Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm going to be gone for a few days. I probably won't be back until Monday.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stepnking
This is the continuation of my original post. This is where I left off.
Well actually, the world can work anyway you want it........so long as you look at it a certain way. People attempt to prove that everyday.
As I mentioned in my last post...I think there are limits, although looking at things in different ways can expand our options for what's true a lot.
Quote:
I've already stated my opinion on that statement. The world works that way if you view it that way. I don't.
It works another way if you view it another way. You won't. See the problem?
I don't think there is a problem. What you seem to be thinking is that I'm saying "anything can mean anything I want it to mean." I'm not saying that at all. There are some things that, no matter how much I believe them, won't be true. For example, while I could say my sentience can live on in an albatross...I cannot say my self-awareness would...because the albatross lacks self-awareness, so far as anyone can tell. Furthermore, while my self-awareness could live on in other people, my unique personality can't...because no one will have my unique personality except for me.
It's hard for me to determine what you see the problem as being...so I'm not sure how to respond. I'm not sure what I could say that would better explain myself. Maybe I'll think of something after reading your other comments.
Quote:
Yes, I do.
If there never was anything, then there is nothing.
If there ever was anything, then there is something.
There's always something...whether it's rocks and trees or sperm or a recently fertilized egg...there's always something. What separates relevant somethings from irrelevant somethings is, so far as I can tell, whether or not that something dying results in anything unpleasant happening to it, or that it would not want.
I don't see that as a good refutal of my previous criticism.
Quote:
What makes you think a fetus doesn't mind dying? If it were possible to communicate with a fetus at any point prior to birth, you may find at the point of suction tugging at it, it may be very resistant.
When I've been saying that a fetus doesn't mind dying...I was talking about dying itself, rather than the common side-effects of dying such as pain and unpleasantness. Without the pain and unpleasantness, it has no way of minding dying.
With potential pain and unpleasantness though...we also have to take into consideration the unpleasantness of the very process of being born that could cancel that out through being equally unpleasant, and whatever other negative circumstances the would-be child might be born into that are the reason the parents are considering an abortion.
Here's a good summary of what I've read relating to fetuses potentially experiencing pain from abortions:
Davis, who was not involved with that review, noted that though it was published in 2005, the research is still valid, because the scientific community's understanding of fetal development is "pretty much stable." Indeed, since the publication of the review, "no research has contradicted its findings," said a recent statement from ACOG.
In the review, the researchers highlighted several key points in fetal development that are required in order for a fetus to perceive pain. One is that the receptors in the skin that sense an injury must be developed. Research has shown that this happens between 7.5 and 15 weeks of pregnancy, depending on the location of the receptors on the body, according to the review. For example, receptors in the skin around the mouth develop at around 7.5 weeks, whereas receptors in the skin on the abdomen develop at around 15 weeks, according to the review.
Second, the neurons in the spinal cord that transmit that signal up to the brain must be developed. Researchers who looked at fetal tissues reported that this happens at around 19 weeks, the review said.
Third, the neurons that extend from the spinal cord into the brain need to reach all the way to the area of the brain where pain is perceived. This does not occur until between 23 and 24 weeks, according to the review.
Moreover, the nerves' existence isn't enough to produce the experience of pain, the authors wrote in their review. Rather, "These anatomical structures must also be functional," the authors wrote. It's not until around 30 weeks that there is evidence of brain activity that suggests the fetus is "awake."
Davis noted that while these time frames aren't exact β some fetuses may develop a little earlier, and some fetuses may develop a little later β "there isn't any science to suggest that those pathways [for pain] are complete around the 20th week" of pregnancy.
There is never a zygote, or any other stage of a fetus that is not developing. To again repeat, pregnancy is not static. From the time of conception there is never a time development is not taking place.
I don't see how that's relevant.
Quote:
What if there are no adults in the room. Who does the fetus look to then.
There will always be adults somewhere. I don't know what you're getting at here.
Quote:
From my perspective, it sounds like you're arguing that we should be constantly encouraging parents to have 0 children. I know you're not...because almost no one will see it as a good thing to encourage every mother to abort their children.
You correctly judged my views, and I could understand people having that criticism of the ways I've described the views I've stated so far. I do not believe it would be a good thing to be constantly encouraging parents to have 0 children.
However...I've never done that. I've only argued that, if parents don't want children, in most circumstances, they should be allowed not to have them, and society should be basically fine with that.
There are people who believe it is morally wrong for human beings to procreate. They're called anti-natalists. I'm not one of them. I see existence as a neutral state. My perspective is: there is no reason to create new life, unless that new life will assist existing life. Life doesn't gain anything from coming into existence, because before it existed, there was no one to gain anything.
The purpose of creating a child can only ever be to assist the parents, or society...typically the parents... and if the parents don't want the child, I'll typically see no reason for the child to be born.
Quote:
This takes us back to my ever, never statement. There are a lot of 'hypothetical' older childs that came from a fetus. In fact all of your friends, family, acquaintances and everyone else in the world came from a fetus. There are a lot of us 'hypotheticals' running around. We all I suppose, would be a lot happier if we had been 'protected' by not coming into existence. That's not my view of how the world works.
And here I'll delve more into some of my disagreements with anti-natalists.
The difference I see between most of us here today and those would-be people who've been aborted is that, those of us here today presumably brought our parents joy through our existence, and therefore our creation served a valuable purpose.
Even if all life would ideally not exist...that'll never happen anytime so, and it'll always be possible for life to improve other life around itself through its existence.
However, if all life ended...I don't think I can say that would necessarily somehow be worse than all life continuing on for longer. It would depend very much on how that occurred. Are we talking about some slow, gentle population decline? Are we talking about everyone suddenly disappearing at once, before we can react? I can't say either of those circumstances would necessarily be worse than people continuing on. Are we talking about some pandemic causing a population decline? Well...in that case, that's a lot of additional suffering. That could very plausibly be worse than continued existence.
I'm mostly just concerned about causing needless harm. Preventing parents from getting abortions would appear to cause more harm than it avoids, nearly all of the time. Forcing abortions would cause great unhappiness...as would certain rude ways of encouraging them. We might as well let parents do what they want to do, most of the time.
Now...I have heard people encourage certain types of abortions...and I've done that too at times...generally relating to certain genetic disorders, birth defects or the choice of giving the child up for adoption or abortion...but I believe its possible to do that without being rude. Oftentimes, making those sorts of points is about making logical arguments centering around how to reduce harm, rather than trying to pressure anyone into anything.
By that standard, a woman who is gang-raped after she's been drugged into oblivion suffers no trauma as she is not 'awake' during the violence.
Incorrect. There was a woman who existed before the violence, who could fear such an act. You can't say that about fetuses.
Let's say she experienced no physical damage, and learned about it through a video recording. Even in that event, something occurred to her she did not want to happen, and the people who've engaged in that crime have shown they're willing to steal things from others.
Legalizing such things would make civilization collapse through everyone being terrified all the time. None of that applies to abortion.
You just said absolutely nothing, and doubled down on the fact that you donβt even know your own position.
Nope, you just ignored what I said, and I know exactly my position. I didn't feel the necessity to clear it through you. I did not look up the definition of "who" before the post. I didn't imagine it to be the lightning rod issue that would send you running to the dictionary or to google to make your idiotic claim.
Quote:
If someone asks βwho are youβ, they are asking βwhat person are youβ. You are the person with what identity. The concept βwhoβ subsumes and presumes that the referent is a person. Because you donβt like that the definition of a word disagrees with your claim does not allow you to stamp up and down and demand that words donβt have meanings and donβt refer to concretes. Well, you can and you are, but that just means your frustrated and prostrated.
Itβs all about personhood. And always was. And your position in stating that who you are is more important than what you are makes it clear that personhood is the beginning and end of this argument. You effectively claim that a fertilized egg is a person. Just like all the other anti-choice irrationalists.
My. "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!" I'll review for you what I have said about "personhood" and how I have used the term 'you'.
In response to another poster, I said:
Quote:
But again, you say a fetus has no sentience, which I do not disagree in the primary stages, then how does something that doesn't exist 'continue on after I die (am aborted)?
When I agree there is no sentience in the primary stages of a fetus, obviously I am not saying there is personhood.
Here is another of my posts prior to your EUREKA moment before 'catching' me.
Quote:
You didn't amazingly pop into you mothers womb at 16 weeks, or whatever time frame suits your fancy. 16 weeks from what? You were 'you' at the beginning, at conception. Did your mother say "I'm pregnant" before the 16 weeks? She knew more than you do. You may as well say because you had no knowledge or awareness of anything outside the womb, you wouldn't have missed anything if you never popped out, even if you ceased to exist in the third trimester. What the fetus is or isn't aware of is insignificant. It (you) is a living human with development from the time of conception through the nine month gestation period to birth, and for the however many years forward you are alive, you are a developing work in progress.
Hmm, didn't 'catch' that did you. Must not have thought those 'you' were speaking of personhood. Likely because they weren't. Then all of a sudden, 'you' takes on a whole different meaning and you are up swinging in the rafters about my use of the word 'you'.
That brings us to the comment you quoted. Instead of taking just a portion of it, let's look at the context of the entire statement.
Quote:
Show me where I've called a fertilized egg a person. I'll say this for about the third time, I am not arguing 'personhood'. It is you who is arguing personhood must be achieved before a fetus deserves to live. And if the fertilized egg did not become 'you', who then? Someone else? I said your mothers fertilized egg was 'you'. That fertilized egg contained all the chromosomes and DNA that you and only you will ever possess. Contains all those unique and unchanging identifiers which will shape you and track you for the rest of your life. If that doesn't solidify your identity as to who you are, I don't know what does.
Then the only part of the post you deem important while dismissing everything else.
Quote:
I think the identity of who you are rather than than what you are is more important in the first weeks of development. Development will be everchanging through your entire life. Identity(DNA) will remain the same from conception to grave.
Who you are--identity. Full set of chromosomes and DNA more important than
What you are--a mass of cells.
I don't care about your insinuation. I don't care about your selective use of Webster. Most rational people will recognize my meaning here is no different than any of the other times I used the word you overlooked numerous times. You won't, because you're not.
Nope, you just ignored what I said, and I know exactly my position. I didn't feel the necessity to clear it through you. I did not look up the definition of "who" before the post. I didn't imagine it to be the lightning rod issue that would send you running to the dictionary or to google to make your idiotic claim.My. "Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive!" I'll review for you what I have said about "personhood" and how I have used the term 'you'.
In response to another poster, I said: When I agree there is no sentience in the primary stages of a fetus, obviously I am not saying there is personhood.
Here is another of my posts prior to your EUREKA moment before 'catching' me.Hmm, didn't 'catch' that did you. Must not have thought those 'you' were speaking of personhood. Likely because they weren't. Then all of a sudden, 'you' takes on a whole different meaning and you are up swinging in the rafters about my use of the word 'you'.
That brings us to the comment you quoted. Instead of taking just a portion of it, let's look at the context of the entire statement. Then the only part of the post you deem important while dismissing everything else.
Who you are--identity. Full set of chromosomes and DNA more important than
What you are--a mass of cells.
I don't care about your insinuation. I don't care about your selective use of Webster. Most rational people will recognize my meaning here is no different than any of the other times I used the word you overlooked numerous times. You won't, because you're not.
I wonβt give this hysterical tantrum any more consideration than it is due. You tripped yourself up and now you are trying desperately to rehabilitate that which cannot be rehabilitated. The posts are out there, let the jury decide. I have other matters to attend to.
By that standard, a woman who is gang-raped after she's been drugged into oblivion suffers no trauma as she is not 'awake' during the violence.
No. A woman has transformed and changed to a person and as such has rights whether sleeping or awake. A fertilized egg has no rights, no consciousness, no viability, no sentience, no mechanisms for thinking or feeling, no nothing. Bad analogy, like all the rest. Judgment for reason. Pay the court clerk.
I wonβt give this hysterical tantrum any more consideration than it is due. You tripped yourself up and now you are trying desperately to rehabilitate that which cannot be rehabilitated. The posts are out there, let the jury decide. I have other matters to attend to.
Way ahead of you. I'm tired of asking questions for which you offer no answers.
You answered a question with a question. Why can Ireland see a good reason to allow abortion, and you canβt?
Why can't you see that legislatures and courts have legally defined a fetus as a human and the killing of such as homicide?
Quote:
But to entertain your nonsense: homicide may or may not be murder, and may or may not be lawful. Some homicides are legal, lawful, and good. If you want to define abortion as homicide, then that would be the good kind that is lawful, rational, moral, beneficial, and a good way to rectify an unintentional fertilization.
The only legally permissible homicide is one committed in self-defense when one's own life is at stake. The vast majority of abortions do not meet that criteria. The vast majority of abortions are sought and performed for only the sake of "convenience." It's "inconvenient" for the woman to have to deal with the known possible outcome of deliberately choosing to have sex with a male partner - a pregnancy.
True enough. But if a mother can kill the kid, surely the father can just walk away.
I believe in reality, not equality. If you have the penis you should know that if you take part in creating a fetus that actually becomes a child and gets born you will face a lifelong responsibility.
That works both ways. If you have ovaries and a uterus, are of childbearing age, and are not surgically sterilized, you should know that if you take part in creating a fetus, you have accepted the responsibility of having a child.
Either both are responsible, or neither are responsible. If women don't have to accept responsibility for a child that results from their deliberate sexual activity, neither do the men who fathered a child.
He's a forced-birther for men only, not women. Utter hypocrite.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
