Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

end of the road

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Now who is being unscientific. You are hiding behind words more than ever here and I suspect you do not even see it. A seed, a tree, a fetus, a toddler, a man, a woman, a caterpillar, a mouse, a butterfly, an egg.... it is all just words WE as humans throw at easy to distinguish markers in what is nothing more than a cycle of life.

The words mean something to US, but they do not actually mean anything. They are just conveniences to us. A seed is not a tree. A fetus is not a person. You are placing everything in your rhetoric on a distinction that actually only exists in your head. It does not exist in science. It does not exist in philosophy. It exists solely and entirely in your fantasy world.

of course they exist in science.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except not only is that simply false, and they very much can do so......... no one else, least of all you, is coming up with alternatives to it either. The thing I am trying to determine? There ARE no other attributes that make sense of it. Unless you want to go off inventing notions like the existence of a god, there is no source of, purpose of, or target for things like rights, morality and ethics OTHER than the attribute I focus in on. And you can not merely "Nu-uh" that issue under the carpet.

it's not false, and they cannot and do not determine humanity of their own accord. they are part of a number of things that determine humanity. they are a small few aspects. they alone, do not and cannot determine humanity in my view.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Except yours is not. Assertion never is. And that is all you are offering here. An assertion. YOu are not actually grounding it in any arguments, evidence, data or reasoning like I have been doing in my position.

i would have to disagree, mine is very much so. i am definitely grounding it in the arguments, evidence, data and reasoning. i have simply come to a different conclusion to you. i believe my conclusion is better, because it takes account of everything in relation to the unborn human being, and it shows why we must grant it a right to life before 12 weeks.

nozzferrahhtoo

end of the road wrote: »

of course they exist in science.

As usual from you, assertion with no follow up. What exists in science. Where. Citations. Links? Show me. As I said all that actually exists is words showing convenient points of delineation to us humans in a cyclical life cycle. But the distinction YOU want to make does not. And aside from this one liner suggestion/assertion you are not showing it does.

end of the road wrote: »

it's not false, and they cannot and do not determine humanity of their own accord. they are part of a number of things that determine humanity. they are a small few aspects. they alone, do not and cannot determine humanity in my view.

Except it is false and as I said they do not NEED to "determine humanity of their own accord" so you are just parroting your position back again and again without even addressing the fact that I have told you it does not nullify mine.

AGAIN, we do not need a totally delineated and complete definition of "humanity", we just need to know some of the pre-requisites and requirements of such a definition........ and if those things are missing then the thing you are observing aint it.

You keep talking about "a number of things" but have offered ZERO examples of what you think you are even talking about. This world is teeming with life. I have pointed to attributes that distinguish human persons from the rest of life on this planet..... attributes that the fetus lacks ENTIRELY. You have offered diddly squat but assertions in response.

So regale us with the list of attributes you not only think distinguish "humanity" from the rest of life, but do so in a way that is morally and ethically relevant to concepts like "Rights". Bring it, if you got it.

end of the road wrote: »

i would have to disagree, mine is very much so. i am definitely grounding it in the arguments, evidence, data and reasoning. i have simply come to a different conclusion to you.

Yet until you actually present said arguments, evidence, data and reasoning it would appear you are only pretending you ground your position in them. I have not seen any of it from you yet. You just assert the same two or three things over and over, and have not yet once added them substance. You. Got. Nothing.

At least I can point to the attributes I think ground moral and ethical thought. I can explain WHY I think they are the attributes that ground moral and ethical thought. And I can show scientifically the fetus lacks them.

All you got in response is to invent, and then run away from, this "right to become sentient" which you tried to float a few months back. But since then nothing. So by all means roll out the arguments, evidence, data and reasoning you think you got, rather than merely talk about thinking you have it.

robindch

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

We at at a stage now in society where modern day feminist values are adopted not because they have logic, coherency or even meaningful societal value, but because it's not politically correct to express views to the contrary. The societal ostracization is a very real consequence of going against the current far left grain.

I'm not sure who you hang around with, but amongst the people in my own extended circle, I note that uncivil discussion and occasionally aggression are much more common in no-voters or the heavily religious (or both), than they are amongst yes-voters and the non-religious (or both).

