The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

RobertKK

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Near 2 hours ago, I will be off soon for the record.

Ush1

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Like I said, call it what you like. Yep, it doesn't have those things.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That is disingenuous. It will become a human, one that has the features you listed. Including toenails. Nobody would have an issue aborting toenails at a foetal stage.

pleas advice

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

nope,

.......

This post has been deleted.

Ush1

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

An argument isn't just contradiction, an argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

....um, great?

.......

This post has been deleted.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ush1 wrote: »

That is disingenuous. It will become a human, one that has the features you listed.

A simple logical point of order worth pegging a flag into here.

You can not be X and be becoming X at the same time. You are either X or you are not X.

So when you say "it will become a human" what you are also saying is "it is not a human".

For me however the crux of the issue when deciding whether a given entity should have rights, or should be afforded moral and ethical concern, comes from what it is NOW. Not what it may or may not be in the future.

And quite often I get the impression that is the sole actual difference between the two sides of this debate. One wants to grant right based on what it is. The other based on what they imagine it being in the future.

RobertKK

BarleySweets wrote: »

Why don’t you trust women, Robert?

Are you saying women on the retain side trust fellow women? I don’t trust strangers who ask for them to be trusted when they seem to want to avoid talking about the unborn.
Like this woman whose only argument seemed to be trust women and who avoided the unborn like the plague.

https://twitter.com/mejtom/status/980837272068284416?s=21

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Ush1

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Sure, and no ones saying it's not a group of cells, but that is not the same as a toenail.:)

ohnonotgmail

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

An argument isn't just contradiction, an argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.

No it isn't!

.......

This post has been deleted.

Ush1

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

A simple logical point of order worth pegging a flag into here.

You can not be X and be becoming X at the same time. You are either X or you are not X.

So when you say "it will become a human" what you are also saying is "it is not a human".

For me however the crux of the issue when deciding whether a given entity should have rights, or should be afforded moral and ethical concern, comes from what it is NOW. Not what it may or may not be in the future.

And quite often I get the impression that is the sole actual difference between the two sides of this debate. One wants to grant right based on what it is. The other based on what they imagine it being in the future.

I deliberately put it like that because of the contentious use of language. I also said, call it what you like.

The fact remains that it's a disingenuous argument to compare it with liver cells and toenails.

RobertKK

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You brought rights up as a question and never said what rights you are talking about. Then I am suppose to answer a very ambiguous question.

.......

This post has been deleted.

pleas advice

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And quite often I get the impression that is the sole actual difference between the two sides of this debate. One wants to grant right based on what it is. The other based on what they imagine it being in the future.

or theres just a fundamental disagreement on what it actually is, now.
edit. I'm away for a few hours now,

.......

This post has been deleted.

Ush1

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Indeed.

The point is what it becomes is why their is contention. How is it closer to being a toenail exactly as a matter of interest?

RobertKK

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You talked about the unborn having more rights than the woman when it is each have an equal right to life.
What extra rights are you talking about?

.......

This post has been deleted.

.......

This post has been deleted.

Ush1

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Perhaps wilful ignorance then?

BarleySweets

RobertKK wrote: »

Are you saying women on the retain side trust fellow women?

I’m saying no such thing. In fact I said nothing in my post other than asking you a very simple question in response to a post you wrote: “Why don’t you trust women, Robert?”

I’d love to hear your answer. That’s why I asked.

.......

This post has been deleted.

NuMarvel

Ush1 wrote: »

I'm voting yes but I personally find the human/a human argument disingenuous. You can call it what you like the fact that you can't dispute is that it will become a human. It's not a liver or toenail cell or whatever else.

I don't think it's being disingenuous; it's clearly the basis for many people's position and I can see the logic of it. What's more it's obviously a sincerely held position and people aren't using it to evade difficult questions. And there's nothing in what people say that leads me to believe they don't realise it will become a human being at some point.

I personally don't use it because my knowledge of biology and foetal development is minimal, to say the least, so I wouldn't have the confidence to use it to support my positions. But seeing other posters use it is fascinating, from an educational perspective if nothing else (eg the comment about elbows not bending at 12 weeks gestation).

But what really jumps out to me is that two No supporters have posted in the thread since I asked my question, and none of them seem to want to answer it.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ush1 wrote: »

I deliberately put it like that because of the contentious use of language. I also said, call it what you like.

In common speech by all means call it what you like. You can call it splundunky-woodily-wa-wa for all I care. But in a robust and intellectual discussion or debate the meanings of words become more important.

And this is ESPECIALLY true when the meanings of words are used to import implications that are not actually warranted at the time. Hence the discussion people have about how one side calls it a "fetus" at 12 weeks while the other side insists on calling it a "baby".

They are not doing that because of a "call it what you like" mantra. They are doing that as a contrived propaganda move to philosophically and emotionally humanize the fetus WAY before it's due. And due to that we can not simply maintain an open door "call it what you like" narrative. We have to police terms used for a propaganda agenda..... or just abandon all pretense at open and HONEST discourse entirely.

Ush1 wrote: »

The fact remains that it's a disingenuous argument to compare it with liver cells and toenails.

It depends on the point of comparison. Whether a comparison is valid or disingenuous depends NOT on the comparison itself but the context in which it is being compared. For example comparing a rock to your new car might sound ridiculous. However if the context is "Grey things" your car and a rock might indeed both be grey, and the comparison entirely valid.

In the abortion debate we are discussing things like consciousness, sentience, personhood, rights, morality. And in that context a comparison between a 12 week old fetus and a toe nail can be very much a valid one. Why? Because they are both genetically distinct and individual entities and they both have EXACTLY THE SAME capacity for, and faculty of, human sentience and consciousness. That is to say: Zero. None. Nadda. Zilich. Bugger all. Nichts. Nothing. Diddly squat.

In terms of sentience and the faculty of sentience comparison between a 12 week old fetus and a toe nail, a rock, a table leg, or a dead fish are all very much valid. In fact the last one less so because at least the fish HAD the faculty at one point, even if it is entirely dead now. The fetus however has not got it, never at any point had it, and is a distinct period of time away from forming even the pre-requisites of it.

Ush1

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I presume people like yourself making the argument?

Zubeneschamali

Ush1 wrote: »

It will become a human, one that has the features you listed.

It may or may not. Many pregnancies end in miscarriage or stillbirth. Some are affected by fatal fetal abnormalities. The most we can say is that it will probably become a human in most cases.

.......

This post has been deleted.