The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

optogirl

RobertKK wrote: »

You are arguing the tumour is a separate human life. Just like the person on the repeal side here who argued a poo is.
Maybe the education system in this country is failing.

But Robert you are arguing that it is fine to put up posters with these images because that is the reality. Would you think it's perfectly fine that a, say, 8 year old who just lost a sibling to still birth should have to look at these images as she walks to school? Or perhaps a 13 year old who has been raped and is pregnant? Do you think children should see images of people copulating - after all, it's just the reality. Do you think I should explain my brain surgery to my children by showing them the procedure?

NuMarvel

RobertKK wrote: »

It is about what is proposed which is 12 weeks unrestricted abortion if repeal wins.
It is an innocent human life.

How is that any different to the status quo, where the majority of women who have abortions do so within the first 12 weeks?

pleas advice

baylah17 wrote: »

No
Already been there , no more a human than my toenail clippings.
Move on

A bit more... A lot more,

It is quite patently a genetically separate human entity. Why do you feel the need to deny this?

ELM327

pleas advice wrote: »

A bit more... A lot more,

It is quite patently a genetically separate human entity. Why do you feel the need to deny this?

the questions you ask have all been answered on this thread and the one that preceded it. multiple times.

Ush1

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Next post :pac:

baylah17 wrote: »

No
no more a human than my toenail clippings.

nozzferrahhtoo

pleas advice wrote: »

A bit more... A lot more, It is quite patently a genetically separate human entity. Why do you feel the need to deny this?

No is denying that fact. They are denying the RELEVANCE of that fact. For good reason given you and the number of people who have asserted the fact have failed to explain it's relevance. Rights and morality do not appear to be mediated by separation or individuality.

Either in our species or any other. The last cow you ate, assuming you are not vegetarian, was a separate entity too. Individuality does not appear to be at all relevant. If we were all genetics clones of each other we would (or should) still have all the same rights as we do today. If I was cloned perfectly tomorrow, my clone would deserve the same rights as me and as you, even though were are not genetically distinct.

And in fact ask yourself what genetics have to do with it at all. If your consciousness could be instantiated on a computer server tomorrow, which is one of the goals of many modern research projects, would you have any less rights because your brain software was no longer running on a meat-carbon hardware system? Or would your sentience alone, and it's ability to suffer or attain well being, mean we should hold moral and ethical concern for that well being and that sentience?

January

Ush1 wrote: »

Next post :pac:

That's not a denial that it's human though

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

Maybe the education system in this country is failing.

It clearly is if you thought what you posted was an accurate representation of a 12 week fetus.

12 week fetus is completely different skin colour, different opacity of skin, no fully defined nose or ears, longer head, less defined mouth, disproportionate limbs, I could go on.

I've held 12 week fetuses in my hand, and I wish with all my heart that they looked like what you posted, but they didn't.

RobertKK

pleas advice wrote: »

A bit more... A lot more,

It is quite patently a genetically separate human entity. Why do you feel the need to deny this?

They do it as not to apply humanity to him/her, raises difficult questions for them to answer so they pretend tumours, poo and toenails are unique generic lives, as they never lie...

Ush1

January wrote: »

That's not a denial that it's human though

So the poster saying "No", isn't a denial?

kylith

Ush1 wrote: »

Next post :pac:

Human =/= A human being.

Human being is defined as a man, woman, or child. (OED)

Child is defined as between birth and puberty. (Biological standard definition)

A foetus is not a human being until it has been born.

January

Ush1 wrote: »

So the poster saying "No", isn't a denial?

Read the whole post maybe

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

They do it as not to apply humanity to it, raises difficult questions for them to answer so they pretend tumours, poo and toenails are unique generic lives, as they never lie...

You lied when you posted up that image stating that's what a 12 week old fetus looks like Robert.

Ush1

kylith wrote: »

Human =/= A human being.

Human being is defined as a man, woman, or child. (OED)

Child is defined as between birth and puberty. (Biological standard definition)

A foetus is not a human being until it has been born.

I'm aware of all that.

nozzferrahhtoo

RobertKK wrote: »

They do it as not to apply humanity to it, raises difficult questions for them to answer so they pretend tumours, poo and toenails are unique generic lives, as they never lie...

I know you are dodging and retreating from my posts but I will ask again anyway in order to highlight to everyone you are ignoring posts and points you can not deal with.

