Abortion

Seachmall

partyatmygaff wrote: »

So the non-existent ones then...

The ones that launched the discussion in the first place.

I don't know what's happened to you. A few posts ago you were quite normal. Now you've turned sarcastic and somewhat childish.

Because after all that you resorted to Wiki which you as good as dismissed when I used it to make my point (along with Biology-online).

I find that frustrating.

It was central to the point I was making.

But the point wasn't relevant to the discussion, for example

You were disputing my claim that a child is essentially analogous to human offspring.

I was not disputing this at all. And I explicitly stated that 2 or 3 times.

I was disputing your claim that "child" was more than a colloquial use and was in fact widely used among biologists.

I gave my sources as to why I questioned it.

How is asking "What do you think of people who elect to kill their offspring?" a red herring in a discussion about abortion?

Because the discussion we were having had nothing to do with abortion.

It had to do with definitions.

Would you prefer I whitewashed it and twisted it to make it sound more palatable so that saying "I'd fully support that" would be acceptable?

Why would I? Didn't I say many pages ago I didn't fully support that after our discussion?

Let's see:
"What do you think of a woman electing to purge their body of a foreign organism?"

Ironically that would be another red herring. Unfortunately I'm out of YouTube videos.

partyatmygaff

Seachmall wrote: »

The ones that launched the discussion in the first place.

Whatever.

Because after all that you resorted to Wiki which you as good as dismissed when I used it to make my point (along with Biology-online).

I didn't dismiss it. I just said it's not the authoritative "Big book of biology" that you took it to be.

Ironically that would be another red herring. Unfortunately I'm out of YouTube videos.

Whatever. Have fun with your 1001 red herrings. There's no point in even continuing this discussion if you're just going to dodge every single iteration of the central question with a dodgy excuse.

Cognitive Cascade

Another pointless 'pro-abortion/atheist/liberal/secular/condescending "intellectual"/bla bla bla vs pro-life/religious/conservative/ bla bla bla thread that has as usual descended into a moronic pedantic semantic debate.

Take this crap to humanities not AH.

Seachmall

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I didn't dismiss it. I just said it's not the authoritative "Big book of biology" that you took it to be.

I never took it to be that.

But I didn't take your posts to be entirely representative of science either.

You presented one definition. Biology-online, for example, presented another.

It's not unreasonably of me to assume Biology-online is less likely to be biased given the nature of discussion in this thread.

Hence, I questioned it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Whatever. Have fun with your 1001 red herrings. There's no point in even continuing this discussion if you're just going to dodge every single iteration of central question with a dodgy excuse.

You stated something is fact. I questioned this. Our discussion was about the accuracy of this claimed fact.

You continually asked if the "fact" made more sense to me, which does nothing to support the fact itself. E.g. The question was "Is X true?", you asked "Doesn't it make sense that X would/should be true?".

You then asked me a question completely irrelevant to the discussion of this fact.

These are red herrings.

philologos

Seachmall: You tried that argument last time, as far as I can tell it didn't work rather well either. You got yourself into a situation where you claimed that the foetus was alive, and was human, but was not human life. That didn't make sense then, and it doesn't make sense now surely?

partyatmygaff

Seachmall wrote: »

You seem quite dismissive of the fact you presented many red herrings.

No, I'm dismissive of your nonsense. Nothing that I've posted in this thread has been a red herring. "Fact" indeed.

You stated something is fact. I questioned this. Our discussion was about the accuracy of this claimed fact.

You continually asked if the "fact" made more sense to me, which does nothing to support the fact itself. E.g. The question was "Is X true?", you asked "Doesn't it make sense that X would/should be true?".

"Fact"? That's an odd way of putting it.

I stated a definition of a concept. You presumably have some understanding of the world around you. You also presumably have some capacity to reason and judge definitions and their applicability to the concepts at hand. What you seem to have completely missed is I don't really care about "accepted definitions" and don't immediately latch on to other people's definitions of concepts and deem them authoritative. I see a phenomenon, I know a concept and I look for a foolproof way of defining the concept. All you did was find a definition, foolishly deemed it the authoritative and "accepted" definition and then defended it tooth and nail while labeling my definition biased and flawed. Then when you discovered that "my" definition was actually used by other people you started your "red herring" spiel.

You then asked me a question completely irrelevant to the discussion of this fact.

Yeah... so are you going to answer my question or can I just assume "No comment"?

Seachmall

philologos wrote: »

Seachmall: You tried that argument last time, as far as I can tell it didn't work rather well either. You got yourself into a situation where you claimed that the foetus was alive, and was human, but was not human life. That didn't make sense then, and it doesn't make sense now surely?

Actually PartAtMyGaff helped me form a better understanding of what constitutes a "human being"/person/etc. quite a while back.

I still disagree with you that a person becomes a person at fertilisation, and will continue to.

It's also not the same discussion we just had.

Cognitive Cascade

Seachmall wrote: »

I never took it to be that.

But I didn't take your posts to be entirely representative of science either.

You presented one definition. Biology-online, for example, presented another.

It's not unreasonably of me to assume Biology-online is less likely to be biased given the nature of discussion in this thread.

Hence, I questioned it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.


You stated something is fact. I questioned this. Our discussion was about the accuracy of this claimed fact.

You continually asked if the "fact" made more sense to me, which does nothing to support the fact itself. E.g. The question was "Is X true?", you asked "Doesn't it make sense that X would/should be true?".

You then asked me a question completely irrelevant to the discussion of this fact.

These are red herrings.

Seriously man, I saw your history of posts, do you do anything better to do on boards besides borderline-trolling religion, abortion, evolution and creation threads?

Edit: Spelling

coffee_cake

Cognitive Cascade wrote: »

Another pointless 'pro-abortion/atheist/liberal/secular/condescending "intellectual"/bla bla bla vs pro-life/religious/conservative/ bla bla bla thread that has as usual descended into a moronic pedantic semantic debate.

Take this crap to humanities not AH.

Cognitive Cascade wrote: »

Seriously man, I saw your history of posts, do you do anything better to do on boards besides borderline-trolling religion, abortion, evolution and creation threads?

Edit: Spelling

Do you do anything except complain?

partyatmygaff

Seachmall wrote: »

Actually PartAtMyGaff helped me form a better understanding of what constitutes a "human being"/person/etc. quite a while back.

I still disagree with you that a person becomes a person at fertilisation, and will continue to.

It's also not the same discussion we just had.

What are we even arguing about, incidentally? :pac:

As I recall, we were more or less thinking on the same wavelength until you posted that thing about the word "child" and this whole spiel about robust definitions and accepted definitions started.

Seachmall

Ah, fuck it.

Good game PAMG.

Yeah... so are you going to answer my question or can I just assume "No comment"?

Same as many pages ago.

Seachmall

Cognitive Cascade wrote: »

Seriously man, I saw your history of posts, do you do anything better to do on boards besides borderline-trolling religion, abortion, evolution and creation threads?

Edit: Spelling

I also masturbate a lot.

Cognitive Cascade

bluewolf wrote: »

Do you do anything except complain?

As a politics mod I assume you are an expert in that field.

coffee_cake

Cognitive Cascade wrote: »

As a politics mod I assume you are an expert in that field.

Yeah, we deal with whingers all the time

Cognitive Cascade

bluewolf wrote: »

Yeah, we deal with whingers all the time

Takes one to deal with one. :rolleyes:

nozzferrahhtoo

partyatmygaff wrote: »

How would you view people choosing to kill their offspring? (As apparently the word child bothers some people)

See it is this kind of attitude and question that suggests to every reader that you are not actually engaging this issue or the people posting on it. Clearly the vast majority of pro choice advocates here share your distaste and horror at the killing of children and "offspring". The attempts to paint it otherwise rather dig one into a hole rather than do anything to the "other" side.

The point is that there is a difference of opinion as to WHEN a developing fetus reaches a point at which protection from harm and death becomes a moral issue. That is all. Questions like the above suggest to the reader that you want to ignore that and simply paint this whole discussion as if it is simply a case of people who want to murder off spring versus people who do not. Which clearly is not going to resolve anything.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

You've misunderstood my post. What I said was that I don't agree with offering support for people who want to have an elective abortion

If that is what you meant then so be it, I am not here to tell you what you mean by your own posts. However I can tell you that this is NOT how it came across. You very clearly appeared to say that the counselling was to help convince people they made the correct moral choice. To use the counselling to try and make their choice seem "less immoral".

That is what you wrote and that is the meaning I took from it. Even now reading back on it I can not manipulate the words in that post to obtain the meaning you now claim to have intended. I can, and did, assure you however that this is not how counselling works or what it is for.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I'm not sure where you're going with this. "Life" is very clear-cut in biology, as is "individual".

In biology yes. But that is my point. You are wheeling a biology definition ("a" rather than "the" as the definition you are using is one of your own making but that's irrelevant to my point) into what is essentially a discussion on "morality" and "rights". This is a massive context change and the definitions usefulness is diluted by this.

Clearly just being "life" is not enough to assign something rights otherwise we would have massive moral issues from cutting down trees to eating meat. Something more substantive is required in order to ascertain and assign "rights" to someone.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I don't think it makes any sense to start calling an individual a child at some arbitrary number of weeks and prefer to stick to the time at which you can simply say a new individual life has begun.

Which is just as arbitrary in this context, especially when you include words like "prefer". It is just your cherry picked preference to choose this point in the development and aside from it being your preference it is not substantiated as a useful choice in any other way. That would be my main issue. I think if we want to establish a usable cut off point in this conversation we need to do it with deeper arguments and data than your preferences.

OldNotWIse

Sharrow wrote: »

That is exactly the 'logic' being used in the USA and what those 'personhood' bills which try and give human rights from conception will do, which is pretty much make illegal all types of hormoanal contraception and iuds and the map.

Surely that would lead to an increase in the need for abortions? If every woman who has ever taken the MAP had been denied it, how many abortions alone would that have led to?

partyatmygaff

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

See it is this kind of attitude and question that suggests to every reader that you are not actually engaging this issue or the people posting on it. Clearly the vast majority of pro choice advocates here share your distaste and horror at the killing of children and "offspring". The attempts to paint it otherwise rather dig one into a hole rather than do anything to the "other" side.

The point is that there is a difference of opinion as to WHEN a developing fetus reaches a point at which protection from harm and death becomes a moral issue. That is all. Questions like the above suggest to the reader that you want to ignore that and simply paint this whole discussion as if it is simply a case of people who want to murder off spring versus people who do not. Which clearly is not going to resolve anything.

If a gastrula is classified as offspring and an adult is classified as offspring, at what point does your offspring "transform" in to something worth protecting?

In biology yes. But that is my point. You are wheeling a biology definition ("a" rather than "the" as the definition you are using is one of your own making but that's irrelevant to my point) into what is essentially a discussion on "morality" and "rights". This is a massive context change and the definitions usefulness is diluted by this.

If biology is the study of life and its concepts and definitions are used to explain phenomena seen in life, what is the issue with relying on biology?

This is "life" we're living, right?

Clearly just being "life" is not enough to assign something rights otherwise we would have massive moral issues from cutting down trees to eating meat. Something more substantive is required in order to ascertain and assign "rights" to someone.

Such as? "At week X, it starts to look human". "At week Y, organ Z has formed".

The most important point of any individual's development is gastrulation. Seeing as it's such a significant point in an individual's life, I don't see a solid argument for any other point.

Which is just as arbitrary in this context, especially when you include words like "prefer". It is just your cherry picked preference to choose this point in the development and aside from it being your preference it is not substantiated as a useful choice in any other way. That would be my main issue. I think if we want to establish a usable cut off point in this conversation we need to do it with deeper arguments and data than your preferences.

My "preference" is based on a biological phenomena.

I view gastrulation as being the most important step in the formation of a new individual and it as that point they definitively attain an individual right to life.

When do you think a new individual is formed?

nozzferrahhtoo

partyatmygaff wrote: »

If a gastrula is classified as offspring and an adult is classified as offspring, at what point does your offspring "transform" in to something worth protecting?

My point exactly. That is the conversation you have to have and have to substantiate more than simply cherry picking easy points in time or in the development process. It is a question very much worth asking and answering and the answers will be hard won, not solved by applying ones personal preferences.

I know what my answers to it are but that is not so relevant given it is you, not I, that is here declaring the entire process of abortion to be immoral from end to end. As such it is your answers to those questions, not mine, that need to be discussed. However I have linked to mine more than once on the thread if you are in any way interested but let us not fall into the all too common trap of losing sight of the discussion we are having about your views by wholesale shifting that discussion to mine. I would rather conclude one before starting another. And I am more than happy to start that other.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

If biology is the study of life and its concepts and definitions are used to explain phenomena seen in life, what is the issue with relying on biology? This is "life" we're living, right?

Yes, but clearly "Life" is not enough to qualify a discussion on rights. There is a lot of "life" on the planet from ameoba to fungus to plants to animals and several classifications in between. Depending on how one defines "life"... and I have heard more definitions than I have had dinners at this stage... one can also sometimes include sperm and eggs in the definition. So simply declaring something to be "life" is not quite enough to reach the end line in a moral and rights based discussion otherwise you would have to apply those same morals and rights to all "life". Which clearly we do not.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

The most important point of any individual's development is gastrulation.

Again this is just cherry picked. There is no "most important" point in any meaningful sense. There is a whole series of "points" without which there would not be an individual. From ejaculation, to conception, to implantation, to much more. Without many of them the entire development collapses and stops so taking a mixed bag of indispensable points and declaring one of them the "most important" is cherry picked, arbitrary, white noise.

partyatmygaff

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

My point exactly. That is the conversation you have to have and have to substantiate more than simply cherry picking easy points in time or in the development process. It is a question very much worth asking and answering and the answers will be hard won, not solved by applying ones personal preferences.

I'm sorry but that sounds like a lot of empty rhetoric in the context of this thread.

I know what my answers to it are but that is not so relevant given it is you, not I, that is here declaring the entire process of abortion to be immoral from end to end.

I've never actually said that it's always immoral.

As such it is your answers to those questions, not mine, that need to be discussed.

Why? Are your answers immune or something?

However I have linked to mine more than once on the thread if you are in any way interested but let us not fall into the all too common trap of losing sight of the discussion we are having about your views by wholesale shifting that discussion to mine. I would rather conclude one before starting another. And I am more than happy to start that other.

Why are we discussing my views? As much as you'd like to think that they are, your views are no more inherently valid than anyone else's.

Yes, but clearly "Life" is not enough to qualify a discussion on rights. There is a lot of "life" on the planet from ameoba to fungus to plants to animals and several classifications in between. Depending on how one defines "life"... and I have heard more definitions than I have had dinners at this stage... one can also sometimes include sperm and eggs in the definition. So simply declaring something to be "life" is not quite enough to reach the end line in a moral and rights based discussion otherwise you would have to apply those same morals and rights to all "life". Which clearly we do not.

It's gotten past the stage of misunderstanding and now we're dangerously close to strawman territory. Re-read my earlier posts about the nature of particular lifeforms. At no point in this thread have I assigned rights to all life wholesale. Even at that, the section of my post you quoted was replying to your idea that we shouldn't use biological definitions in a debate like this to which I replied "Biology is the study of life and this is an issue in life, what is the problem?".

Again this is just cherry picked. There is no "most important" point in any meaningful sense. There is a whole series of "points" without which there would not be an individual. From ejaculation, to conception, to implantation, to much more. Without many of them the entire development collapses and stops so taking a mixed bag of indispensable points and declaring one of them the "most important" is cherry picked, arbitrary, white noise.

Nonsense.

I am talking about the point for defining the "start point" of an individual life. Obviously, there are many later stages that are essential for the development of the individual but there is only one stage that can be construed as "Individual human starts here".

nozzferrahhtoo

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I'm sorry but sounds like a lot of empty rhetoric.

And that is just an easy to write empty stock catch phrase that allows you to ignore what I wrote and move on without addressing a bit of it. I at least am directly addressing and contradicting what you say and explaining why I am saying it. I do not rely on stock cop out phrases.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I've never actually said that it's always immoral.

