friendly anyway. Even though it's mostly silent during the duration of that clip, I left that part in so we could listen to the few reactions people had.

After a quick google search I found links to the graphic video. It turns out it was two videos put together and shortened for the presentation. Please exercise caution before clicking these links as they are extremely graphic.
Part 1 http://tinyurl.com/yleljue
Part 2 http://tinyurl.com/yl8538a

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Abortion
• Atheist
• uvic
• education
• bioethics
• eike-henner
• kluge
• stephanie
• gray
• pro-life
• pro-choice
• rationality
• reason
• philosophy

[amariner5]

THANK YOU MISS GRAY.

Keep to the fight, know that anonymous people are praying for you, and learning how to join the struggle. We hoppe to have a fraction of the demenor, knowlege and grace you display. God less you.

[bahramf]

@amariner5 You're a moron. This is not a struggle, it's a bunch of stupid people arguing for a moronic side of a non-issue preserved only b/c the religious right came into power in the US, and because the Vatican made a stupid ruling on this issue - contro Aquinas and Augustine - in their Catechism.

[Mkvine]

@smike06

I really appreciate you interacting with me. I think the reason why we can't resolve this from a Biological perspective is because the question of personhood in not solely restricted to the area of Biology - its also an ethical question. This area of ethics can be very subjective, so it would be rather difficult to state any aboslute positions here.

[smike06]

@Mkvine by the way, thanks for your thoughts on this. Being a fellow biology major, its interesting to see how your thought patterns on this subject differ from mine. Its what keeps our science evolving, so continue to to stick up for your views objectively. Its a valuable thing ;)

[smike06]

@Mkvine All I'll say is that this single gene example is way too oversimplified because personhood cannot be determined by a single gene, but rather how thousands of genes interact. The transcriptome differences between an embryo and fully grown people like you and I are astounding, likely more so than a fully grown monkey and us... and to most, monkeys aren't considered people. So we have to ask what makes us... our genes, or their products? Or rather, is life's potential, life in itself?

[Mkvine]

@smike06

Fourthly, I fully agree with you about manifestation of gene expression. What I was pointing out that you were making "manifestation of genomic expression" as the sole criteria of determining whether someone is a person or not. My point was that althought that is true to some extent, then what do you do with someone who doesn't express a certain gene, are they considered less of a person? If you answer no, then that proves my point.

[Mkvine]

@smike06

No need to worry, I understood your point fairly well, I am a biology Major. Let me respond to a few points you made. You said "genes make us who we are," Yeah, obviously, where did I say otherwise? Secondly, where did I treat all genes equal? I never said that. Thirdly, when you say "equal," in what respect are you reffering to? First you have to give me the criteria you're using before we can deal with that. Let me finish this in a second response, since I'm out of space.

[smike06]

@Mkvine I wish i saw this before now. My answer to your question is that genes make us who we are. So you have to ask yourself what genes make us who we are? Obviously your question is flawed because you are treating all genes equal... but this is obviously ignorant of evolutionary science. I was talking about the manifestation of all gene expression, taken together. If you knew anything about genetics or indeed the science that explains our reality, you would have received my point.

[Mkvine]

@smike06

Which one of her arguments were based on emotion? Also, you said "Its about the manifestation of genomic expression that results in personhood." Going by that definition, if a person does not manifest a certain expression of a gene, does that make them less of a person?

[DancerCaity]

Dr. Kluge has not yet received applause for his rebuttal. This does not mean that he is not a good debater until he receives his applause. It means he is ACTUALLY Dr. Kluge, and has the POTENTIAL to receive applause, just as he ACTUALLY has sons and daughters, and they have POTENTIAL to become noble peace prize winners, and just as there are ACTUAL fetuses that have POTENTIAL to become good debaters, and or noble peace prize winners.

[smike06]

Settle down. Her issues are defined on emotion, not logic. Theres nothing special about the human genome. Its about the manifestation of genomic expression that results in personhood. Its inevitable that we base rights on age because development is intrinsic to the argument. This is not discrimination, but is inherent to definition. If you disagree with abortion, then I damn well hope you do not eat food, because biological fuel is consumption of genetic material.