Your claim that debate is stifled because of "political correctness" inspired by "feminist values" could have come from a Daily Mail headline on some dull Monday in January, and lacks evidence and, therefore, merit.

Jokes

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well, considering that every single human being that had their life ended prematurely in the womb also had a father, and many of those fathers did not always agree with the woman in their life deciding to still their baby's heartbeat, I think the ad is therefore kinda apt, given that a No vote, if successful, would ultimately result in the saving of many babies lives.

Currently the abortion rate of Irish women is not near being on a par with that of women in other European countries (even when illegal abortions are taken into account) but that will absolutely change within a few years of abortion on demand being made legal here. So, yes, in that regard, a No Vote is a heroic attempt at saving babies lives.

Of course the response to this would be that a developing human being at 12 weeks is not a baby, which is like saying a small growing carrot in the ground shouldn't be called a baby carrot until it's removed from the ground. A preposterous argument based on location and little else. Nobody has an issue with a 21 week old premature fetus in an incubator being referred to as a baby and so why when in the womb? It's ridiculous and all just an obvious desire to dehumanize the fetus, because of course, if we dehumanize them enough, then mistreating them and bullying them can't be seen as inhumane, but it is, it very much is.

I'll still vote No, but alas I think it will sadly being in vain and the Yes side will be victorious. We at at a stage now in society where modern day feminist values are adopted not because they have logic, coherency or even meaningful societal value, but because it's not politically correct to express views to the contrary. The societal ostracization is a very real consequence of going against the current far left grain.

At work recently one twenty something woman told me that she was voting no and quickly followed it with a request not to tell anyone. We see repeal t-shirts, even a repeal shop. The vote is a fashionable one and given with most abortions we are talking about a human being's short life being brought to a premature close, I find it rather distasteful. I guess the prochoice really do see the moving, reacting, thumb sucking baby in the womb as just a mere clump of cells. Funny how a generation usually obsessed with science are so willing to abandon it when it suits them. And referring to a 12 week fetus is absolutely doing just that.

Lovely day out and so will love and you leave you with some words from Ben Carson, former Director of Pediatric Neurosurgery at John Hopkins:

Im glad to see a post on here with sense. Ive been following this thread and agree that alot of women are hiding the fact that they will vote no as its seen as uncool to do so or theyll have their heads chewed off them by the its my choice ill do what I want.

I will be voting no , I was on the yes side for choice but the more I read into it my conscience wont let me.
Women currently get the best treatment there is here in this country. than any european country our doctors protect both the baby and the mother under our laws.

Why are women wanting to sign this away?

aloyisious

Jokes wrote: »

Women currently get the best treatment there is here in this country.

Why are women wanting to sign this away?

Jokes; seriously?

Outlaw Pete

NB: In the following post I link to an article which some users could find confronting and/or upsetting given that it deals with a miscarriage and includes some graphic images of same.

aloyisious wrote: »

The premature feotus [as you choose to describe it] in the incubator is born/birthed and is therefor not a feotus. It is a baby.

By that logic, this baby went from fetus to baby, then became a fetus again, only to later become a baby once more.

The developing human being, a life-form, is not a baby.

'Baby' is not a scientific term. It can refer to many things, one of which is a human fetus:

A human baby is something you can hold and cuddle in your arms....

Well, many miscarried babies have been held by their families. Here's a story of a woman who miscarried at 19 weeks and many members of the family held that baby, including the father and the young sister.

There are indeed many articles out there just like the above but which concern much younger babies (or fetuses if you prefer) but as we know, at those earlier gestational stages, more often than not, they'll just be dismissed off as mere 'clumps of cells' or 'blobs of biological matter' but I assure you from someone who has seen some medical footage of ectopic pregnancy terminations and also some preterm labour footage also, babies at 12 weeks are anything but clumps of cells. Not that I would recommend viewing such footage mind. It's quite harrowing, to say the least.

Ultrasounds tend to be better tolerated though but movement from ultrasounds is more often than not dismissed off as just being autonomic in nature (nerve impulses, muscle spasms, etc) but that is of course just agenda borne nonsense. Yes, some movement we see in ultrasounds is autonomic, but not all, or anything close to it.

'Pete, a 12 week fetus is not a sentient being!' I hear some of you cry, but even if pretend that sentience isn't a philosophical argument for a moment, so what? A 12 week fetus can't hum, walk or click it's fingers either, don't mean it's not alive and that is all a human being should need to be in order for other human beings to have a moral and ethical regard for it.

Some examples of in utero movement:











All of the above are human beings whose lives have very much begun. All are at 12 weeks gestation and all are very much alive. Should these developing human beings have a right to life? I think so, given that we only get one chance at life in this world and so therefore shouldn't we make damn sure that if we are going to take that one chance at life away, there be a damn good reason for it.

Outlaw Pete

robindch wrote: »

I'm not sure who you hang around with, but amongst the people in my own extended circle, I note that uncivil discussion and occasionally aggression are much more common in no-voters or the heavily religious (or both), than they are amongst yes-voters and the non-religious (or both).

Your claim that debate is stifled because of "political correctness" inspired by "feminist values" could have come from a Daily Mail headline on some dull Monday in January, and lacks evidence and, therefore, merit.

I have plenty of evidence of those on the left stifling debate. Tons. It's all around us these days in fact. Even on this very forum liberal views are far more tolerated while more conservative posters tend to be held to a much higher standard of posting.

The only violence I have seen during this debate was a clip of a prolife using being attacked on O'Connell St and the man trying to put up a prolife poster being pushed down some steps in Galway. Despite this man being told to 'Go and f*** his mother' over and over, it has largely been laughed at by liberals.

On Twitter and Facebook liberals joked about Maria Steen being raped and having to carry the child, and in the AH '8th thread' there is a post saying they would like to punch her in the face (more than happy to PM you proof of these).

Generally, and more globally, liberals have protested conservative speakers regularly over the past decade. Cassie Jaye's docu was protested. Shapiro, Jordan Peterson have both needed police escorts. The list is endless of liberals stifling debate.

On Twitter during this referendum debate there is even an account set up to track prolife users and make it easier for prochoice accounts to block them all en masse (thousands in one go). It's called the Repeal Shield and effectively turns Twitter in an echochamber.

Overheal

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

The only violence I have seen during this debate was a clip of a prolife using being attacked on O'Connell St and the man trying to put up a prolife poster being pushed down some steps in Galway. Despite this man being told to 'Go and f*** his mother' over and over, it has largely been laughed at by liberals.

Quite obviously staged

On Twitter and Facebook liberals joked about Maria Steen being raped and having to carry the child, and in the AH '8th thread' there is a post saying they would like to punch her in the face (more than happy to PM you proof of these).

Faceless trolls on the internet? No way! Just like we certainly haven't had folks say on here and elsewhere that they wish people on the pro-choice side were aborted.

Generally, and more globally, liberals have protested conservative speakers regularly over the past decade. Cassie Jaye's docu was protested. Shapiro, Jordan Peterson have both needed police escorts. The list is endless of liberals stifling debate.

Yes there is a far left movement that is meeting a far right movement. Fancy that, very Newtonian.

On Twitter during this referendum debate there is even an account set up to track prolife users and make it easier for prochoice accounts to block them all en masse (thousands in one go). It's called the Repeal Shield and effectively turns Twitter in an echochamber.

That's the freedom of association at work. There is also a counterpart 'shield' on the other side of the debate on the twitterverse, so I don't see the issue here.

BMMachine

Edginess and a distorted paranoia mixed with nastiness and fear. Quite the brew. Bubbles over too, mostly online.

I really wonder what "Outlaw" Peter is over compensating for. Everything he says is taken to the furthest point he can bring it and there he sits on it as justified proof that he isn't just spiteful, he's right. It's why he trawls through twitter, he needs that confirmation. He needs to be justified in his aggression and hatred.

It's all quite simple. He needs to dance around that large bigoted aspect of his personality and hide it as something else.
What I'd love, and I'd pay good money to see this, is for Peter to go to a rape crisis centre and tell everyone there how feminism is toxic or whatnot. The clash of reality, empathy and his identity would be awesome. There is no point debating him or guys like him, it's too absorbed into their digital personality. No matter what is said or shown, it will never be good enough. Because it's not about the issue. It's about them. It's about their limitations and their fear of that.

What really cracks me up though is that he's exactly what he hates. The narrow teeth nashing "SJW" with such a limited perspective on society that he so decries. He is that, just another flavour but with the exact same problem. The exact same insecurities, defense mechanisms and venting systems. And no matter what anyone says or what happens he will never ever see that. And that, to me, is utterly hilarious

nozzferrahhtoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

By that logic, this baby went from fetus to baby, then became a fetus again, only to later become a baby once more.

Well welcome to the real world! Nice of you to join us here. Where human words do not capture 100% of reality, 100% of the time. Maybe in the world where you come from, they do. But us mortals in this reality live with the fact that words generally fail to achieve your ideals. And no matter how many labels we normal humans invent, exceptions to them always find a way to confound us.

That you rely on incredibly rare exceptions however to bolster the complete misuse of words, is an agenda I think is all too transparent.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Well, many miscarried babies have been held by their families. Here's a story of a woman who miscarried at 19 weeks

Oh yes I know that story well. Mainly due to the "no" voter who took pictures from it on another forum and claimed it was an aborted fetus. A move that set the bar as low as possible for the behaviour of an individual "no" voter. But amazingly of the MANY "no" voters I have made aware of this, only one single one appears to have openly condemned the actions of the forum poster in question.

I trust you condemn the actions of the "no" voter who used the images from that article to further the agenda, through lies, of her cause? Let everyone here see whether you do or not, or do you just ignore the post as usual when you know you can not deal with it, or make the honest move in relation to it.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I assure you from someone who has seen some medical footage of ectopic pregnancy terminations and also some preterm labour footage also, babies at 12 weeks are anything but clumps of cells. Not that I would recommend viewing such footage mind. It's quite harrowing, to say the least.

It is not harrowing at all if you are either used to such things, or if you do not subscribe to unwarranted and misleading narratives about the fetus. It is harrowing precisely because people are protected from the realities of biology in their day to day lives and do not see such things often. It is also harrowing because you have unfounded nonsense in your head about what such a fetus is, and is not. The majority of the suffering you feel when you view such things therefore is of your own creation and your own manufacture. And little to none of it is warranted. It is your need to feel "empathy" for things to which the word "empathy" simply can not, and does not, apply that makes your suffering in this regard wholly manufactured and self inflicted.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Ultrasounds tend to be better tolerated though but movement from ultrasounds is more often than not dismissed off as just being autonomic in nature (nerve impulses, muscle spasms, etc) but that is of course just agenda borne nonsense. Yes, some movement we see in ultrasounds is autonomic, but not all, or anything close to it.

The "agenda borne nonsense" is yours and yours alone here then because at 12 weeks it is 100% nothing BUT autonomic types of movement. If you want to declare it to be something more than this then the onus of evidence is 100% at your door. But aside from empty assertions of this nature you are offering 0% of it! Quelle Suprise. There is also no surprise that you dismiss as "philosophical" the very science that undermines your fairy tale here. Just hand wave away anything that undermines your agenda, narrative, and assertions...... your main MO in this discussion.

But let everyone here wait and see what evidence you bring for these claims. Because you have slipped up here and stopped making your merely emotional appeals and misleading cries of empathy...... and instead made a DIRECTLY scientific claim about reality and biology. And so this is a claim we can evaluate through actual data, evidence and reason. So have at it. Substantiate this claim of yours here.

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Should these developing human beings have a right to life? I think so, given that we only get one chance at life in this world and so therefore shouldn't we make damn sure that if we are going to take that one chance at life away, there be a damn good reason for it.

THAT you think this is already clear, so you just wrote a long post detailing something we already knew. WHY you think so is entirely opaque though, possibly including to yourself. You have not moved to lay you a logical or coherent chain of reasoning to explain that other than "It moves" and "it has a little tongue". Which are pathetic (fallacy) appeals to emotion in order to bypass reason in a way that glosses over the fact you have offered none.

Lines like "We only get one chance at life" are appeals to emotion and nothing more. And bad ones at that. They are contrived to appeal to the selfish part of our own existence and entice us to project that on to things that do not warrant it, and have us feel it vicariously on their behalf. That misdirected empathy of yours in play again.

recedite

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I personally do not know what DS has to do with issues like abortion.

