Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
How do Pro Life campaigners want women who have abortions punished?
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
Outlaw Pete wrote: »You can "maintain" what you like but that won't change what you did
Had I changed the context of what you said in some way, then you would have a legitimate gripe... but I didn't... and so you don't.
The only one changing what I did here is you however and yes, you are right, you can not change it much as you really want to. I genuinely do not get the utility you find in presuming to tell me what my position is, and what my words mean, when I am here telling you otherwise.
Though as we will see throughout the duration of this post.... this is FAR from the most horrific of the distortions of my position you engage in.Outlaw Pete wrote: »I know what an analogy is, dude. Cut the condescension.
Yet your use and application of it suggests otherwise. The simple fact is that since the analogy does not hold, it is neither useful nor relevant. Dude.Outlaw Pete wrote: »By saying the above you were suggesting that if you DID have a moral and ethical concern for a fetus, then there would be something left in the debate OTHER than the woman... you're running from that now and I don't blame you.
Except I am not running from anything. That is, as you have described, the position I hold. I do not deny it, I do not change it, I am not embarrassed by it. So where you have pulled this narrative from that I have any interest in running away from it I do not know, but I suspect you extracted it from a on orifice not normally associated with communication.
The failure of your analogy is that my position on abortion is predicated on a point where only one moral agent is involved. So analogies to points in the human life cycle other than that are analogies to things I am not saying, not claiming, and are not relevant.
Yes there is a point in the process where another moral agent comes on line. But my arguments for abortion, and the periods during which I would argue abortion on demand should be legal and available are LONG before that point.Outlaw Pete wrote: »It doesn't matter if there is more than one playing field.
Except yes it does, because as I said if you insist on removing the "slogan" from the context in which people espouse it, then you are going to be judging the slogan outside the context that renders it useful, coherent, and cogent. If you want to do that then of course you will parse the slogan as being silly, empty or hypocritical. But such a move to parse it is not an honest one, a useful one, or an effective one.Outlaw Pete wrote: »I was merely saying that the motive behind drink driving legislation is to protect the life of the innocent
Which is why the analogy fails, because at the point where most people WANT to argue for abortion, say 12, 16, 20 weeks, there is no "innocent life" to protect OTHER than that of the mother. So analogies to situations where law or morals are established to protect other moral agents simply miss the mark, regardless of how emotionally invested you appear to be in that analogy.Outlaw Pete wrote: »How the hell could I be ignoring the very context which I have spoken about?
For the reasons I just outlined above.Outlaw Pete wrote: »the same goes for the 'Her Body, Her Choice' brigade. They don't believe it and so they should quit saying it.
Except they do believe it. But the context you insist on ignoring is that BEHIND that slogan is a wealth of detail on what they mean by it, when they apply it.
That is the whole point of slogans. They are meant to grab the attention and invite further discourse on the topic of the slogan. They are not meant to be taken on their own, with no context, and with no assumption that there is a LOT more thought, caveats, context and detail behind them.Outlaw Pete wrote: »Nope. Quite feeling sorry for yourself.
How about you quit inventing emotions for me I do not feel, and then lambasting me for having them? Because it is as dishonest a move as it is inaccurate. (Clue: Very).
The simple fact is my position has not changed over the last few posts, you have the impression that it has, and I think it quite likely that this is solely because you are merely understanding it better. And this is VERY common on forums. A users understanding of a position changes and they become convinced it was the position that actually changed.Outlaw Pete wrote: »Now, in the above you didn't mention the age of the fetus.
I mention and mentioned the age(s) of the fetus I am referring to many many times. Simply trawling through all my posts looking for the ONE or TWO times that I failed to do so does not indicate my position has changed on the matter, especially when it has not.
I have been nothing BUT clear on the time periods I use in all my arguments, and to pretend or presume otherwise is remarkably dishonest and disingenuous of you.Outlaw Pete wrote: »You merely said because there was no coherent way to ascribe person-hood or "humanity" to a fetus, you held as much moral concern for them as you would a rock, but you no longer seem to be speaking about 'all' fetuses, just those between 12-16 weeks or below.
There is no "no longer" about it. I have been clear abundantly and egregiously clear..... since the most early stages of the thread and numerous times manysince as to what I have been talking about AND when. With more than one user. More than one time with each user. On multiple pages through the thread. Up to AND including yourself.
