The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

RobertKK

robarmstrong wrote: »

Let me put this very, very simply so you can't deflect.

Do you think that children should be shown graphic images of aborted babies?

Also - those videos? I know all about them considering the miscarriages and whatnot my partner and I have went through. Try again.

First of all I am sorry to hear about the miscarriages.

If abortion is fine, then what is offensive about aborted babies? Do they look too human?

ohnonotgmail

B0jangles wrote: »

Oppression is not being denied legal control over your own body.

True Oppression is being blocked on twitter.

Am I the only one whose irony meter just exploded?

well it would have if it hadn't already been broken by this thread.

robarmstrong

B0jangles wrote: »

Oppression is not being denied legal control over your own body.

True Oppression is being blocked on twitter.

Am I the only one whose irony meter just exploded?

Get out of here with your logic, it ain't welcome here, scumbag!!!!

reubenreuben

I note that the Poll to repeal the 8th has gradually been increasing. It has gone beyond 73%.

Do you think this is much of an indicator of what will actually happen on the vote day?

I hope it does. All those backward thinkers on here need telling what the people really want.

Timberrrrrrrr

RobertKK wrote: »

Noise you call it, or ignorance is bliss is another way of looking at it.

No Robert it's noise

It's noise when the same poster copies/pastes the same responses to everything


It's noise when the same poster asks a question, has the question answered and then returns 24 hours later to ask the SAME question.


It's noise when the same poster asks a question then when he/she doesn't like the answers given goes on to reword the question again and again and again trying to entrap posters into some sort of gotcha moment.


It's noise when the same poster post walls of text and multiple video (+13 hours worth of video in one post!) And then complains because you haven't read his post/watched the linked video's.

I can guarantee you right here and now that within the next 24/48 hours a new poster will arrive who is "on the fence" they will ask the SAME questions over and over and will only ever question the repeal side.

Those "new" posters to me are Noise.

RobertKK

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Which is a lie.
Look at videos, there is a humanity but to say there is means one has to challenge themselves from what they want to believe.

ohnonotgmail

reubenreuben wrote: »

I note that the Poll to repeal the 8th has gradually been increasing. It has gone beyond 73%.

Do you think this is much of an indicator of what will actually happen on the vote day?

not really. it will be a lot closer than the poll here suggests.

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

First of all I am sorry to hear about the miscarriages.

If abortion is fine, then what is offensive about aborted babies? Do they look too human?

Why do you fail to answer the question?

Do you think that it is appropriate to show young children bloody and graphic images of aborted 12 week fetuses?

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

Which is a lie.
Look at videos, there is a humanity but to say there is means one has to challenge themselves from what they want to believe.

can you point to where in the video they show sentience or consciousness?

Triceratops Ballet

reubenreuben wrote: »

I note that the Poll to repeal the 8th has gradually been increasing. It has gone beyond 73%.

Do you think this is much of an indicator of what will actually happen on the vote day?

unfortunately no, I think it will be much much tighter I think it could even go 48/52

Ave Sodalis

RobertKK wrote:

If abortion is fine, then what is offensive about aborted babies? Do they look too human?

If pro-life is fine, what would be offensive about pictures of dead women? What's so offensive about pictures of rotting corpse? What so offensive about pictures of recently raped women? What about videos of babies born with FFA that manage to survive a few minutes or hours past birth?

Or are they just too real?

Timberrrrrrrr

RobertKK wrote: »

First of all I am sorry to hear about the miscarriages.

If abortion is fine, then what is offensive about aborted babies? Do they look too human?

Would you ket a 12 year old look at beheadings or car crashes on live leak?

Sofiztikated

RobertKK wrote:

So you advocate that children should not be taught biology?
Are the above videos offensive, given this is what the repeal side want to be allowed to be aborted?

To be honest, those videos are grand for those interested in the development of a baby, but show them to a woman that has lost a wanted pregnancy, either through miscarriage or medically necessary abortions, and you're causing them needless stress.

Here's an even more fascinating link

https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php/Hearing_-_Outer_Ear_Development

Medical notes on the hearing development in a fetus.

I don't however see anything to say that it should get priority over the woman carrying it.

Here's an honest question, and one I would love an honest answer to, from you. What do you foresee happening, if the 8th is kept in place?

RobertKK

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

can you point to where in the video they show sentience or consciousness?

Here is what an unborn looks like at 12 weeks, you see no humanity in this...

.......

This post has been deleted.

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

Here is what an unborn looks like at 12 weeks, you see no humanity in this...

*PROVEN TO BE FALSE PICTURE OF A 12 WEEK FETUS*

Yeah that's absolutely not what an unborn 12 week fetus looks like.

.......

This post has been deleted.

RobertKK

Sofiztikated wrote: »

To be honest, those videos are grand for those interested in the development of a baby, but show them to a woman that has lost a wanted pregnancy, either through miscarriage or medically necessary abortions, and you're causing them needless stress.

Here's an even more fascinating link

https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php/Hearing_-_Outer_Ear_Development

Medical notes on the hearing development in a fetus.

I don't however see anything to say that it should get priority over the woman carrying it.

Here's an honest question, and one I would love an honest answer to, from you. What do you foresee happening, if the 8th is kept in place?

That is like saying a woman who lost a child has to be shielded from society because she will see children and it will remind her of own child.

AtomicHorror

RobertKK wrote: »

Here is what an unborn looks like at 12 weeks, you see no humanity in this...

This is a great example. It's made of plastic but it looks human and elicits our emotional responses. Should we protect the plastic baby because of our perception of this "humanity", whatever that means?

Shall we amend the constitution to protect all things with a human-like face?

RobertKK

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You see this is not a false image. This is why the repeal side only focus on the woman as this is at 12 weeks.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

RobertKK wrote: »

First of all I am sorry to hear about the miscarriages.

If abortion is fine, then what is offensive about aborted babies? Do they look too human?

Robert, you're imo one of the more decent pro-life posters and I admire your ability to stay civil on these threads but come on. You know well this has been explained several times.

My period is fine, may I put a large photograph of my big old bloody box outside your window? Outside a school?

Transplants, amputations, surgery in general, all fine, but all gory, not necessary or decent to show to children.

The pro choice campaign could use graphic images too, but they actually do care about children and about women, so they don't. I've no doubt plenty people would be suddenly outraged at graphic images being used if they started, too.

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

Here is what an unborn looks like at 12 weeks, you see no humanity in this...

and the sentience or consciousness?

RobertKK

AtomicHorror wrote: »

This is a great example. It's made of plastic but it looks human and elicits our emotional responses. Should we protect the plastic baby because of our perception of this "humanity", whatever that means?

I was going to use an image of a real 12 week old that was miscarried but decided against it so used a similar plastic image instead.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

RobertKK wrote: »

Here is what an unborn looks like at 12 weeks, you see no humanity in this...

Do you really believe that? Really??

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

You see this is not a false image. This is why the repeal side only focus on the woman as this is at 12 weeks.

That is a false image, that is not remotely close to what an actual 12 week fetus looks like.

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

I was going to use an image of a real 12 week old that was miscarried but decided against it so used a similar plastic image instead.

So you decided against posting the image of the real fetus and instead posted a "similar plastic" image instead.

You didn't post the real fetus because you know they look nothing alike.

AtomicHorror

RobertKK wrote: »

I was going to use an image of a real 12 week old that was miscarried but decided against it so used a similar plastic image instead.

I know. But you inadvertently made a great point. Care to address it?

circadian

RobertKK wrote: »

I was going to use an image of a real 12 week old that was miscarried but decided against it so used a similar plastic image instead.

I'm glad you seen some sense in that thought process.

nozzferrahhtoo

Here is another post for you to dodge and ignore Robert.

RobertKK wrote: »

Because a lot of what is regarded as lies simply isn’t so they ignore it, as concentrating on something that would negatively affect the repeal side would be harmful.

Yet the only one demonstrably ignoring anything here is you. Project much?

For example you have dodged and ignored quite a number of my points and posts at this stage. Simply pretending they are not there it seems.

However you are not being internally coherent here either. If they are calling something a lie, how could they be "ignoring it" at the same time? That makes no logical or linguistic sense. Calling it anything at all, is the opposite of ignoring it because to label something you have to acknowledge it first.

RobertKK wrote: »

That is you trying to evade that there are at least two lives (more if twins or more) involved.

Except the evasion in that post very demonstrably just came from you, not what you quoted. The user not only said PERSONS life, but they capatalized it too. And in your reply you simply evaded that word entirely.

No one said there is only one life involved. That is your own distortion and narrative. What they did say was there was only one person's life involved, being as the fetus is not a person.

RobertKK wrote: »

So you advocate that children should not be taught biology?

Oh they absolutely should be taught biology, and philosophy too, and it is a shame you do not appear to have benefited from such an education yourself.

Having a deep education in both allows me to see the holes in the narrative you espouse here. There is little going on in the fetus in the videos you offer here that is not also going on in a cow when it is slaughtered for meat.

Autonomic responses, heart beats, organs..... cows have all that too and at a higher level and more developed stage than a 12 week old fetus. Amazing is it not that such things only concern you when it SUITS YOU to be concerned about them. Bias much?

What anyone with any grounding in biology and philosophy quickly realizes is that the things that distinguish human life (which we do not want to kill) from bovine life (which we happily kill for meat all the time) is entirely absent from a fetus at 12 weeks gestation. NOTHING is going on in that fetus that coherently mediated our moral and ethical concerns, or provides a foundation for affording it rights.

So by all means let us teach children biology AND the adults, such as yourself, who have yet to benefit from that teaching.

RobertKK wrote: »

Another lie, pretend the unborn lacks any humanity.

Except at 12 weeks gestation it is not a lie. But by all means expose the lie if you think there is one. How are you defining "Humanity"? What attributes does it consist of? Which of those attributes mediate moral and ethical concern? And where are you finding the attributes listed in a 12 week old fetus?

Expose the lie rather than merely assert it! I am all ears.

RobertKK wrote: »

If abortion is fine, then what is offensive about aborted babies? Do they look too human?

There is nothing offensive about sex either, but if we were campaigning on a sexual issue I would not be rushing to have posters of people copulating all over the public streets. Would you?

Heart Bypass Surgery is fine too. As is brain surgery. I would not generally be advocating for throwing pictures of open heart or open skull surgery in the faces of children however.

Nor are we rushing to bring children on school field trips around morgues. But even if we were, parental consent is a great part of individual field trips.

That said I am more liberal in that regard than some people. For example I would happily bring my daughter (7) to a real time dissection of an animal. For example this dissection of a beaver at a Field Museum was performed in front of quite young children.

But in terms of the emotional well being of children I think there is a difference between the parental choice of exposure to dissections of animals in private............. and exposure to the innards of human adults, children, infants, babies or fetuses in public against parental will, choice or warning.

RobertKK wrote: »

Look at videos, there is a humanity

Again which definition of "humanity" are you using. At a taxonomy and biological level it is clearly "Human" but no one here is denying that at all. How are you distinguishing the words "humanity" and "human"? What are the defining and distinguishing attributes of the two?

Or are you simply using the two words interchangeably in a willful and agenda driven error?

RobertKK

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and the sentience or consciousness?

Your argument is why a group of ethicists in Oxford University said infanticide should be allowed as the born baby has the same understandings as an unborn baby.