Abortion

OldNotWIse

Pushtrak wrote: »

What is actually happening is denying the rights of those who can't afford the flight to England. That is a better approximation on reality.

Clarity is fine. The point remains the same. I consider it a greater wrong to abort a human life.

OldNotWIse

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not really. It pays to try and be clear in these things. For example note now how you are using "Right" singular rather than "rights" plural in the original post I replied to. That alone makes the position you have back pedaled to much clearer and instantly changes much of the meaning.



Odd how you can be so baffled given we have a 94 page thread here punctuated by many of us explaining exactly how we justify it. I have also linked many times to how I personally justify it.



Look very carefully at your choice of words here. It has the potential to "develop into" a human. Very precisely what that language says is that it is not human now. So see, you actually make the pro-choice point for them with your own words.

It either is human.... or it is not human. It can not be both ways. And if it only has the potential to become human then you are very clearly saying it is not human now.

And if it is not human now, then it does not get "human rights". Conversation pretty much over.

I think the poster specifically referred to developing into a "fully functional" human being, which a fetus is not. Neither is an infant btw (a fully functioning human being, being reliant on its mother for everything) - this doesnt make the infant a non-human entity.

nozzferrahhtoo

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I dont know about speaking for anyone else but I suspect not a lot of people vote like this, though I have been known to be wrong a few times One only needs to look at the amount of people who recently voted No to "get at the government"...

I have no idea how many do, as I said I can only speak for myself, but certainly in my own happy slappy ideal world people using their vote would do so in a logical, informed, and intelligent way and not based on emotion or to piss off a government.

Is that the reality? No not at all. No reason I should not still point out the ideal though.

nozzferrahhtoo

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I think the poster specifically referred to developing into a "fully functional" human being, which a fetus is not. Neither is an infant btw (a fully functioning human being, being reliant on its mother for everything) - this doesnt make the infant a non-human entity.

Irrelevant to the point I am making. The fact that we are talking about potential here, rather than what something actually is, is what is telling.

I am a potential murderer and rapist. No one locks me up for that. The murderer and rapist in a jail is a potential rehabilitant and upstanding member of society. We do not release him based on that.

We make these decisions based on what someone IS not what someone has potential to be. Why is "potential" suddenly a magic ticket in the abortion debate therefore? It either is a human and therefore deserves human rights.... or it is not. We can not have it both ways.

philologos

At any rate, for those advocating 24 week abortions, it is problematic as many children born before that point have survived ex-utero. There is little to no difference between a premature baby at that point ex-utero from in-utero. This logic even caused some Australian bioethicists to suggest that infanticide would be acceptable.

The argument on putting an X week rate is as arbitrary as the juggling 8914 apples up Mt Snowdon on a BMX point of development. It assumes something only becomes alive at an X point of development despite the fact that it has been biologically alive long before that point. The X point of development argument is flawed and it is entirely arbitrary.

king_of_inismac

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

king_of_inismac wrote: »

I wasn't "back pedaling". I think it's obvious in a discussion about abortion that the right I was referring to was the right to life, rather than the right to vote.

Not really. It pays to try and be clear in these things. For example note now how you are using "Right" singular rather than "rights" plural in the original post I replied to. That alone makes the position you have back pedaled to much clearer and instantly changes much of the meaning.

king_of_inismac wrote: »

My point about the choice of date is that all dates are problematic. When pro-choice people say 24 weeks, I'm baffled at how they justify this date.

Odd how you can be so baffled given we have a 94 page thread here punctuated by many of us explaining exactly how we justify it. I have also linked many times to how I personally justify it.

king_of_inismac wrote: »

The strand of DNA you refer to has the potential to develop into a fully functioning human. That's the difference for me.

Look very carefully at your choice of words here. It has the potential to "develop into" a human. Very precisely what that language says is that it is not human now. So see, you actually make the pro-choice point for them with your own words.

It either is human.... or it is not human. It can not be both ways. And if it only has the potential to become human then you are very clearly saying it is not human now.

And if it is not human now, then it does not get "human rights". Conversation pretty much over.

I think the conversation is "pretty much over" because you tend to argue over semantics rather than the substance.

Pretty disappointing from someone who calls themselves a "liberal".

Bowing out of debate. Enjoy!

coffee_cake

we're talking about abortion here and you're complaining we should be more wishy washy?

OldNotWIse

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Irrelevant to the point I am making. The fact that we are talking about potential here, rather than what something actually is, is what is telling.

I am a potential murderer and rapist. No one locks me up for that. The murderer and rapist in a jail is a potential rehabilitant and upstanding member of society. We do not release him based on that.

We make these decisions based on what someone IS not what someone has potential to be. Why is "potential" suddenly a magic ticket in the abortion debate therefore? It either is a human and therefore deserves human rights.... or it is not. We can not have it both ways.

