The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

.......

This post has been deleted.

Ush1

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Perhaps wilful ignorance then?

BarleySweets

RobertKK wrote: »

Are you saying women on the retain side trust fellow women?

I’m saying no such thing. In fact I said nothing in my post other than asking you a very simple question in response to a post you wrote: “Why don’t you trust women, Robert?”

I’d love to hear your answer. That’s why I asked.

.......

This post has been deleted.

NuMarvel

Ush1 wrote: »

I'm voting yes but I personally find the human/a human argument disingenuous. You can call it what you like the fact that you can't dispute is that it will become a human. It's not a liver or toenail cell or whatever else.

I don't think it's being disingenuous; it's clearly the basis for many people's position and I can see the logic of it. What's more it's obviously a sincerely held position and people aren't using it to evade difficult questions. And there's nothing in what people say that leads me to believe they don't realise it will become a human being at some point.

I personally don't use it because my knowledge of biology and foetal development is minimal, to say the least, so I wouldn't have the confidence to use it to support my positions. But seeing other posters use it is fascinating, from an educational perspective if nothing else (eg the comment about elbows not bending at 12 weeks gestation).

But what really jumps out to me is that two No supporters have posted in the thread since I asked my question, and none of them seem to want to answer it.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ush1 wrote: »

I deliberately put it like that because of the contentious use of language. I also said, call it what you like.

In common speech by all means call it what you like. You can call it splundunky-woodily-wa-wa for all I care. But in a robust and intellectual discussion or debate the meanings of words become more important.

And this is ESPECIALLY true when the meanings of words are used to import implications that are not actually warranted at the time. Hence the discussion people have about how one side calls it a "fetus" at 12 weeks while the other side insists on calling it a "baby".

They are not doing that because of a "call it what you like" mantra. They are doing that as a contrived propaganda move to philosophically and emotionally humanize the fetus WAY before it's due. And due to that we can not simply maintain an open door "call it what you like" narrative. We have to police terms used for a propaganda agenda..... or just abandon all pretense at open and HONEST discourse entirely.

Ush1 wrote: »

The fact remains that it's a disingenuous argument to compare it with liver cells and toenails.

It depends on the point of comparison. Whether a comparison is valid or disingenuous depends NOT on the comparison itself but the context in which it is being compared. For example comparing a rock to your new car might sound ridiculous. However if the context is "Grey things" your car and a rock might indeed both be grey, and the comparison entirely valid.

In the abortion debate we are discussing things like consciousness, sentience, personhood, rights, morality. And in that context a comparison between a 12 week old fetus and a toe nail can be very much a valid one. Why? Because they are both genetically distinct and individual entities and they both have EXACTLY THE SAME capacity for, and faculty of, human sentience and consciousness. That is to say: Zero. None. Nadda. Zilich. Bugger all. Nichts. Nothing. Diddly squat.

In terms of sentience and the faculty of sentience comparison between a 12 week old fetus and a toe nail, a rock, a table leg, or a dead fish are all very much valid. In fact the last one less so because at least the fish HAD the faculty at one point, even if it is entirely dead now. The fetus however has not got it, never at any point had it, and is a distinct period of time away from forming even the pre-requisites of it.

Ush1

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I presume people like yourself making the argument?

Zubeneschamali

Ush1 wrote: »

It will become a human, one that has the features you listed.

It may or may not. Many pregnancies end in miscarriage or stillbirth. Some are affected by fatal fetal abnormalities. The most we can say is that it will probably become a human in most cases.

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

pleas advice wrote: »

or theres just a fundamental disagreement on what it actually is, now.

Perhaps, but I am seeing no good faith on the anti choice side in exploring that disagreement through reason and discourse. Rather than simply shout the word "Human" at the issue as if that word alone, despite its multiple definitions for multiple contexts, will do the work for them.

I am very much open to fundamental disagreement on defining what it is and is not. But the anti side have not been forthcoming in engaging with that discussion in good faith.

In fact given there is now a cohort of them dodging my posts ENTIRELY and running away in terror whenever I post..... they are not forthcoming in engaging with that discussion AT ALL, let alone in good faith.

But time and again we hear these phrases of what it is "developing into" or what it will "become" or what it has "potential" to be. So I do not think your appraisal fits their narrative as closely as mine appears to. It very much does appear to be a difference of opinion of whether rights and concerns should be afford based on what something is NOW, compared to what it may be in the future.

Ush1

NuMarvel wrote: »

I don't think it's being disingenuous; it's clearly the basis for many people's position and I can see the logic of it. What's more it's obviously a sincerely held position and people aren't using it to evade difficult questions. And there's nothing in what people say that leads me to believe they don't realise it will become a human being at some point.

I personally don't use it because my knowledge of biology and foetal development is minimal, to say the least, so I wouldn't have the confidence to use it to support my positions. But seeing other posters use it is fascinating, from an educational perspective if nothing else (eg the comment about elbows not bending at 12 weeks gestation).

But what really jumps out to me is that two No supporters have posted in the thread since I asked my question, and none of them seem to want to answer it.

To me that sounds naïve.

I think when dogmatism comes to the fore on either side, it's nothing more than point scoring and a case where nobody on our side or none of our arguments can be wrong.

I think safe abortions are a good thing which I hope will come to pass, but intellectual dishonesty about livers and toenails just smacks of pettiness and a certain amount of mental gymnastics.

Ush1

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

It may or may not. Many pregnancies end in miscarriage or stillbirth. Some are affected by fatal fetal abnormalities. The most we can say is that it will probably become a human in most cases.

Yes, I was going to add that to my post but assumed it was implied.

Mr. CooL ICE

Mod: Reminder for everyone; if you suspect any poster of being a rereg or sockpuppeting, simply report the post and move on.

Please leave it to the mods to deal with. Otherwise it derails the thread.

NuMarvel

Ush1 wrote: »

I think safe abortions are a good thing which I hope will come to pass

Ditto.

Zubeneschamali

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am very much open to fundamental disagreement on defining what it is and is not. But the anti side have not been forthcoming in engaging with that discussion in good faith.

There is an argument which can be made, (although I have not seen any of our prolifers here make it) which goes:

Babies after birth are human beings.

Clearly one minute before birth they are exactly the same, bar their location and legal status. So we should protect them a minute before birth too.

While we may say that a fertilized cell shows none of the characteristics of a human being, there exists a continuum from that cell to the baby. There is nowhere in that continuum where we can draw a line and say before this event, this is not a baby and deserves no protection. Wherever we draw a line, we can see that before and after the line are the same, the line is arbitrary and so there is a risk that we get it wrong and kill a human being.

Therefore we should protect it from the one real event we can point to, fertilization, where it becomes a distinct genetic individual.

Ush1

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

In common speech by all means call it what you like. You can call it splundunky-woodily-wa-wa for all I care. But in a robust and intellectual discussion or debate the meanings of words become more important.

And this is ESPECIALLY true when the meanings of words are used to import implications that are not actually warranted at the time. Hence the discussion people have about how one side calls it a "fetus" at 12 weeks while the other side insists on calling it a "baby".

They are not doing that because of a "call it what you like" mantra. They are doing that as a contrived propaganda move to philosophically and emotionally humanize the fetus WAY before it's due. And due to that we can not simply maintain an open door "call it what you like" narrative. We have to police terms used for a propaganda agenda..... or just abandon all pretense at open and HONEST discourse entirely.

It's important if both sides are being disingenuous, which is certainly the case. It's not as important to me as I'm voting yes but can still see flaws with certain things being said on the yes side.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It depends on the point of comparison. Whether a comparison is valid or disingenuous depends NOT on the comparison itself but the context in which it is being compared. For example comparing a rock to your new car might sound ridiculous. However if the context is "Grey things" your car and a rock might indeed both be grey, and the comparison entirely valid.

In the abortion debate we are discussing things like consciousness, sentience, personhood, rights, morality. And in that context a comparison between a 12 week old fetus and a toe nail can be very much a valid one. Why? Because they are both genetically distinct and individual entities and they both have EXACTLY THE SAME capacity for, and faculty of, human sentience and consciousness. That is to say: Zero. None. Nadda. Zilich. Bugger all. Nichts. Nothing. Diddly squat.

In terms of sentience and the faculty of sentience comparison between a 12 week old fetus and a toe nail, a rock, a table leg, or a dead fish are all very much valid. In fact the last one less so because at least the fish HAD the faculty at one point, even if it is entirely dead now. The fetus however has not got it, never at any point had it, and is a distinct period of time away from forming even the pre-requisites of it.

Saying something has the same amount of sentience as something, is not the same as saying it's "closer" to something.

At the end of the day, a toenail is a toenail and a liver cell is a liver cell, the foetus eventually becomes a full "human". So in terms of it's "humanity" or whatever you like to call it, it is obviously not comparable to livers etc...

Ush1

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Clarifies what?

It's still a disingenuous statement, particularly from you as your response was "who cares".

RobertKK

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

There are two unique lives, that of the mother and that of her unborn.

Zubeneschamali

Ush1 wrote: »

ISo in terms of it's "humanity" or whatever you like to call it, it is obviously not comparable to livers etc...

Simply saying something is obvious does not make it true.

ELM327

RobertKK wrote: »

There are two unique lives, that of the mother and that of her unborn.

But that doesn't answer the question put to you.
Aren't you up a little late, it's probably getting close to 630 AM where you are.
Perhaps you're tired.

Ush1

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Simply saying something is obvious does not make it true.

Thanks again.

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

RobertKK

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Ask a question so it can be answered. I gave a valid answer but seemingly not the answer you had in your head

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ush1 wrote: »

I'm voting yes but I personally find the human/a human argument disingenuous. You can call it what you like the fact that you can't dispute is that it will become a human.

I think this is a really useful post to start a discussion on this because I feel a small point of confusion exists in what you are saying. And it exists in the non-sequitur between your two sentences here.

What I mean by that is that the "dispute" you mention in the second sentence is not an attribute of the "Human/a Human" distinction in your first.

So if your basis of thinking that distinction "disingenuous" is described in the second sentence, as it seems, then this is a simple error we can focus on and repair.

So let me do just that.

The distinction being made between "human / a human" is not at all, at any level, based on what it will become. Even less based on denial of what it will become.

Rather the distinction is based on honest introspection and an attempt to zero in on what it actually is we value when we concern ourselves with rights and morality and ethics.

The result of that introspection for me was to realize that right and ethics are in the business of mediating the actions of, and well being of, conscious creatures. Without that attribute there not only would BE no morality and rights.... there would be nothing to apply it or apply it to.

The fetus is not a consciousness or sentience at 12 weeks. It neither has that faculty, nor has it ever. As such there seems to be no coherent basis at that time to afford it rights, or moral and ethical concern.

THAT is the crux of the "Human / a Human" distinction. And as I said, it has nothing to do with what you described in your second sentence. Even if anyone was actually doing what you described in your second sentence. Which, to my knowledge, no one actually appears to be doing.

But...........

Ush1 wrote: »

I think when dogmatism comes to the fore on either side, it's nothing more than point scoring and a case where nobody on our side or none of our arguments can be wrong.

I am MORE than open to having my position on abortion changed. I am in no way invested in my conclusions or dogmatically dedicated to them. I can instantly and quickly be changed.

But to do so it would require a basis for affording rights to that fetus. And so far the only basis for claiming the fetus is an entity deserving of rights..... is to appeal to the idea it will BECOME an entity deserving of rights. Which is..... incoherent and desperate at best.

Ush1 wrote: »

Saying something has the same amount of sentience as something, is not the same as saying it's "closer" to something.

In terms of sentience it is perfectly valid. A fetus is closer to a toe nail than to a new born baby in terms of sentience. In that a toe nail and a fetus lack that faculty ENTIRELY. A new born baby does not. So it is certainly valid to say where the fetus lies on that continuum. It might leave a bad taste in the mouth to hear that comparison, but that does not invalidate the comparison.

Ush1

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I wasn't unclear on anything. What was supposed to have been clarified?

You personally have shown your argument to have no substance when I asked you about the similarities and you said "who cares".

BarleySweets

RobertKK wrote: »

Ask a question so it can be answered. I gave a valid answer but seemingly not the answer you had in your head

Are you intentionally lying here? On a different post, I asked you a valid question which you did not answer at all! Instead you rewrote my question to avoid having to reply to me with a valid answer.

So, Robert, why don’t you trust women?

.......

This post has been deleted.

RobertKK

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Can’t you just post a question when asked instead of this, because I don’t know what specific question as in a detailed question rather than some ambiguous question that you want answered and when answered still here complaining about an answered question not answered.