So this diatribe from you is.... I really am gobsmacked.... but it is so remarkably and transparently and demonstrably dishonest from you that I simply do not know what to say. And I am rarely, as any user of this forum can attest, one that is lost for words. With the possible exception of one user I can think of, the one who thinks abortions should be allowed at ANY stage in the pregnancy, I simply have never witnessed anything like it on boards before. Wow. Just. Wow. But the links are all there for anyone genuinely interested to see just how egregiously and fetidly my position is being represented and distorted here.Outlaw Pete wrote: »A non-condescending clarification is what I'm looking for and the less you use the word 'fuzzy' the better.
I genuinely think at this point that your own words and how you represent yourself in their use should be your primary concern rather than admonishing others on their use of theirs.Outlaw Pete wrote: »I'm assuming nothing.
It appears, in the absence of you presenting evidence to the contrary, that you are. You have merely asserted the movement is in response to sound, yet you have not established this assertion in any way.
Not that this is an issue for my position even if you did. I am just pointing out that you have not done so. But the fact is the fetus DOES respond to stimulus. I have never denied that, but have in fact said it myself numerous times. The issue is that mere movement does NOT establish that the lights are on any anyone is home. Multicellular animals as complex as our own are RIFE with autonomic and automatic responses and reflexes that have simply nothing whatsoever to do with consciousness, sentience or awareness. They simply just don't.Outlaw Pete wrote: »I have attended ultrasounds at between 12 and 16 weeks where movement was stimulated by asking the mother to cough etc.
That is not sound. Or likely not to be. But the movement and compression and vibration that such an action is likely to cause in the fluids down there.Outlaw Pete wrote: »Whenever I see these videos showing fetuses sucking their thumbs, I don't think a study is needed (for some of us at least) for that to warrant people having more moral concern for it than they would say... a rock, or a table.
Clearly you don't, but I am just pointing out that this is not coherent or intellectually rigorous. You are observing autonomic responses that do not in any way indicate sentience, or the faculty of sentience, in a fetus from 0 to 20 weeks, for example. By that stage sure, it is human shaped, making very human movements, and I GET IT that this lights up the moral centers of your brain.
But it is doing so erroneously. There is no reason to think, and every reason not to think, there is anyone home and the lights are on. There. Simply. Isn't. And if there is evidence to the contrary, as I said I would be AGOG to hear it because it would, again as I said, cascade throughout my entire opinion on abortion and reverse it in literal real-time.Outlaw Pete wrote: »Is that an emotional reaction? Sure, but so what, it's not an unreasonable one.
Absolutely not, I entirely agree. It is perfectly reasonable, perfectly understandable, and perfectly justifiable. It just happens to also be entirely wrong, misplaced, misleading and unsubstantiated.Outlaw Pete wrote: »Not like they are looking at footage of sperm swimming and cooing at it. Although I suspect you see no difference between the two.
I see huge numbers of differences between the two. I could list differences between the two solidly at you for 12 hours and still not run out of material. As Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development, specifically in regards studying what the comparison of fetal development in multiple animals tells us about evolutionary history and common ancestry.... you will find me brimming over with knowledge on the differences.
What I do not see as a difference between the two is a basis for ME affording either of them moral or ethical concern however. Which, as I keep telling you, is an internal comparison related to me, not related to a comparison of the two things involved (The X1-Y1 comparison rather than the X-Y comparison I adumbrated for you earlier).
Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic developmentThere is quite a bit of science to suggest that fetuses feel pain / stimuli at an earlier gestational stage than many would like us to believe though... [/QUOTE]
And if you actually read the link rather than merely cite it, you will find that evidence for it is thin on the ground and consists almost entirely of merely observing the reaction of the fetus to stimulus. And as I keep repeating at you over and over.... we KNOW the fetus reacts to stimulus. Even a bacteria reacts to stimulus. A single celled bacteria will move away from a needle if pricked. And yet you think it compelling that a complex multi cellular creature would ALSO do so? Have a little perspective here please.
Autonomic responses develop quite early in fetal development. So OF COURSE you are going to observe reaction to stimulus of this kind. You could not BUT observe it. But once again, that does not mean anyone or anything is "feeling" pain.Outlaw Pete wrote: »In any event we don't really need to focus on such young fetuses as you apparently have no moral or ethical regard for fetuses at any stage of human development
Given I have said percisely the exact opposite to this in numerous posts, including posts to you, I can only include this in the never ever increasing list of things you have wantonly and willfully misrepresented.
I made it VERY clear in no small number of posts that there is some point in the developmental process when my ethical concerns do come on line, and a second moral agency comes into play.
I have made it VERY clear that I argue for abortion on demand only up to 16-20 weeks because after this point I very much DO start to have moral and ethical concerns.
And I even commented at my complete disgust at the ONE user on the forum who DOES argue for allowing abortion at ANY stage in the development, up to and including the day before birth.
I have said this to you directly more than once and to other users too. So this gob smacking campaign of slander, misrepresentation and distortion you are engaged in is simply transparently and demonstrably outlandish and is reaching a level of dishonesty I simply have never encountered on this forum before.Outlaw Pete wrote: »Back to bacteria again, eh. We are not talking about pathogens, dude, we are talking about prenatal human development. Maybe you struggle with moral and ethical concern for our species at that stage, but many of us don't and for sound reasons.
The reference to bacteria has one purpose and one purpose only, which is to show that response to stimulus is not something we can read too much into.
I have no struggle with moral and ethical concern for our species at all, though your own struggle with honestly representing and responding to my position is awe inspiring.
And the reasons for your holding moral and ethical concern for a fetus at, say, 12 week, are not "sound reasons". They are compelling and emotional reasons, and I understand them entirely, but sound they are not.Outlaw Pete wrote: »lol "Human shaped, making human like movements??" Yeah, I'm down in Smyth's every day crying about how their battery operated dolls are being mistreated
Yet that caricature of your own position, which you offer in jest, is little different from the reality. Because essentially the two things are the same in the context of sentience, consciousness and subjective awareness. The difference is that one is biological, but there is no more reason to think there are lights on with anyone home in either. So your humorous caricature is actually quite telling and representative and makes my point more than yours, even if you do not realize it yourself.Outlaw Pete wrote: »You get nothing. You think you do, you think have a grasp of the opposing side of the debate but you do not.
There is that "knack" we spoke of in my previous post that you have of offering an asserted description of me or my position, without moving to establish the description is apt.Outlaw Pete wrote: »It's just yet more condescending clap trap about how your opinion is science based and everyone's else's is just emotionally based and incoherent.
And you could very quickly establish THAT it is "clap trap" were you to provide a coherent basis for your position. The simple fact is however you have not done so, and have smoke screened that failure with some of the most egregious distortions of my position that I have ever witnessed.
But it is strange you call it clap trap that I think your opinion is merely based on emotion when you yourself, in this very post, ADMITTED as much. So in one breath you tell me I am right that your position is an emotional reaction, and in the next you call me it is clap trap that I claim your position is an emotional reaction. You are not even being INTERNALLY coherent and consistent now.Outlaw Pete wrote: »And there we have it again. This from the guy was whinging about how health care should focus on women who are actually alive and not on fetuses that just had the potential to exist. Why should your emotionally fueled opinion (and it is) be considered any more legitimate that anyone else's opinion one wonders.
Because the position I have espoused is not emotionally fueled or driven, that's why.Outlaw Pete wrote: »Blobs "of biological matter"?? All fetuses?? And you have the cheek to refer to other users' arguments as 'incoherent'
Why, what do you feel is incoherent here? And no, I never once said "all", and as I pointed out earlier in this post I have been nothing BUT clear on what I am referring to, when, and why. Your distortions to the contrary do not make the facts simply go away.Outlaw Pete wrote: »According to you only one moral agent involved but there is a reason that abortion over 24 weeks is illegal in most civilized parts of the world and that is because the vast majority of people are capable of seeing that there is another...
Nice of you to catch up with me then because that is PRECISELY when I think we should start showing concern that another moral agency has come, or is coming, online. I have been abundantly clear that when I refer to there being only one moral agent, that I am referring to stages like 0, 4, 8, 12, 16 weeks for example.
So, for reasons only apparent to yourself, you are throwing my own position at me as if it is some kind of rebuttal of my own position.Outlaw Pete wrote: »and while you may not have the ability to see fetuses as being worthy of your ethical or moral concern, the vast majority of us can.
I think you should speak for yourself and not pretend to speak for some perceived "majority" you want to pretend agrees with you. By all means if you have a coherent basis for showing moral and ethical concern towards a 0-16 week old fetus I would be AGOG to hear it.
Not least because I do not want to make the wrong vote, if and when this all goes to referendum, so I would very very much want to be made aware of this basis before I go about voting in the absence of it. I would be DEVESTATED entirely to vote FOR abortion on demand, to see it go legal and accepted, and only then be made aware of the reason(s) why this was the wrong thing to do. PLEASE spare me that horror, and I meant that entirely and wholly genuinely, not fatuously or facetious at all.Outlaw Pete wrote: »Yeah, Sarah Catt "maximized her own well being and happiness"..... they locked her up.
Once again making my point for me. She "maximized" it at the expense of another moral agent. Which is the exact opposite of EVERYTHING I have been saying through this entire thread. Dude.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement