Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

antiskeptic

aloyisious wrote: »

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?

Absolutely not. I don't have a problem with legislating for a degree of liberalisation. I just don't agree that the only way to achieve this is by opening the door to a.o.d.

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.

Again, I'm not in disagreement. Again, I'm not prepared to for a.o.d. as a way of solving the problem.

aloyisious

pleas advice wrote: »

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

More so, it's in the video provided by your compatriot to make his/her point about when a baby is a baby and not a feotus, so I refer you back to the video.

My point originally, which, IMO, stills stands intact, is that a baby is a born human being. You and your compatriots can stay here all day quibbling about when a feotus becomes a baby, have a good day.

recedite

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I will rephrase:

does a 12 week old foetus possess ANY sentience?

Neither of us can say when the first drop of magical sentience appears.


Is sentience your benchmark for determining humanity, and if so, what level of it turns an animal into a human being?

antiskeptic

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

Doubtlessly. But are they the only fundamentals. And is there any fundamental which trumps other fundamentals?

Your philosophy decides. I'd point out that this isn't religion vs. materialistic philosophy necessarily. I've talked to two atheists who are voting No. They can't put their finger on what the chief fundamental is which steers them towards No, but they both recognize that:

a) There is something about humanity that is more than any components of it you care to identify and throw on the table. To define humanity by listing components is to attempt to grab smoke in your hands.

b) The recognise that selfishness is a component in the desire for a.o.d.

ohnonotgmail

recedite wrote: »

Neither of us can say when the first drop of magical sentience appears.

We can be pretty certain that a 12 week old foetus does not possess any.

recedite wrote: »

Is sentience your benchmark for determining humanity,

It is a pretty major benchmark. Clearly it isn't that important to you.

recedite wrote: »

and if so, what level of it turns an animal into a human being?

who mentioned animals?

antiskeptic

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

We can be pretty certain that a 12 week old foetus does not possess any.

Why the equivocation? Sentience is critical in this (to you). Surely you ought to know?

Because if you don't know, Vote No.

aloyisious

antiskeptic wrote: »

Doubtlessly. But are they the only fundamentals. And is there any fundamental which trumps other fundamentals?

Your philosophy decides. I'd point out that this isn't religion vs. materialistic philosophy necessarily. I've talked to two atheists who are voting No. They can't put their finger on what the chief fundamental is which steers them towards No, but they both recognize that:

a) There is something about humanity that is more than any components of it you care to identify and throw on the table. To define humanity by listing components is to attempt to grab smoke in your hands.

The answer to both maybe the unbidden but sentient thought in the back of the atheist's mind that, "there, but for the grace of God go I"? The humanity definition that recognizes itself in the feotus and goes into auto-defense mode when it come to one of the same species, added to by seeing movement generally and sometimes specifically of a feotus's component parts [moving fingers as an example] in a scan "oh look, IT'S moving IT'S fingers".

aloyisious

antiskeptic wrote: »

Why the equivocation? Sentience is critical in this (to you). Surely you ought to know?

Because if you don't know, Vote No.

To quote an American: It's the known unknown we know about, aka the brain has to start thinking and initiating control of the body at some time, or summat like that. Neither side here knows when but assumes IT TO BE A FACT. Wriggling a finger is not a sign of intellect, just a movement of/by an externally visible body part.

antiskeptic

aloyisious wrote: »

The answer to both maybe the unbidden but sentient thought in the back of the atheist's mind that, "there, but for the grace of God go I"? The humanity definition that recognizes itself in the feotus and goes into auto-defense mode when it come to one of the same species

An evolutionary response that which help propel us to the top of the world...

...about to go the way of the dodo. It would appear that YAYtheists are building a tower of Babel, supposing they can outdo the very god that created them.

aloyisious

antiskeptic wrote: »

An evolutionary response that which help propel us to the top of the world...

...about to go the way of the dodo. It would appear that YAYtheists are building a tower of Babel, supposing they can outdo the very god that created them.

Ah yes. I was wondering if some-one would introduce the angle of "are we outreaching ourselves here, making ourselves out to be gods, going beyond what we, as a species, were designated to go", using our superior intellect over that of other species to go beyond whatever.......

Edit/add-on. Evolutionery response from a God-made creature?

Zubeneschamali

antiskeptic wrote: »

It would appear that YAYtheists are building a tower of Babel, supposing they can outdo the very god that created them

What a strange world you live in!

ohnonotgmail

antiskeptic wrote: »

Why the equivocation? Sentience is critical in this (to you). Surely you ought to know?

Because if you don't know, Vote No.

I'll rephrase then.


We can be certain that a 12 week old foetus does not possess any.

Better?

ohnonotgmail

antiskeptic wrote: »

An evolutionary response that which help propel us to the top of the world...

...about to go the way of the dodo. It would appear that YAYtheists are building a tower of Babel, supposing they can outdo the very god that created them.

*looks at name of forum* Hmmmmmmmm

antiskeptic

aloyisious wrote: »

Ah yes. I was wondering if some-one would introduce the angle of "are we outreaching ourselves here, making ourselves out to be gods, going beyond what we, as a species, were designated to go", using our superior intellect over that of other species to go beyond whatever.......

Generally, it's an interesting discussion. How does a person who supposes themselves to be the product of naturalistic evolution go on to suppose themselves of having escaped the process?

Whether disposing of our progeny will confer evolutionary benefit ... well, only time (and a lot of it) will tell

antiskeptic

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

*looks at name of forum* Hmmmmmmmm

Creation in the naturalistic evolutionary sense of course. Blind, non-sentient ... creation.

The very characteristics you hold life in the womb to have, as it happens.

antiskeptic

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'll rephrase then.


We can be certain that a 12 week old foetus does not possess any.

Better?

Is that open to scientific discovery to the contrary?

Do you suppose the possibility that abortion will one day be looked upon as we now look on the ancient use of bloodletting?

ohnonotgmail

antiskeptic wrote: »

Creation in the naturalistic evolutionary sense of course. Blind, non-sentient ... creation.

The very characteristics you hold life in the womb to have, as it happens.

God...Natural evolutionary sense

Does not compute

antiskeptic

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

What a strange world you live in!

Indeed. A world where we'll do our own in for any and all reasons is strange indeed.

ohnonotgmail

antiskeptic wrote: »

Is that open to scientific discovery to the contrary?

Everything is open to scientific discovery to the contrary. Otherwise it isn't science.

antiskeptic wrote: »

Do you suppose the possibility that abortion will one day be looked upon as we now look on the ancient use of bloodletting?

Not in my lifetime.

aloyisious

antiskeptic wrote: »

Generally, it's an interesting discussion. How does a person who supposes themselves to be the product of naturalistic evolution go on to suppose themselves of having escaped the process?

Whether disposing of our progeny will confer evolutionary benefit ... well, only time (and a lot of it) will tell

I won't go more astray from theabortion thread except to say one doesn't escape the evolutionery process, one kick's the bucket, the obsolesence part of evolution we can't avoid.

Outlaw Pete

BMMachine wrote: »

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

So no actual argument against anything I have posted then. Just ad hominem nonsense.

Zubeneschamali

antiskeptic wrote: »

Whether disposing of our progeny will confer evolutionary benefit ... well, only time (and a lot of it) will tell

Religious people often assume that something else must replace God in an atheists worldview, and Evolution and Darwin its prophet are often taken to be the replacement, thinking that because we know evolution shaped life on earth that we must worship it, ascribe motives to it or accept it as a guide to our behaviour.

Nope, doesn't work that way.

Zubeneschamali

antiskeptic wrote: »

Indeed. A world where we'll do our own in for any and all reasons is strange indeed.

and no-one who believed in God ever did anyone in...

BMMachine

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

So no actual argument against anything I have posted then. Just ad hominem nonsense.

you are too narrow to have an engaging argument with is the problem. Didn't you post up a picture from Ed Sheerans album and then have a different picture of an X in a green box as proof of bias the other day? Like if thats your thinking and thats what you sit on, then whats the point? You are too plugged into to your own idea of yourself for this. The internet has snapped your brain so now you sit on boards.ie being edgy and trawling through twitter and whatever reams of other sh*te in order to justify your inherent nastiness. You are the exact problem with this new method of communication, you are the perfect example of this new broken mindset undermining society and progress.
As I said, it doesn't matter what anyone says - it will never be good enough.

Think I'm wrong?

Take me up. Go into a Rape Crisis Centre and tell them how you feel about feminism. Look at those people in the eye and tell them how poisonous you believe feminism to be. Do it. Call yourself 'Outlaw Pete' to them.

smacl

recedite wrote: »

Neither of us can say when the first drop of magical sentience appears.

Dude, 'first drop of magical sentience'? On the A&A forum? Seriously? :pac:

end of the road

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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.

people consider it not equal because they need to so that they can justify ending it's life for any reason. it's been done to many different groups throughout history.

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.

and that argument fails because the fetus at that stage of development doesn't need to have those qualities to determine them to be a human being. science is being used for something it wasn't intended to be used for.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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?

again whether they do or not isn't relevant. sentience is simply a last ditch attempt to justify the making of the life of the unborn disposible.

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

fundamental components but not the only components. that is why basing humanity on those alone isn't enough of an argument to allow the life of a fetus to be disposible.

ohnonotgmail

end of the road wrote: »

people consider it not equal because they need to so that they can justify ending it's life for any reason. it's been done to many different groups throughout history.



and that argument fails because the fetus at that stage of development doesn't need to have those qualities to determine them to be a human being. science is being used for something it wasn't intended to be used for.



again whether they do or not isn't relevant. sentience is simply a last ditch attempt to justify the making of the life of the unborn disposible.



fundamental components but not the only components. that is why basing humanity on those alone isn't enough of an argument to allow the life of a fetus to be disposible.

you seemed to have ignored the word "fundamental" or misunderstood what it means.

robindch

Mod:

BMMachine wrote: »

you are too narrow [...] The internet has snapped your brain [...] justify your inherent nastiness [...] you are the perfect example of this new broken mindset [...]

I'm not sure if you had time to read my moderator warning from a few hours back. For the avoidance of doubt, if you post any more uncivil comments, you will be carded or banned.

Please read the A+A charter before posting in A+A again.

recedite

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Religious people often assume that something else must replace God in an atheists worldview, and Evolution and Darwin its prophet are often taken to be the replacement...

Dude, antiskeptic was using a rhetorical device when he suggested yayheists (ie Yes-voting atheists) were attempting to to cheat evolution, and referred to it as "the very god that created them". That's a god with a small "g".
I thought it was a good post, but obviously it went waaay over some peeps heads, like.

smacl wrote: »

Dude, 'first drop of magical sentience'? On the A&A forum? Seriously? :pac:

Dude, that one is called irony. If you remember, it was not I who placed such vital import on establishing the exact magical moment of sentience's arrival, or indeed the significance of the 12 week marker....

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I will rephrase:

does a 12 week old foetus possess ANY sentience?

Hotblack Desiato

recedite wrote: »

Only that in some countries they are routinely aborted, and that has become the new "normal".

So what? Not your womb, not your choice, not your resulting child to raise and not your difficulties to overcome.

I support the right of every woman with a prenatal DS diagnosis to abort, whether 1% or 10% or 100% choose to do so is irrelevant.