The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

seamus

Hector Savage wrote: »

Ah they do now ...

Not from where I'm standing. From where I'm standing, all of the silencing tactics are coming from the pro-life side; whether that's tearing down posters or making complaints to venues to try and get pro-choice events cancelled.

Both have been at it in the past, but the pro-life side appear to have really ramped it up.

YEah, Im not pro life though ???

This is what it uses;
https://blocktogether.org/#details

I had considered writing a "crowdsourcing" blocking extension, and a couple of issues occurred to me - you appear to have encountered one of them. In this case, someone using the "repeal shield" has blocked you. And by extension this means that everyone using it, has blocked you.

Which is a great idea in theory for weeding out trolls and bots, but if someone using this extension blocks you for another reason, then you get filtered out too.

A better system would take multiple factors into account before auto-blocking anyone. But any road, these are personal twitter users, so their method of selecting who and why to block anyone, is entirely up to them. Nobody has a right to not be blocked.

As said above, your are not "giving" your vote to anyone. This is not about being courted by either side until you make a decision. Look at the facts and make up your own mind. Anyone who casts a vote in a referendum based on the behaviour of either side, is an idiot.

Mousewar

Flying Fox wrote: »

I decided to educate myself, read up on the medical facts, and decide where I can draw the line. From doing this, I realised pretty quickly that a foetus of less that 12 weeks cannot be considered as valuable as the life of an actual born person. At that early stage it is not a sentient being and it cannot feel pain. As the pregnancy goes on, of course the foetus develops towards being an actual baby, but under 12 weeks it is very much a potential life.

This is a classic Nozz-ism.
Medical facts didn't tell you that a foetus less than 12 weeks is not as valuable as the life of "an actual born person". You have decided it isn't and that's fine. You have decided that a lack of pain perception and sentience means it has less value. That may be true but I'm not sure what one's criteria can be exactly to determine the value of a life or indeed by what right we consider ourselves capable of making such a judgement.

Nozzferrahtoo has described the pre-16 week foetus as a "blueprint" which is manifestly false. A blueprint does not become the thing it describes - a blueprint is just a piece of paper. He then latterly described it as 'merely a self-building blueprint' which might be more accurate but a self-building blueprint would be such a uniquely remarkable thing that using it as an argument to lessen the value of something would be counter-productive. I'm not sure if he himself has ever described the early foetus as a "clump of cells" but it's a popular one. It might be accurate but I don't find it a particularly compelling analogue - we're all just bunches of cells.

Ultimately, I don't think we have a right to decide what parameters we place on human life as if the lack of x, y, or z determines that one human life is less valuable than another. We don't say that an infant's life is less valuable than an adult's because the former's sentience is less than the latter's. We don't say that an Alzheimer's life has less value because their sentience is diminishing. We don't dismiss the value of the life of the person suffering from congenital analgesia because they can no longer feel pain.

Anyway, all of this language (blueprints and bunches of cells) is merely designed to devalue the life of the unborn which I don't think is necessary or indeed right when considering this referendum. I'll be voting Yes for the simple reason that it's a woman's body and a woman's baby inside her and it's up to her whether she wants to allow her body to continue serving that baby or not. I don't need to lessen the life of the unborn to do that.

Zubeneschamali

Mousewar wrote: »

Ultimately, I don't think we have a right to decide what parameters we place on human life as if the lack of x, y, or z determines that one human life is less valuable than another.

And yet we have laws that do exactly that. We need laws that do exactly that.

And right now, those laws are bad, and need updating.

ELM327

Mousewar wrote: »

This is a classic Nozz-ism.
Medical facts didn't tell you that a foetus less than 12 weeks is not as valuable as the life of "an actual born person". You have decided it isn't and that's fine. You have decided that a lack of pain perception and sentience means it has less value. That may be true but I'm not sure what one's criteria can be exactly to determine the value of a life or indeed by what right we consider ourselves capable of making such a judgement.

Nozzferrahtoo has described the pre-16 week foetus as a "blueprint" which is manifestly false. A blueprint does not become the thing it describes - a blueprint is just a piece of paper. He then latterly described it as 'merely a self-building blueprint' which might be more accurate but a self-building blueprint would be such a uniquely remarkable thing that using it as an argument to lessen the value of something would be counter-productive. I'm not sure if he himself has ever described the early foetus as a "clump of cells" but it's a popular one. It might be accurate but I don't find it a particularly compelling analogue - we're all just bunches of cells.

Ultimately, I don't think we have a right to decide what parameters we place on human life as if the lack of x, y, or z determines that one human life is less valuable than another. We don't say that an infant's life is less valuable than an adult's because the former's sentience is less than the latter's. We don't say that an Alzheimer's life has less value because their sentience is diminishing. We don't dismiss the value of the life of the person suffering from congenital analgesia because they can no longer feel pain.

Anyway, all of this language (blueprints and bunches of cells) is merely designed to devalue the life of the unborn which I don't think is necessary or indeed right when considering this referendum. I'll be voting Yes for the simple reason that it's a woman's body and a woman's baby inside her and it's up to her whether she wants to allow her body to continue serving that baby or not. I don't need to lessen the life of the unborn to do that.

The comparison with Alzheimers is a good one.
There is legal basis to rescind a contract signed by someone with Alzheimers as they were not of sound mind. Generally (depending on severity) they will have a carer and an appointed medical and legal proxy. Be that formally or informally.

So as the sentience is lessening, the legal status of "person" and the associated rights, privileges and expectations also lessen.
Now as there is always some sentience, even if just for a few seconds on a rotating basis, it is not the same as an embro or foetus, but you can see it is a lessened form of existence.

Zubeneschamali

ELM327 wrote: »

Now as there is always some sentience, even if just for a few seconds on a rotating basis, it is not the same as an embro or foetus, but you can see it is a lessened form of existence.

And when sentience is gone - brain death - we chop people up for parts.

Mr. CooL ICE

Mod: Thread has gotten too big. Nice shiney new thread open over here.