I am referring to when you declared that "Elective abortion is nothing short of immoral". The rigid nature of that declaration requires more substantiation than you are offering here. Especially since, aside from making the declaration, you have offered nothing to actually back it up.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Why? Are your answers immune or something?

Disinegenuous here. I said I am more than happy to discuss mine, have linked to them often, and have seen little sign you have read them let alone responded to them or even referred to them.

However I know its a common error and/or tactic in conversation to entirely shift the argument focus when cornered on a point to what the other persons opinions are. As such I am more than happy to discuss my opinions on the matter, and yours, but leap frogging between the two is unhelpful and makes discourse difficult so a more sequential approach is defensible.

Similar happens in religious discussions for example. It goes like "There is a god" "Why do you think that?" "Well how do you think humans got here" "By evolution" "Evolution is false because...." and now the whole conversation has quickly shifted from why the person thinks there is a god to whether evolution is true or not.

In short, refusing to defend ones views and quickly shifting the focus of the conversation to attacking someone else's is a common derail of a conversation, as such I would prefer to focus on your claims and when done there I am more than happy to discuss my own. Especially since it is you, not I, that is declaring abortion immoral so the case is yours to make, not mine, in a society that usually operates on the axiom of "Innocent until proven guilty".

partyatmygaff wrote: »

At no point in this thread have I assigned rights to all life wholesale.

That might not be your intention but when I unpack your claims and definitions that is all I am able to glean from them. Which is what I am trying to highlight to you. You may think you are right and even understand why you think you are right, but I am trying to show you from the outside perspective that your attempts thus far to adumbrate your reasoning are making said reasoning look wanting.

Having read what you are saying about how you define things like "Life" and "Individual" I am simply not seeing the path you are taking from those to declaring abortion immoral. As I said all I can see is a context free general definition of these words being wheeled wholesale and uselessly into this discussion and whole declarations of the morality of the subject being launched off the back of that. I am merely pointing out why I feel you need to do more work than that to get where you seemingly want to be.

In fact your next block of text provides me with a perfect example of this.....

partyatmygaff wrote: »

"Individual human starts here".

.... like "life" and "individual" it is important to know what you mean when you say "human" here too. Clearly containing Human DNA is not enough as then everything from sperm to cancer is "human".

The issue I am trying to highlight to you is that you are relying on very poorly and vaguely defined versions of words like "individual" "life" and "human" and appear to think that if you string those dilute terms into phrases like "human life" or "individual human" that you are slapping the entire discussion with a large QED.

In the context of what is essentially a discussion related to morality and rights I am seeing nothing on offer here to suggest a zygote or early term fetus qualifies for those rights. Nor does a vague application of the word "individual" help get me there.

partyatmygaff

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And that is just an easy to write empty stock catch phrase that allows you to ignore what I wrote and move on without addressing a bit of it. I at least am directly addressing and contradicting what you say and explaining why I am saying it. I do not rely on stock cop out phrases.

You're speaking as if you made a point that I ignored. You just said we need to discuss when life becomes worth protecting. That's exactly what we've been doing in this thread. I am of the opinion that individual human lives are worth protecting from the point of gastrulation as that is when it becomes clear that the organism is an individual human life. You are of the opinion that life only becomes worth protecting after a certain number of weeks when brain activity comes in to play.

I am referring to when you declared that "Elective abortion is nothing short of immoral". The rigid nature of that declaration requires more substantiation than you are offering here. Especially since, aside from making the declaration, you have offered nothing to actually back it up.

Yes I have. I view a gastrula as an individual human (As in one unique human organism which is what it definitively is) and I view electing to kill human organisms without good reason to be immoral. I don't see what more I need to say.

Disinegenuous here. I said I am more than happy to discuss mine, have linked to them often, and have seen little sign you have read them let alone responded to them or even referred to them.

Forgive me but your view is quite generic. I've seen it before and i've discussed it before with other people. You view that life begins when consciousness begins. Would you consider someone born unconscious (But with a prognosis to gain consciousness) worthy of protection?

However I know its a common error and/or tactic in conversation to entirely shift the argument focus when cornered on a point to what the other persons opinions are. As such I am more than happy to discuss my opinions on the matter, and yours, but leap frogging between the two is unhelpful and makes discourse difficult so a more sequential approach is defensible.

I don't know even know what to say to this. You're talking BS to try and make it seem that i'm "cornered on a point" and want to deflect the issue despite that not being the case in the slightest. To use your phrase, that's a very common tactic.

In short, refusing to defend ones views and quickly shifting the focus of the conversation to attacking someone else's is a common derail of a conversation, as such I would prefer to focus on your claims and when done there I am more than happy to discuss my own.

Again, strawmen and nonsense. I've been ardently defending my argument for the past few pages. Stop talking BS.

That might not be your intention but when I unpack your claims and definitions that is all I am able to glean from them.

Well, to put it rather bluntly that is your problem, not mine.

Having read what you are saying about how you define things like "Life" and "Individual" I am simply not seeing the path you are taking from those to declaring abortion immoral. As I said all I can see is a context free general definition of these words being wheeled wholesale and uselessly into this discussion and whole declarations of the morality of the subject being launched off the back of that. I am merely pointing out why I feel you need to do more work than that to get where you seemingly want to be.

I am using the biological definitions of life and individual as biology is the study of life and this is life. Hardly cherry picked.

.... like "life" and "individual" it is important to know what you mean when you say "human" here too. Clearly containing Human DNA is not enough as then everything from sperm to cancer is "human".

Deary me...

I'm not going to reply to this strawman again. Retire it or if you prefer not to, go talk to yourself or like-minded individuals in a "Let's all re-affirm our own views" thread.

In the context of what is essentially a discussion related to morality and rights I am seeing nothing on offer here to suggest a zygote or early term fetus qualifies for those rights. Nor does a vague application of the word "individual" help get me there.

Ok, I don't think we're getting anywhere with this discussion and your dishonest debating. I'm going to try and bring this to a close by outlining my rationale in brief.

My rationale:

• What makes us human in a general sense and what differentiates us from other animals are our "human characteristics" such as emotion, rational thought, acute self-awareness. A notion of "self" as you put it.
• However, not all humans are capable of displaying these characteristics at all times. Case in point: A baby born comatose due to complications in pregnancy but with a prognosis to gain consciousness. Patently, this child's life is worth protecting despite the fact they have not demonstrated consciousness or certain other human-other organism differentiating characteristics.
• As such, we need to look for another criterion upon which we can safely assign rights. Seeing as we cannot solely rely on consciousness or neural activity, we have to turn to something more fundamental in the stages of human life. To my mind, the ideal point for this can be found by observation of developmental phenomena. At the point of gastrulation, it can safely be said that the homo sapiens cells in question are indeed that of a single individual with little to no argument.
• Considering this gastrula as a biological entity will continue undisturbed in its nick-less life for potentially over 100 years throughout which it will have rights, I see no reason to deprive it of rights for the initial period in which current medical screening devices cannot measure brain activity. Even at that, as I said before, consciousness alone is not a robust criteria for human life.

Definitions:
Life: Any organism that meets the seven common characteristics of life.

Organism: An individual member of a species
Homo sapiens: Our species
Human organism: An individual member of our species
Human being: Any single human organism that displays the seven essential characteristics of life. Consciousness is not an essential characteristic of human life.

To further address your view: Consciousness is not an ideal way to assign rights to a human organism for it is not an absolute requirement of human life. In fact, it's not even uniquely human. Most other higher animals are "conscious", some even have some limited sense of self. Take for instance my earlier example of a child born comatose. This child who may have never displayed evidence of consciousness before may gain consciousness after some time. Does this mean that they gained rights only upon demonstration of consciousness or did they have rights prior to that? I think we can all agree that they had rights prior to that.


Edit: I'm leaving the thread for now (Although knowing me, I mightn't be able to stick to that promise). I'm in the middle of exams and this thread and its huge posts aren't helping.

nozzferrahhtoo

partyatmygaff wrote: »

You're speaking as if you made a point that I ignored.

No I am speaking as someone who is not impressed by stock meaningless empty phrases that say nothing and could literally be lifted out and dropped into any part of any other reply on any other post in any other thread anywhere on the forum. The same for things like “Deary Me” and other feigned faux exasperation designed to add nothing but posturing to a thread. So you will forgive me if I remove posturing from the rest of your post before I reply to it and just focus on the actual content:

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I am of the opinion that individual human lives are worth protecting from the point of gastrulation as that is when it becomes clear that the organism is an individual human life.

I know that. Hence the reason I have been replying saying that vague words like "individual" and "human" and "organism" sound good on paper but do not really cut it when you actually start to unpack the arguments. The sperm is an individual organism. Why does it not have rights? A tree and a pig are individual organisms but why are we allowed kill them when it suits us?

The reason is that clearly "individual" and "organism" are not enough to carry the issue very far. So we desperately throw in the word "human" but what is so special about "human"? What is so special about "human DNA"?

When one explores THAT question one starts to adumbrate a framework for how and why we consider "humans" important compared to tables, trees, rocks and pigs. With that frame work in place we find that a zygote or a barely differentiated fetus does not fit into that frame work and the house of cards you were building with these terms falls apart with no foundation.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

What makes us human in a general sense and what differentiates us from other animals are our "human characteristics" such as emotion, rational thought, acute self-awareness. A notion of "self" as you put it.

To a large degree I wholly agree with this. Which is why your position is so opaque to me at this time. These characteristics are the same ones I would refer to when I wrote just now "adumbrate a framework for how and why we consider "humans" important"

The issue is that when we look at sperm, zygotes and many other stages of human development not only are these subjective elements missing, the structures for even generating them are missing. So if this really is how you define "human" in the context of this discussion then it is bizarre to me that you are assigning rights to stages of fetal development that simply do not fit your own definition.

Even more bizarre is that what you then go on to say appears to amount to little more than throwing ones hands up and saying "Following the definition I just gave its all very difficult so lets give up and arbitrary cherry pick a much easier to deal with intellectually point and just run with that instead".

The analogy I often use is to liken the things you just listed to Radio waves. You are then worried about the status of those radio waves at a point when not only is the radio tower not broadcasting those waves.... the tower has not even been built and erected yet.

Comatose or not your imagined case still HAS these faculties of which we speak even if they are not operating correctly. The fetus has not even got that and as such as as much moral concerns in this regard as the leg of my dinner table.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Most other higher animals are "conscious", some even have some limited sense of self.

My point exactly. And I notice how are moral concerns for those creatures increases many fold as a result, which sort of makes my point for me. Clearly in the realm of morality and rights it is the faculty of consciousness we use as a bar. If not then you will have a hard time explaining why we are more morally concerned for the well being of the higher apes and dolphins compared to mice and carp. You make my point for me in other words that consciousness is inextricably one of, if not the single most, important things in any discussion of rights and morality.

partyatmygaff

One final post:

Lovely, you complain about my "posturing" despite you spending the past few posts using choice phrases like "I am merely pointing out why I feel you need to do more work than that" and other little condescending quips.

What with the strawmen you've been manufacturing and attacking and you ignoring the parts of my posts that you dislike (Or according to you: "Lack content") I think it would be best to cut this conversation short.

nozzferrahhtoo

partyatmygaff wrote: »

One final post:

Oh good. Another chance to test "Nozzferrahhtoo's 1st law of Internet forums".

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Lovely, you complain about my "posturing" despite you spending the past few posts using choice phrases like "I am merely pointing out why I feel you need to do more work than that" and other little condescending quips.

This is not intended to be condescending or a quip. It is how I view the problem of the discussion so far. There is clearly a point you are trying to reach morally in this discussion but the attempts to get there so far are not really sufficient.

Nor am I pointing that out and simply running away. It is not some stock throw away phrase like the one you opened post #1191 with. I am actually going to great lengths of time and text to explain exactly WHY I think your position needs more work. If you want a litimus test for whether something is a throw away posturing quip ask yourself simply "Could I lift it out of this post and stick it just about anywhere else". Stock throw away one liners almost invariably the answer is yes. My many paragraph long defense of why I think you are not quite reaching the place you are trying to reach however, not so much.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

What with the strawmen you've been manufacturing and attacking and you ignoring the parts of my posts that you dislike (Or according to you: "Lack content") I think it would be best to cut this conversation short.