But you wont just "become" a rapist or murderer if left to your own devices for 9 months. It is a certainty (assuming no complications) that a fetus that is not interfered with or destroyed will become an infant once it gestates and passes through the birth canal. It has already started on the journey.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

At any rate, for those advocating 24 week abortions, it is problematic as many children born before that point have survived ex-utero.

Poor point I am afraid. For a couple of reasons.

First they survive in many cases because we use our technology to supplement what is missing from a "normal" birth. So essentially this is still the potential argument restated. It is the same potential argument, only the fetus is realizing that potential in a more artificial setting.

Second at best this is just an argument not against abortion, but against slightly reconsidering the 24 week cut off. Which is fine by me as I generally advocate something in the 16-20 week area.

nozzferrahhtoo

king_of_inismac wrote: »

I think the conversation is "pretty much over" because you tend to argue over semantics rather than the substance.

Ah yes, the old "Just make some generalized derisory comment about points you can not address and run" tactic. You can either answer my points, or you can not. Throw away cut and run comments aid no one. In fact did you even bother to read any of my post before replying because for example....

king_of_inismac wrote: »

Pretty disappointing from someone who calls themselves a "liberal".

..... I never once called myself a liberal ever... not on this thread or any other... and I challenge you to find and quote where I did. I trust when you fail to do so you will have the decency to retract the error and actually reply to what I said this time?

Noodleworm

the pro life arguments just don't make sense to me, unless their vegan, against the death penalty types.
Its not even defined as a foetus until week 10. Before that is plenty of time for the woman to notice her missed period and find out she's pregnant. At this stage its about as complex a being as a sea monkey.

nozzferrahhtoo

OldNotWIse wrote: »

But you wont just "become" a rapist or murderer if left to your own devices for 9 months.

You do not know that. If left alone I very much could become either.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

It is a certainty (assuming no complications) that a fetus that is not interfered with or destroyed will become an infant once it gestates and passes through the birth canal.

Far from a certainty given something upwards of 15% of pregnancies miscarry. However you are just restating the same argument here with different words. The potential argument. I asked why potential is a magic card here when it is not anywhere else, and you reply only by restating the potential argument. That hardly answers my question.

Again: It either is a Human being deserving of rights.... or it is not. It is not both. If it is not then conversation over, abortion is fine. If it is then I am yet to hear the arguments for why it is and I do not see how saying "Well it is not now but it most likely will be later" gets you anywhere.

It would be like selling a table on e-bay and when the customer arrives you hand him a blue print and some wood. You then answer "Dude, where is the table" with "Here it is" and then answer "That is not a table" with "Well everything is there so it is potentially a table" before hammering in one nail and saying "And now it has started on it's journey!!!".

king_of_inismac

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

king_of_inismac wrote: »

I think the conversation is "pretty much over" because you tend to argue over semantics rather than the substance.

Ah yes, the old "Just make some generalized derisory comment about points you can not address and run" tactic. You can either answer my points, or you can not. Throw away cut and run comments aid no one. In fact did you even bother to read any of my post before replying because for example....

king_of_inismac wrote: »

Pretty disappointing from someone who calls themselves a "liberal".

..... I never once called myself a liberal ever... not on this thread or any other... and I challenge you to find and quote where I did. I trust when you fail to do so you will have the decency to retract the error and actually reply to what I said this time?

From your post in the previous page:

I was what people obsessed with labels would call liberal and atheist


Good luck!

nozzferrahhtoo

Noodleworm wrote: »

Its not even defined as a foetus until week 10. Before that is plenty of time for the woman to notice her missed period and find out she's pregnant.

Indeed. In fact figures show that 88% of abortions happen before 12 weeks. The 24 week cut off in much of the states is probably over kill for choice abortion and a cut off in places like Ireland of 16 would likely facilitate most requirements.

nozzferrahhtoo

king_of_inismac wrote: »

From your post in the previous page:

I was what people obsessed with labels would call liberal and atheist

Exactly my point. I never once called myself a liberal ever. In my life, not just on this thread. If you read again what you just pasted I am talking about me as being what OTHER people label as liberal and atheist. They are two labels I have never (in the case of the former) and very very rarely (in the case of the latter) use about myself.

So you prove my point for me that you are not even reading what you are replying to and you blatantly changed something I did say into something I did not, and then refused to retract it when caught out which is very telling.

king_of_inismac

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

king_of_inismac wrote: »

From your post in the previous page:

I was what people obsessed with labels would call liberal and atheist

Exactly my point. I never once called myself a liberal ever. In my life, not just on this thread. If you read again what you just pasted I am talking about me as being what OTHER people label as liberal and atheist. They are two labels I have never (in the case of the former) and very very rarely (in the case of the latter) use about myself.

So you prove my point for me that you are not even reading what you are replying to and you blatantly changed something I did say into something I did not, and then refused to retract it when caught out which is very telling.

Symantecs!

nozzferrahhtoo

king_of_inismac wrote: »

Symantecs!

Hardly. If two things mean completely different things that is hardly semantics. If we were arguing over two things that essentially mean the same thing that would be semantics.

One is something I did say. One is something I did not say. That is not semantics. That is a difference.

Assuming of course you did mean Semantics and you were not inexplicably actually talking about the Anti Virus software from Norton which is the spelling you used.

Thanks however for proving Nozzs first rule of discussion forums though which essentially states "The likelihood of a person posting again on a thread increases proportionally to the amount of times he claims he has just bowed out".

king_of_inismac

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

king_of_inismac wrote: »

Symantecs!

Hardly. If two things mean completely different things that is hardly semantics. If we were arguing over two things that essentially mean the same thing that would be semantics.

One is something I did say. One is something I did not say. That is not semantics. That is a difference.

Assuming of course you did mean Semantics and you were not inexplicably actually talking about the Anti Virus software from Norton which is the spelling you used.

Thanks however for proving Nozzs first rule of discussion forums though which essentially states "The likelihood of a person posting again on a thread increases proportionally to the amount of times he claims he has just bowed out".

My sincerest apologies. Since you've now also corrected my spelling, you're obviously right.

Pushtrak

king_of_inismac wrote: »

My sincerest apologies. Since you've now also corrected my spelling, you're obviously right.

Actually, since he is right, he is right.

You say he referred to himself as liberal, when he actually stated it was what other people called him. You see a difference. Clearly. You deleted your post.

nozzferrahhtoo

king_of_inismac wrote: »

My sincerest apologies. Since you've now also corrected my spelling, you're obviously right.

Glad to be of service. However now to return to post #1417. If you want to actually reply to my post at any stage then do, but lets not use the "cut and run" throw away cop out phrases.

To use your own point however, this debate very much is reducible to arguing semantics and linguistics. Just look at the posts from philologos for example. His entirely argument is based on nothing but using a linguistically vague definition of "Human Life" and then simply declaring that the zygote is human life and therefore should be protected.

When almost the entire anti abortion campaign is based on linguistic propganda in this way it is hard to avoid having to argue on that level.

Turtwig

king_of_inismac wrote: »

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

king_of_inismac wrote: »

From your post in the previous page:

I was what people obsessed with labels would call liberal and atheist

Exactly my point. I never once called myself a liberal ever. In my life, not just on this thread. If you read again what you just pasted I am talking about me as being what OTHER people label as liberal and atheist. They are two labels I have never (in the case of the former) and very very rarely (in the case of the latter) use about myself.

So you prove my point for me that you are not even reading what you are replying to and you blatantly changed something I did say into something I did not, and then refused to retract it when caught out which is very telling.

Symantecs!

Sorry but this quite a pathetic response. Nozz explained quite clearly what he meant by HIS own words. You had quite clearly misunderstood him, which is fine, that happens to all of us. But instead of admitting so you have the arrogance to put another meaning in his post and chalk it down to semantics. How would you feel if someone misunderstood you, you explained the misunderstanding and that person persisted on with the misunderstanding because well those were the words used?

king_of_inismac

Jernal wrote: »

king_of_inismac wrote: »

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

king_of_inismac wrote: »

From your post in the previous page:

I was what people obsessed with labels would call liberal and atheist

Exactly my point. I never once called myself a liberal ever. In my life, not just on this thread. If you read again what you just pasted I am talking about me as being what OTHER people label as liberal and atheist. They are two labels I have never (in the case of the former) and very very rarely (in the case of the latter) use about myself.

So you prove my point for me that you are not even reading what you are replying to and you blatantly changed something I did say into something I did not, and then refused to retract it when caught out which is very telling.

Symantecs!

Sorry but this quite a pathetic response. Nozz explained quite clearly what he meant by HIS own words. You had quite clearly misunderstood him, which is fine, that happens to all of us. But instead of admitting so you have the arrogance to put another meaning in his post and chalk it down to semantics. How would you feel if someone misunderstood you, you explained the misunderstanding and that person persisted on with the misunderstanding because well those were the words used?

If I wrote "I was as people obsessed with labels would call a feminist", I think that would imply that I at least had some interest in feminism.

Also, please relax. I don't have a problem with nozz. He has passionate beliefs. I just don't happen to agree with them

Pushtrak

king_of_inismac wrote: »

If I wrote "I was as people obsessed with labels would call a feminist", I think that would imply that I at least had some interest in feminism.

With enough differences that you don't feel comfortable enough to self identify.

Edit: Very different from -

king_of_inismac wrote: »

Pretty disappointing from someone who calls themselves a "liberal".

nozzferrahhtoo

king_of_inismac wrote: »

If I wrote "I was as people obsessed with labels would call a feminist", I think that would imply that I at least had some interest in feminism.

Hard to say. It does not take much for people to slap a label on you even if you have no interest or affinity with that label. For example I got labelled "Totalitarian" recently for the crime of highlighting when people make unsubstantiated claims.

To be honest I have even got very little concept of what "Liberal" even means. All I know in the context of the post you replied to is A) I have been called it many times and Most people I have heard called that are also pro-choice. And essentially my point was that I do not like to find that I hold "default" positions on things like abortion... so I try to explore the arguments for them and make sure those positions I hold actually are rational and defensible.

Turtwig

Jeez, a few of my friends slap the label of "Catholic" on me - I am anything but.

OldNotWIse

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You do not know that. If left alone I very much could become either.



Far from a certainty given something upwards of 15% of pregnancies miscarry. However you are just restating the same argument here with different words. The potential argument. I asked why potential is a magic card here when it is not anywhere else, and you reply only by restating the potential argument. That hardly answers my question.

Again: It either is a Human being deserving of rights.... or it is not. It is not both. If it is not then conversation over, abortion is fine. If it is then I am yet to hear the arguments for why it is and I do not see how saying "Well it is not now but it most likely will be later" gets you anywhere.

It would be like selling a table on e-bay and when the customer arrives you hand him a blue print and some wood. You then answer "Dude, where is the table" with "Here it is" and then answer "That is not a table" with "Well everything is there so it is potentially a table" before hammering in one nail and saying "And now it has started on it's journey!!!".

The only reason a point has to be re-stated is if the same question is being asked. You are far less likely to become a rapist than a fetus is to become an infant. Your 15% miscarriage rate is nothing more than a point scorer, it is not a stand alone point. (Incidentally I certainly hope 85 % of men "left to their own devices" do not become rapsts)

I cant remember the poster, but someone has pulled you up on your pedantics recently and I have to agree. When an argument reaches a low where people are comparing an unborn baby to everything from E.coli germs to tables and rapists...its hit a low.

philologos

15% miscarriage (and I would need citations on that figure) isn't relevant in determining as to whether or not humans should abort other human lives.

Humans often die in tragic circumstances, it doesn't mean that we as a result should take a proactive role in killing.

It's like arguing that because people die naturally that we should be able to kill. The reasoning is pretty much, bad stuff happens, so why can't I join in?

nozzferrahhtoo

OldNotWIse wrote: »

The only reason a point has to be re-stated is if the same question is being asked. You are far less likely to become a rapist than a fetus is to become an infant.

You know nothing about me on which to base such a probabilistic estimate. I would love to see your workings. It is always great to see people talk about what is more or less likely to occur when they have not got the data to make the estimates. One can not even know the odds of getting an ace of hearts from a deck of cards if one did not know how many cards are in a deck and how many of them are the ace of hearts. Yet with zero knowledge about me personally you can make estimates on the probability of me performing a certain action.

The point however is that all you are doing is stating, and restating, the "potential" argument. When someone pokes a hole in that argument you simply restate it. Yet not once have you answered the question put to you: Why is potential suddenly a magic ticket in this topic?

If it is a potential human then it is NOT human. It can not be both. In a discussion which, as this one does, essentially reduces to human rights then you need to ground the decision to allocate human rights to something on a lot more than saying it might be human one day if left alone.

OldNotWIse wrote: »

I cant remember the poster, but someone has pulled you up on your pedantics recently and I have to agree.

Reply to the post, not the poster. This ad hominem stuff has no use here. I guess it is just easier to throw out words like "pedantic" than actually address points being made. That really is a "low" for any conversation when it happens.

**Vai**

This thread has hit such a low its on par with dwarf abortion.

nozzferrahhtoo

philologos wrote: »

15% miscarriage (and I would need citations on that figure)

^ Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (May 2003). "The investigation and treatment of couples with recurrent miscarriage". Guideline No 17. Retrieved October 20, 2010.

Actually if we are going to be pedantic the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) studies reveal that anywhere from 10-25% of all clinically recognized pregnancies will end in miscarriage. I just threw out 15% as a middle ground as the exact figure was not important to my point.

philologos wrote: »

isn't relevant in determining as to whether or not humans should abort other human lives.

Nor did anyone claim it was but I guess since you are still pretending not to be reading any of my posts you get to make that error.

The only point of citing that figure was to show that the potential argument is not even safe in the fact that no one knows that any one zygote or fetus will come to term. Otherwise the figure is irrelevant as it has nothing to do with the main point of my argument which is that "potential" humans are not humans and hence I have yet to hear an argument for giving them "human rights".