Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Again the distinction is between "life" as in the biological sense and "Life" as in the philosophical sense of a Human Person and a Human Life. Nothing to do with you not knowing the colour of the sun. I capitalised one to help you tell the difference.
No one seems to be taking issue with the biological terms of life. Yet somehow you think they are. So you are arguing a straw man really. Nothing more.
The simple fact is we end "life" all the time on this planet. You can not deny that. So simply saying something is "life" is not enough to construct the argument you want to pretend you have.
So the question is do you actually have a point/argument or are you simply here to remind people of things they a) know already b) never disagreed with in the first place?
My point was and is that people like to warp "when life begins" to suit their agenda. Simple.
My statement was that life begins at cellular fusion. Simple.
That's it.
Yet you are still here bringing in "philosophy", "ethics", "morality", "law". What you are doing, need it be explained, is adding in "here today, gone tomorrow" belief systems to distort away from the incontrovertible starting point of the "argument" on abortion. Life, not "my convenient version of life", begins at one single point in time, and it will never be any different.
You're trying to create an argument out of a simple statement.
And THAT, sums up so much of convenient thinking.
Now that that's out of the way, let's draw a line.
—
Answer me this. Including all your belief systems, when do you consider "life" begins? Taking your morality and ethics and philosophies into account.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I wouldn't consider myself necessarily "anti abortion", but it is interesting to pressure certain opinions and watch them fall asunder.
I am not sure ignoring a persons answer and then claiming they did not answer is suggesting that it is THEIR position "falling asunder" to be honest 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Ehhhhh I gave you TWO answers. Pretending I did not answer when I blatantly did has sent you beyond dishonest at this point.
See above, already answered.
To keep them talking! I suspect that a large part of our victory in the referendum was not because we WON it, but they LOST it. We talked to them, and they hung themselves with their own answers and points.
I keep talking to them, because they keep doing it! It is like drawing the chalk outline of a dead body on the pavement, and they just come along and lie down in it.
You're gas
"I gave you two answers!"
Yeah, to one question, and without including any tangible answer.
What's the matter, have you an aversion to backing up yourself without waffling till the cows come home?
When does life begin for you? The answer is a number, a statement of time. 3 weeks? 5 months?
Can't answer? Or won't?0 -
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »I am not sure ignoring a persons answer and then claiming they did not answer is suggesting that it is THEIR position "falling asunder" to be honest
Sorry, I must have missed your answer.
What was it again? 6 weeks and 2 days?0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Sorry, I must have missed your answer.
What was it again? 6 weeks and 2 days?
Not great on the old reading are you? I can copy and paste my answer to help you. But remember you WANTING a numerical answer does not mean I have to give one. You asked a question and I gave MY answer to it. Not yours. Mine.
In terms of biology I do not really disagree MUCH with your simplistic "fusion" notion. The biological life of a new individual entity pretty much can be said to start there. No one appears to be disagree with you on that. We could get pedantic, talking about how it is not yet distinct from the mother, or how it is not really the beginning of life but just one step in an ongoing life CYCLE. But it would be pointless. I think we can flag that as common ground.
In terms of philosophy, which is actually what is relevant to abortion in a way biology is not, I think Life (again, capital L here to make the distinction) starts when the entity attains the faculty of sentience. The biological starting point is simply not ethically relevant to my mind, nor has anyone in over 20 years discussing and researching this debate given me a single argument why it might/should.So you won't answer.
I will not give the answer YOU want no. But I did answer.
I think biological life can safely be said to start at conception in most senses.
The Life of a Human Person however I believe starts when the faculty of sentience/consciousness arises. We do not know an exact time line on that. I do not think there even is one. There is no on/off moment I suspect.Rather it is a slow boot up process over several weeks. Likely somewhere between week 28 and week 34 of gestation. Estimations vary.
What we do know however is that a fetus at 12 weeks or 16 weeks.... you know when nearly all abortions by choice actually occur.... are a LONG way from having not just that faculty, but nearly all of it's pre-requisites too. I see no reason to consider that a "Life" in anything but the basic biological sense.Full of shyt, that's what your answer is. And you full well know it.