But exactly what attributes are you defining "Humanity" with as distinct from merely biologically "human" in taxonomy? And which of those attributes does a fetus at 12 weeks actually have.

And what questions do you think are "difficult to answer"? Ask me some of them. I bet I answer them quite honestly, openly and without any difficulty at all.

Ush1

January wrote: »

Read the whole post maybe

I did, the "No" seems to contradict the rest.

Zubeneschamali

pleas advice wrote: »

It is quite patently a genetically separate human entity.

So appearance doesn't matter, just genetics?

Oops, now all those test-tube embryos are human beings too, we must ban IVF, research and the morning after pill!

Votes for blastocysts!

AtomicHorror

pleas advice wrote: »

A bit more... A lot more,

It is quite patently a genetically separate human entity. Why do you feel the need to deny this?

Your own B-cells and T-cells have human DNA but are genetically distinct from you. Similarly your own gametes. Having human DNA, being genetically unique and the combination of those two things is interesting but not grounds for human rights.

AtomicHorror

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

So appearance doesn't matter, just genetics?

Oops, now all those test-tube embryos are human beings too, we must ban IVF, research and the morning after pill!

Votes for blastocysts!

Don't give em ideas.

RobertKK

robarmstrong wrote: »

It clearly is if you thought what you posted was an accurate representation of a 12 week fetus.

12 week fetus is completely different skin colour, different opacity of skin, no fully defined nose or ears, longer head, less defined mouth, disproportionate limbs, I could go on.

I've held 12 week fetuses in my hand, and I wish with all my heart that they looked like what you posted, but they didn't.

I don’t want to get into your personal life and what happened to your and your wife/partner.
The unborn is opague but it is still a unique human life and of human form at that stage.

RobertKK

robarmstrong wrote: »

You lied when you posted up that image stating that's what a 12 week old fetus looks like Robert.

No I didn’t and I did state the colour was different in a later post. Nothing else is much different.

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

I don’t want to get into your personal life and what happened to your and your wife/partner.
The unborn is opague but it is still a unique human life and of human form at that stage.

It also does not resemble what you posted stating to be what an unborn 12 week fetus looks like.

You are very, very wrong on the matter and are blatantly unwilling to admit so.

gmisk

Not sure if this place to post this but I thought related, even though in US, it involves Crisis Pregnancy Centers
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NNpkv3Us1I
Love John Oliver

ELM327

RobertKK wrote: »

No I didn’t and I did state the colour was different in a later post. Nothing else is much different.

RobertKK wrote: »

I don’t want to get into your personal life and what happened to your and your wife/partner.
The unborn is opague but it is still a unique human life and of human form at that stage.

the questions you ask have all been answered on this thread and the one that preceded it. multiple times.

robarmstrong

RobertKK wrote: »

Nothing else is much different.

robarmstrong wrote: »

12 week fetus is completely different skin colour, different opacity of skin, no fully defined nose or ears, longer head, less defined mouth, disproportionate limbs, I could go on.

Nothing else is much different, no?

Zubeneschamali

Ush1 wrote: »

Next post :pac:

I'll spell it out for you:

No one denies a fetus is human. Literally no one.

We all agree that a fetus is human.

no more a human than my toenail clippings.

We do not all agree a fetus is a human being.

See? There is no contradiction between saying my appendix is alive and is human and saying that my appendix is not a human being.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

RobertKK wrote: »

I don’t want to get into your personal life and what happened to your and your wife/partner.
The unborn is opague but it is still a unique human life and of human form at that stage.

He's volunteering information about what happened. Dodge reality much there Robert?

Ush1

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I'll spell it out for you:

No one denies a fetus is human. Literally no one.

We all agree that a fetus is human.

no more a human than my toenail clippings.

We do not all agree a fetus is a human being.

See? There is no contradiction between saying my appendix is alive and is human and saying that my appendix is not a human being.

Re-read what the poster actually posted. Pay attention to the first line.

kylith

robarmstrong wrote: »

Nothing else is much different, no?

Well look, apart from the colour, opacity, size, proportion, fat content, and overall development they're practically identical :rolleyes:

RobertKK

robarmstrong wrote: »

It also does not resemble what you posted stating to be what an unborn 12 week fetus looks like.

You are very, very wrong on the matter and are blatantly unwilling to admit so.

The only difference is the colour and the fact the arms and legs in the plastic image are curled into the body unlike the image you and I posted where the limbs were more outstretched.