Only that in some countries they are routinely aborted, and that has become the new "normal". Its not a cure for DS, its a cull.
Whether you agree or disagree with the cull, its still relevant to the overall abortion discussion.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

The words mean something to US, but they do not actually mean anything. They are just conveniences to us. A seed is not a tree. A fetus is not a person.

If you seek differences you will find them. Confederate slave owners used to say black people did not have the same rights because obvious differences are obvious.


Do you remember a few years ago when Ireland became bankrupt and the IMF were called in, certain public sector unions finally realised their people might have to take a pay cut. But instead of taking it, the unions proposed and the membership voted in a deal that ensured that all future members would be shafted with lower wages.

Fast forward a few years, and those future members are now the actual members. Now the unions are all about restoring pay parity and justice, and its "totally unfair" that people who started after a certain date are on a lower pay structure.

Your attitude is based on a similar prejudice. As long as you are in the advantaged group, you are quite happy.

King Mob

Lol heard it here first folks.
Support legalising abortion, then you are basically plantation owners.

recedite

Not just the plantation owners, slavery has been a feature of human societies for most of history.

First establish that a particular group is sub-human for whatever reason. Find a reason or a difference, its easy enough if you look for one.
Then it follows that their human rights can be "repealed".


From then on they can be "owned" and only the rights of the other person need be considered.

Those rights will centre around their personal rights, such as the right to own property and "the right" to maintain the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Not just the plantation owners, slavery has been a feature of human societies for most of history.

First establish that a particular group is sub-human for whatever reason. Find a reason or a difference, its easy enough if you look for one.
Then it follows that their human rights can be "repealed".


From then on they can be "owned" and only the rights of the other person need be considered.

Those rights will centre around their personal rights, such as the right to own property and "the right" to maintain the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed.

Thing is Rec, for many societies and religious groups, that group is women.

antiskeptic

King Mob wrote: »

Lol heard it here first folks.
Support legalising abortion, then you are basically plantation owners.

Chicken and egg.

Is life in the womb disposable because we genuinely consider it not equal.

Or do we consider it non equal because we genuinely want to dispose of it.

Which do you think governed plantation owner-think?

ohnonotgmail

antiskeptic wrote: »

Chicken and egg.

Is life in the womb disposable because we genuinely consider it not equal.

Or do we consider it non equal because we genuinely want to dispose of it.

Which do you think governed plantation owner-think?

we consider it non-equal because it is not equal on a number of levels. Real actual levels. The slavery argument is just a very poor strawman.

antiskeptic

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

we consider it non-equal because it is not equal on a number of levels. Real actual levels.

Sounds exactly like something a plantation owner would say. 'Real" is whatever your interests need it to be.

YES can't help self-interest being an intrinsic part of their fold. The wavering on 'step to far' grounds recognizes this.

I just think its worth focusing on

ohnonotgmail

antiskeptic wrote: »

Sounds exactly like something a plantation owner would say. 'Real" is whatever your interests need it to be.

YES can't help self-interest being an intrinsic part of their fold. The wavering on 'step to far' grounds recognizes this.

No real as in actual scientifically provable real. The Yes side have not attempted to dehumanise a foetus. They simply argue that a foetus doe not yet possess the qualities that would put it on a par with a living, breathing, human.

antiskeptic wrote: »

I just think its worth focusing on

No i think it is best ignored as the horse**** it is.

aloyisious

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

NB: In the following post I link to an article which some users could find confronting and/or upsetting given that it deals with a miscarriage and includes some graphic images of same.



By that logic, this baby went from fetus to baby, then became a fetus again, only to later become a baby once more.

Those are good links. The one you gave, [above] is not about a born baby, it is a fetus taken temporarily surgically from the mothers womb for the purpose of surgery, and returned to the womb forthwith after the necessary surgery and allowed resume it's gestation perios before birth. The clue is in the words used to describe the operation in the video as fetal surgery.


As for the other link, I'll take time to look at what you've written slowly to make sure of the facts behind the stories before replying about them.

recedite

smacl wrote: »

Thing is Rec, for many societies and religious groups, that group is women.

Not in ours.

The 8th amendment is about equal rights. Repeal is about dehumanising the unborn and removing their intrinsic right to life.

recedite

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No real as in actual scientifically provable real. The Yes side have not attempted to dehumanise a foetus. They simply argue that a foetus doe not yet possess the qualities that would put it on a par with a living, breathing, human.

Step one; declare the target group "not on a par".
Step two; repeal the law that recognises they had rights.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

Step one; declare the target group "not on a par".
Step two; repeal the law that recognises they had rights.

do you think they possess all the qualities that are normally ascribed to human beings? Does a 12 week old foetus possess sentience for instance?

pleas advice

aloyisious wrote: »

Those are good links. The one you gave, [above] is not about a born baby, it is a fetus taken temporarily surgically from the mothers womb for the purpose of surgery, and returned to the womb forthwith after the necessary surgery and allowed resume it's gestation perios before birth. The clue is in the words used to describe the operation in the video as fetal surgery..

That's just begging the question, 'its a fetus because it says so in the video'

antiskeptic

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No real as in actual scientifically provable real. The Yes side have not attempted to dehumanise a foetus. They simply argue that a foetus doe not yet possess the qualities that would put it on a par with a living, breathing, human.

Conveniently, the qualities chosen happen to align with the desire to be able to dispose.

Why do you pick what Science says, for example. How does science decide what it is to be an equal member of society? Science just gives you the mechanics of things: personal philosophy decides whether or not those mechanics establish the threshold for equality or not.

Don't you know that?


Back to the chicken and egg. Does the decision to plump for a particular philosophical view come about because of the desire to dispose?

SusieBlue

recedite wrote: »

Not in ours.

The 8th amendment is about equal rights. Repeal is about dehumanising the unborn and removing their intrinsic right to life.

That's exactly what the problem is. A 10 week old zygote should not be considered of equal worth to a living, breathing, woman, unless she says so.
And her healthcare certainly shouldn't be compromised because of it.

aloyisious

antiskeptic wrote: »

Sounds exactly like something a plantation owner would say. 'Real" is whatever your interests need it to be.

YES can't help self-interest being an intrinsic part of their fold. The wavering on 'step to far' grounds recognizes this.

I just think its worth focusing on

And if the self-interest of the pregnant woman is her life [not lifestyle] but her actual human existence would you deny it to her in the interest of the feotus in her womb? If so, it follow's that the feotus is more equal in life than the woman, somewhat of a plantation-owners value-opinion on stock he/she own's.

I believe that MENTAL HEALTH is NOT the only aspect of the pregnant woman's HEALTH that should be considered when evaluating her life in respect of a request for an abortion, [Mens Sana In Corpore Sano] as a woman's body made unhealthy by way of a feotus growing inside her is reason enough to terminate the feotus.

ohnonotgmail

antiskeptic wrote: »

Conveniently, the qualities chosen happen to align with the desire to be able to dispose.

Why do you pick what Science says, for example. How does science decide what it is to be an equal member of society? Science just gives you the mechanics of things: personal philosophy decides whether or not those mechanics establish the threshold for equality or not.

Don't you know that?

the qualities i ascribe are pretty fundamental components of being human.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Back to the chicken and egg. Does the decision to plump for a particular philosophical view come about because of the desire to dispose?

I have no intention in getting involved in your nonsense egg argument.

robindch

BMMachine wrote: »

He needs to dance around that large bigoted aspect of his personality and hide it as something else.

This, and much of the rest of your post, is, within the terms of the A+A charter, uncivil personal commentary about another forum poster.

Thanking youze.

recedite

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Does a 12 week old foetus possess sentience for instance?

Sentience, intelligence and the capacity to live independently of parents are things that develop very slowly in humans.
But when they are fully developed, which is not until many years after birth, they make us the smartest creature on earth, and allow us to dominate every other animal.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

Sentience, intelligence and the capacity to live independently of parents are things that develop very slowly in humans.
But when they are fully developed, which is not until many years after birth, they make us the smartest creature on earth, and allow us to dominate every other animal.

I will rephrase:

does a 12 week old foetus possess ANY sentience?