Whatever way you want to reason your departure to make yourself feel ok about it is fine with me. There is no shame in leaving an internet discussion so I am constantly struck by peoples need to do so with some face saving parting ad hominem flounce.

I am aware of no strawmen however and the only parts of your posts I have "ignored" are the personal ad hominems, posturing and snide side comments that have a place in a verbal pissing contest but not really in an adult discussion on abortion.

Anything that was actually on topic to the thread and the discussion I have addressed... often multiple times... and if anyone** can spot an on topic piece of any of your posts I failed to address I will happily rectify that and/or point to where I think I did address it already and explain why. Consider that a promise.

(**I say anyone given you will not be posting to me again - pending another possible successful application of "Nozz's 1st law of Internet forums" that is).

partyatmygaff

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Oh good. Another chance to test "Nozzferrahhtoo's 1st law of Internet forums".

I don't like leaving people's comments about me and what I said left unanswered. If you think saying "Pfft... he always wants to have the last word" is going to give you a carte blanche to talk rubbish about me and my posts without reply, you're mistaken.

the only parts of your posts I have "ignored" are the personal ad hominems, posturing and snide side comments that have a place in a verbal pissing contest but not really in an adult discussion on abortion.

Our latest "thread of posts" in this topic:
My "trigger" post. Nothing inflammatory, quite calm and pleasant.
Your first reply. No issues yet.
My reply. Nothing untoward there.
Your reply. Strawmen, accusations of cherry picking and trying to deflect the point.
I point out the flaws and meaningless rhetoric in your preceding post and dismiss your strawmen as nonsense.
You reply with "YOU'RE using stock phrases." and a few more baseless accusations of my trying to deflect the point.
I reply to the accusations made in your last post. Dismiss them as BS and then outline my rationale.
You start talking about posturing despite your "You need to do more work" e.t.c. in past posts.

And here we are. I see a lot of snide comments but I think you may have the sides a tiny bit confused.

I'm done here. (Will you reciprocate on your "1st law" or will you take the air of "adult silence" in an attempt to appear superior to me? I wait with bated breath.)

nozzferrahhtoo

partyatmygaff wrote: »

If you think saying "Pfft... he always wants to have the last word" is going to give you a carte blanche to talk rubbish about me and my posts without reply, you're mistaken.

Despite the quotes I do not recall saying any such thing. I merely said this was another chance to test Nozz's "1st law of Internet forums" which states that "The probability of a user posting on a thread increases proportionally to the number of times said user claims (s)he will not be posting on that thread".

Keep an eye on it yourself over time. You will find the law applies a hell of a lot more often than it does not. Almost invariably when a user storms out claiming "I am not posting again" or "this is my last post" you can safely bet quite a lot of money that they will be back. Usually quite quickly too.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I'm done here.

And as we can see chances to apply the rule abound.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Will you reciprocate on your "1st law"

Huh? I have not claimed I am leaving the thread. The law is inapplicable to me therefore. So not sure what you mean here.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Our latest "thread of posts" in this topic:

I asked for anyone to show any on topic part of your posts I did not address. Not sure what this string of links is for but it does nothing for that request. I addressed every on topic piece of every link you just pasted. Maybe instead... in your next "last" post that you will not be posting but actually will.... you can quote and link to a part of a post in this thread that was on topic to the actual discussion of your opinion on abortion which you feel I "ignored". I think you will find there is no such thing, but I am more than happy to address now anything you find if that belief proves to be mistaken.

harperlee

The mad thing is, if men could get pregnant abortion clinics would be available in every pharmacy nationwide

partyatmygaff

harperlee wrote: »

The mad thing is, if men could get pregnant abortion clinics would be available in every pharmacy nationwide

The mad thing is that what you just said is mad. For more reasons than one.

harperlee

partyatmygaff wrote: »

harperlee wrote: »

The mad thing is, if men could get pregnant abortion clinics would be available in every pharmacy nationwide

The mad thing is that what you just said is mad. For more reasons than one.

It was a joke, get a life. Your ranting like a mad person in your posts. Go out for a walk and vent your anger like a normal person.