Oh so now suddenly you are acknowledging that i did answer. Despite dishonestly claiming I did not. Funny that. 0 -
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Not great on the old reading are you? I can copy and paste my answer to help you. But remember you WANTING a numerical answer does not mean I have to give one. You asked a question and I gave MY answer to it. Not yours. Mine.
In terms of biology I do not really disagree MUCH with your simplistic "fusion" notion. The biological life of a new individual entity pretty much can be said to start there. No one appears to be disagree with you on that. We could get pedantic, talking about how it is not yet distinct from the mother, or how it is not really the beginning of life but just one step in an ongoing life CYCLE. But it would be pointless. I think we can flag that as common ground.
In terms of philosophy, which is actually what is relevant to abortion in a way biology is not, I think Life (again, capital L here to make the distinction) starts when the entity attains the faculty of sentience. The biological starting point is simply not ethically relevant to my mind, nor has anyone in over 20 years discussing and researching this debate given me a single argument why it might/should.
I will not give the answer YOU want no. But I did answer.
I think biological life can safely be said to start at conception in most senses.
The Life of a Human Person however I believe starts when the faculty of sentience/consciousness arises. We do not know an exact time line on that. I do not think there even is one. There is no on/off moment I suspect.Rather it is a slow boot up process over several weeks. Likely somewhere between week 28 and week 34 of gestation. Estimations vary.
What we do know however is that a fetus at 12 weeks or 16 weeks.... you know when nearly all abortions by choice actually occur.... are a LONG way from having not just that faculty, but nearly all of it's pre-requisites too. I see no reason to consider that a "Life" in anything but the basic biological sense.
Oh so now suddenly you are acknowledging that i did answer. Despite dishonestly claiming I did not. Funny that.
"what is 2+2?"
"well it's very complicated, you can't just give an answer. Philosophically, "" what are numbers"" anyway? Ethically, I don't believe I should have to answer, and morally the answer is 17"
Yeah, very useful information that amounts to diddly squat.
It's all convenient excuses. You know that if you had an answer, an actual numerical answer to a numerical question, you'd have to stick to it. You'd have to justify it. You'd have to have conviction and actual founded belief.
But, if you talk in circles, you can bend waffle to mean whatever you want, whenever you want.
How convenient.
And when one considers that such slithering avoidance is put into practice against indisputable simplistic fact, just imagine the mental meltdowns of engaging with that crap in actually complicated issues.
No wonder people are walking around in a daze in this country, they're being bombarded with double-speak shoite day in day out. What a strategy.0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Why do you keep splitting answers into different areas?
To try and get you to answer? While pretending I did not answer, when I did, you have managed not to answer my direct questions. Again: Who exactly are these "people" you are talking about? Perhaps if I could figure out who they are I will get a more coherent picture of their position than you have thus far provided vicariously on their behalf. I suspect these people are straw men of your construction and aside from a small handful of random individuals they do not actually exist outside your imagination.So? What's the final answer? All combined? You said it's all important to consider. You've obviously considered it. So... "I don't know". Is that the sum total of all this?
I think on the subject of abortion it is important to consider when the fetus becomes an entity for which we should have moral and ethical concern. Absolutely. I think it not just important, I think it is KEY.
I think it becomes such when sentience arises in it. We do not know EXACTLY when this is, but we have a general ball park figure. In fact I believe there IS no "exact" value. I think it varies from fetus to fetus a little. And I think it is likely not a simple on/off process but a drawn out iterative one over the course of some time.
However I also know that all our science suggests this happens LONG after abortion usually occurs. It happens somewhere after 28 weeks. The near totality of choice based abortion happens at 12 weeks. And it is for this reason that A) I think the biological "start" of life is irrelevant and
I see absolutely nothing morally or ethically wrong with such abortion and C) I do not think people are actually disagreeing with the biological "start" of life despite your pretence and imagination to the contrary.
What part of that answer is not clear to you?0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »To try and get you to answer? While pretending I did not answer, when I did, you have managed not to answer my direct questions. Again: Who exactly are these "people" you are talking about? Perhaps if I could figure out who they are I will get a more coherent picture of their position than you have thus far provided vicariously on their behalf. I suspect these people are straw men of your construction and aside from a small handful of random individuals they do not actually exist outside your imagination.
I think on the subject of abortion it is important to consider when the fetus becomes an entity for which we should have moral and ethical concern. Absolutely. I think it not just important, I think it is KEY.
I think it becomes such when sentience arises in it. We do not know EXACTLY when this is, but we have a general ball park figure. In fact I believe there IS no "exact" value. I think it varies from fetus to fetus a little. And I think it is likely not a simple on/off process but a drawn out iterative one over the course of some time.
However I also know that all our science suggests this happens LONG after abortion usually occurs. It happens somewhere after 28 weeks. The near totality of choice based abortion happens at 12 weeks. And it is for this reason that A) I think the biological "start" of life is irrelevant and I see absolutely nothing morally or ethically wrong with such abortion and C) I do not think people are actually disagreeing with the biological "start" of life despite your pretence and imagination to the contrary.
What part of that answer is not clear to you?
So you believe life only begins at sentience.
Id ask "why?" but what's the point.
Do you think it's convenient that your personal, ill-defined definition of life just so happens to be after most people get abortions?
It's handy, that.
Have you ever had an ethical conversation with yourself that doesn't end up justifying what you want? Food for thought.
And I'm done with this. An exercise in frustration that went nowhere except back to hazy, vague convenient beliefs. Good luck.0 -
-
-
-
So not answering the question then? Run forest run!So you believe life only begins at sentience.
I believe "Life" as in personhood begins then yes. And I think that is what most people mean when they talk about "Life" in the context of abortion.
I think the reason you can not answer the question about who these people are is because of that. There is pretty much NO ONE disagreeing with the biological terminology of when "life" begins. You just pretended there was and when called on it, and explained what they likely were saying, you have basically run away from the original claim.
What I suspect people are actually doing is the same thing I am doing. Making a distinction between biological "life" and the "Life" of a human being. And you could not tell the difference.
Hopefully now you can. IF nothing else I hope I did you that service so you do not embarrass yourself with a sweeping claim without foundation like that one again.Do you think it's convenient that your personal, ill-defined definition of life just so happens to be after most people get abortions?
I am not sure convenient is the right word. I could not care less one way or another. My interest is in what is TRUE about the world. My interest is in forming morals and ethics that are couched in what is real and important in our world.
If sentience arose before most abortions occurred I would campaign AGAINST abortion. I would be on this thread arguing AGAINST abortion with the same passion I argue for choice.
It doesn't, so I don't.
I think what you are trying to suggest, from your strawman collection again, is that I am invested in abortion so I just went looking for arguments to support that position. Nothing could be further from the truth. My moral and ethical world view was formed first. My position on abortion came as a result of that, not a pre-requisite of it.Have you ever had an ethical conversation with yourself that doesn't end up justifying what you want? Food for thought.
Very often in fact yes. For example I find the fact I a meat eater very hard to justify given the current state of meat farming. While I try to source my meat as ethically as humanly possible, I realise that I eat meat DESPITE my morality on the issue and that I am on the subject of meat basically immoral and a hypocrite.
I do all I can to improve the ethics around meat farming, but I am weak and I have not the moral character to become vegetarian. But yes, that is one example of MANY where I have had ethical conversations with myself that do not justify what I want. There are others. Most of them I stay true to my moral conclusions and deny myself the thing I want. For some reason when it comes to meat, I am quite weak however.And I'm done with this. An exercise in frustration that went nowhere except back to hazy, vague convenient beliefs. Good luck.
Well then if you ever wish to return and attempt to NOT rely solely on those vague convenient beliefs you might find it less frustrating. I know I do, which is why I put a lot of effort in the last 20 years to form a coherent, rational, evidence based approach to the otherwise emotive topic of abortion. You should try it.
I would like to test out "Nozzferrahhtoo's first law of internet posting" however which states that "The probability of a user posting again in a conversation goes up in direct proportion to the number of times they claim to be finished" It is a law I made up as a joke, but has been validated many more times than not in he past. Let's see if it strikes again shall we? 0 -
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »So not answering the question then? Run forest run!
I believe "Life" as in personhood begins then yes. And I think that is what most people mean when they talk about "Life" in the context of abortion.
I think the reason you can not answer the question about who these people are is because of that. There is pretty much NO ONE disagreeing with the biological terminology of when "life" begins. You just pretended there was and when called on it, and explained what they likely were saying, you have basically run away from the original claim.
What I suspect people are actually doing is the same thing I am doing. Making a distinction between biological "life" and the "Life" of a human being. And you could not tell the difference.
Hopefully now you can. IF nothing else I hope I did you that service so you do not embarrass yourself with a sweeping claim without foundation like that one again.
I am not sure convenient is the right word. I could not care less one way or another. My interest is in what is TRUE about the world. My interest is in forming morals and ethics that are couched in what is real and important in our world.
If sentience arose before most abortions occurred I would campaign AGAINST abortion. I would be on this thread arguing AGAINST abortion with the same passion I argue for choice.
It doesn't, so I don't.
I think what you are trying to suggest, from your strawman collection again, is that I am invested in abortion so I just went looking for arguments to support that position. Nothing could be further from the truth. My moral and ethical world view was formed first. My position on abortion came as a result of that, not a pre-requisite of it.
Very often in fact yes. For example I find the fact I a meat eater very hard to justify given the current state of meat farming. While I try to source my meat as ethically as humanly possible, I realise that I eat meat DESPITE my morality on the issue and that I am on the subject of meat basically immoral and a hypocrite.
I do all I can to improve the ethics around meat farming, but I am weak and I have not the moral character to become vegetarian. But yes, that is one example of MANY where I have had ethical conversations with myself that do not justify what I want. There are others. Most of them I stay true to my moral conclusions and deny myself the thing I want. For some reason when it comes to meat, I am quite weak however.
Well then if you ever wish to return and attempt to NOT rely solely on those vague convenient beliefs you might find it less frustrating. I know I do, which is why I put a lot of effort in the last 20 years to form a coherent, rational, evidence based approach to the otherwise emotive topic of abortion. You should try it.
I would like to test out "Nozzferrahhtoo's first law of internet posting" however which states that "The probability of a user posting again in a conversation goes up in direct proportion to the number of times they claim to be finished" It is a law I made up as a joke, but has been validated many more times than not in he past. Let's see if it strikes again shall we?
To the bolded: are you seriously insinuating that my arguments are vague etc? You have literally replaced my argument by putting yourself into my sentence. Are you mental?
To the point. Here is the choice at hand:
1) believe in straight up biology that presents the simple truth that life begins at cellular fusion. It is simple. Easily understood. Clearly defined, right down to a divisible second of time, nano seconds if you like. It presents a barrier to many abortion arguments and opinions.
2) believe in something far more vague, in your case, sentience. It isn't clearly defined, it isn't intuitive, it can't be pinned down to time and so on. In other words, very convenient for certain abortion arguments. Very handy belief to have!
So, you'll excuse me if I suspect that anyone who prefers vague beliefs that can change on a dime, versus basic biology.
Imagine that the likes of nasa found a cellularly differentiating "thing" on another planet, only to declare, "no big deal, it's just a "yoke".
Hence MY argument on vague, hazy, malleable "reasoning". Get it?0 -
Advertisement
-
Well nozzferrahhtoos law strikes again it seems I notice you STILL did not answer the question though? You can't can you?To the bolded: are you seriously insinuating that my arguments are vague etc?
Well yes! Very much. You have talked about some vague "people" who are making some vague comments about when "life" starts but when asked who these people are, and what they are actually saying and where, you simply run away.
So yes, given that lack of response for you I think calling your position "vague" here is actually quite restrained.
Get it?1) believe in straight up biology that presents the simple truth that life begins at cellular fusion. It is simple. Easily understood. Clearly defined, right down to a divisible second of time, nano seconds if you like. It presents a barrier to many abortion arguments and opinions.
That's just it though. It does not present any such barrier at all. Nor have you explained why it presents one, just declared that it does! So.... vague again it seems!! Consistent at least.
Get it?2) believe in something far more vague, in your case, sentience. It isn't clearly defined
And yet there is no moral argument against abortion without it. In fact without it there would seemingly not even be morality or ethics in the first place! If morality and ethics are not in the business of mediating the well being of sentient creatures... then what IS it for exactly?
Get it?Imagine that the likes of nasa found a cellularly differentiating "thing" on another planet, only to declare, "no big deal, it's just a "yoke".
Well it would be a big deal because it would teach us about life, would forward our understanding of the universe and biology, and much more. However would we have any moral concern for any individual within it's species? I doubt it. I can think of no reason why we would. The moment it's existence threatens our well being, we would not hesitate to annihilate it. In fact if we found some alien dog for example, it likely would not be long before we kill it cut it open and see how it works inside. We would have likely little to no moral concern for it. We would hack it to pieces quite likely.
Now if we found a SENTIENT species on another planet, with a sentience akin to our own for example, that would likely change everything. Or if we created a genuine artificial intelligence on our planet, we would likely be compelled to have moral and ethical concern towards it's well being.
If I could separate your mind from your body and ask your loved ones which one they want to save, because I will destroy the other.... I think we both know which they would choose and why.
If a person was running from a burning building and could save a box with 100 spiders, or a box with one SINGLE cat... again I think we know which they would save and why.
In every case it is not the underlying biology that is valued. It is the relative level of sentience and conscous experience and capacity for well being and suffering that is likely the most important attribute in play.
So regale me: What moral and ethical concern should we have, and why, towards a not just slightly but ENTIRELY non-sentient agent. Do you even know?
Get it?Hence MY argument on vague, hazy, malleable "reasoning". Get it?
Oh yes I get your argument on vague lazy malleable "reasoning". I am just hoping at some point you will present one that is NOT vague, hazy, malleable "reasoning" and is based on something concrete.
Get it?0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »So not answering the question then? Run forest run!
I believe "Life" as in personhood begins then yes. And I think that is what most people mean when they talk about "Life" in the context of abortion.
I think the reason you can not answer the question about who these people are is because of that. There is pretty much NO ONE disagreeing with the biological terminology of when "life" begins. You just pretended there was and when called on it, and explained what they likely were saying, you have basically run away from the original claim.
What I suspect people are actually doing is the same thing I am doing. Making a distinction between biological "life" and the "Life" of a human being. And you could not tell the difference.
Hopefully now you can. IF nothing else I hope I did you that service so you do not embarrass yourself with a sweeping claim without foundation like that one again.
I am not sure convenient is the right word. I could not care less one way or another. My interest is in what is TRUE about the world. My interest is in forming morals and ethics that are couched in what is real and important in our world.
If sentience arose before most abortions occurred I would campaign AGAINST abortion. I would be on this thread arguing AGAINST abortion with the same passion I argue for choice.
It doesn't, so I don't.
I think what you are trying to suggest, from your strawman collection again, is that I am invested in abortion so I just went looking for arguments to support that position. Nothing could be further from the truth. My moral and ethical world view was formed first. My position on abortion came as a result of that, not a pre-requisite of it.
Very often in fact yes. For example I find the fact I a meat eater very hard to justify given the current state of meat farming. While I try to source my meat as ethically as humanly possible, I realise that I eat meat DESPITE my morality on the issue and that I am on the subject of meat basically immoral and a hypocrite.
I do all I can to improve the ethics around meat farming, but I am weak and I have not the moral character to become vegetarian. But yes, that is one example of MANY where I have had ethical conversations with myself that do not justify what I want. There are others. Most of them I stay true to my moral conclusions and deny myself the thing I want. For some reason when it comes to meat, I am quite weak however.
Well then if you ever wish to return and attempt to NOT rely solely on those vague convenient beliefs you might find it less frustrating. I know I do, which is why I put a lot of effort in the last 20 years to form a coherent, rational, evidence based approach to the otherwise emotive topic of abortion. You should try it.
I would like to test out "Nozzferrahhtoo's first law of internet posting" however which states that "The probability of a user posting again in a conversation goes up in direct proportion to the number of times they claim to be finished" It is a law I made up as a joke, but has been validated many more times than not in he past. Let's see if it strikes again shall we?
Do you enjoy this?0 -
-
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Do I enjoy coming to a forum created for the purposes of discussion and debate.... and then engaging in discussion and debate?
Well yes, I do. It would be seriously an odd thing to do if I didn't doncha think?
Do you enjoy it?
It passes time when I'm neurotically bored.0 -
nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »Well nozzferrahhtoos law strikes again it seems I notice you STILL did not answer the question though? You can't can you?
Well yes! Very much. You have talked about some vague "people" who are making some vague comments about when "life" starts but when asked who these people are, and what they are actually saying and where, you simply run away.
So yes, given that lack of response for you I think calling your position "vague" here is actually quite restrained.
Get it?
That's just it though. It does not present any such barrier at all. Nor have you explained why it presents one, just declared that it does! So.... vague again it seems!! Consistent at least.
Get it?
And yet there is no moral argument against abortion without it. In fact without it there would seemingly not even be morality or ethics in the first place! If morality and ethics are not in the business of mediating the well being of sentient creatures... then what IS it for exactly?
Get it?
Well it would be a big deal because it would teach us about life, would forward our understanding of the universe and biology, and much more. However would we have any moral concern for any individual within it's species? I doubt it. I can think of no reason why we would. The moment it's existence threatens our well being, we would not hesitate to annihilate it. In fact if we found some alien dog for example, it likely would not be long before we kill it cut it open and see how it works inside. We would have likely little to no moral concern for it. We would hack it to pieces quite likely.
Now if we found a SENTIENT species on another planet, with a sentience akin to our own for example, that would likely change everything. Or if we created a genuine artificial intelligence on our planet, we would likely be compelled to have moral and ethical concern towards it's well being.
If I could separate your mind from your body and ask your loved ones which one they want to save, because I will destroy the other.... I think we both know which they would choose and why.
If a person was running from a burning building and could save a box with 100 spiders, or a box with one SINGLE cat... again I think we know which they would save and why.
In every case it is not the underlying biology that is valued. It is the relative level of sentience and conscous experience and capacity for well being and suffering that is likely the most important attribute in play.
So regale me: What moral and ethical concern should we have, and why, towards a not just slightly but ENTIRELY non-sentient agent. Do you even know?
Get it?
Oh yes I get your argument on vague lazy malleable "reasoning". I am just hoping at some point you will present one that is NOT vague, hazy, malleable "reasoning" and is based on something concrete.
Get it?
"i'm vague? no you're vague!". You have the reasoning of a child.
All this argument over the one of the easiest to grasp concepts in science. What does that say about your "20 years" of deep thought?!
You completely ignore points, fabricate others, and, I believe, intentionally misconstrue.
It is clear to anyone reading this exchange. Your one hope is that you can hide your shortcomings underneath an avalanche of spurious text.
And lastly, if something was found on Mars by nasa, and it wasn't YET sentient enough for you by some make-it-up-as-you-go amount of time, you'd be the kind of dope to stand on it and kill it.
Pointless, pointless, pointless. You have agitated me with your simpleton evasions, and I can only assure you that in person, in an actual debate, I would make a holy show of you.
But, it's the Internet, and another lump of time lost to eejits.
Now, let me guess... Everything I just said, you'll reverse it. Genius . Good bleedin' night 0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement