The 8th amendment(Mod warning in op)

blanch152 wrote: »

I am just making the point that your belief about the unborn is founded about as much in scientific reasoning as the flat-earthers.

You may view my response as ignorant or condescending, but that doesn't make it any less true.

Yes it does. Be honest, do you really think the earth is flat? I think its round, which of us is the flat earther?

frag420 wrote: »

Perhaps you should listen to your father more?!

Ah indeed, I got many a thick ear for not!

frag420

Edward M wrote: »

Yes it does. Be honest, do you really think the earth is flat? I think its round, which of us is the flat earther?

Both as round means it is two dimensional.

I think it’s a sphere...

2wsxcde3

sondagefaux wrote: »

Magdalene Laundries

sondagefaux wrote: »

the Franco regime

blanch152 wrote: »

flat-earthers

...and i'm accused of diverting the topic :rolleyes:

[Deleted User]

frag420 wrote: »

Both as round means it is two dimensional.

I think it’s a sphere...

It's a geoid!
ðŸ˜‰

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

...and i'm accused of diverting the topic :rolleyes:

Magdalene Laundries are relevant to abortion though. Due to how Catholic-centric our original constitution was, things like abortion were a no-no constitutionally but the Magdalene Laundries were allowed to thrive. Also, your "Let's make sex ed in a way that doesn't encourage teenagers to have sex!" is pretty much the Catholic mantra.

And you do go off topic, or change the goalposts, a lot.

frag420 wrote: »

Both as round means it is two dimensional.

I think it’s a sphere...

Well I'm a round earther, you're a sphere earther, blanch is a flat earther.

But that is at least direct comparison.
If someone says to me that they don't believe a child is human from conception because of my post, then that's a direct comparison against my belief. If that's a sincere belief then that's fine and I have respect for that belief.
But if they stoop to being stupid and making condescending remarks towards my sincere beliefs then I give no respect to their stance, as that implies ridicule of those that don't have have their beliefs.

sondagefaux

Edward M wrote: »

sondagefaux wrote: »

The hair on a human body is a human creation, it's human, no question of that...

There's no doubt in my mind that, from conception till death, a baby, child, adult, call it what you like, is human.
It might not be to you or others, but to me that's what it i. I make no apologies for that and no scientific or other term or reference to it will change my mind on that.

sondagefaux

Edward M wrote: »

blanch152 wrote: »

There is no doubt in my mind that the earth is flat, it might not be to you or others, but to me that's what it is. I make no apologies for that and no scientific or other term or reference to it will change my mind on that.

See, it is easy to keep things as simple as that.

In the context of what we speak of that's pretty ignorant really.
But fair play for lying, I tell the truth as I see it, not make condescending remarks about others real beliefs.
My father used to say if you have nothing good to say, say nothing at all.

You'd do well to heed his advice.

sondagefaux wrote: »

Ah you can take it out now.

NuMarvel

david75 wrote: »

Well the timing is very strange but this is happening

That's been on the cards for a while. Last year the state asked for the appeal to go straight to the Supreme Court, and earlier this year they asked for an early hearing to make sure it doesn't overlap with any referendum campaign.

david75

NuMarvel wrote: »

That's been on the cards for a while. Last year the state asked for the appeal to go straight to the Supreme Court, and earlier this year they asked for an early hearing to make sure it doesn't overlap with any referendum campaign.

That makes sense I guess.

nozzferrahhtoo

Edward M wrote: »

There's no doubt in my mind that, from conception till death, a baby, child, adult, call it what you like, is human.
It might not be to you or others, but to me that's what it i. I make no apologies for that and no scientific or other term or reference to it will change my mind on that.

I am not convinced anyone is trying to change your mind on it, especially as you appear to be voting the "right" way even if for some of the "wrong" reasons. Certainly not me anyway, as I think it is "Human" too from conception. At least in terms of biological Taxonomy. It is fully, 100%, absolutely human.

Where I think the difference in opinion comes from is that there are other uses of the word "Human". And when we are speaking of things like "rights" and whether or not we should have any moral or ethical concern for a fetus it is THOSE uses of the word "Human" that are relevant. Not the one of mere biological taxonomy.

When we are talking about, for example, "human" in terms of person hood, individuality, humanity, there is nothing going on in a fetus, much less so at conception, that warrants the term. To me it is a little like looking at a wonderful piece of sculpture and calling it (accurately) a "rock" because that is what it is. Then going to any other random "rock" and suddenly calling it "art".

Just because the word "rock" (human) applies to both, we should be cautious about allowing that to impute or even SUGGEST anything further about one that is true about the other. And I think that is exactly what many do with the term "human" in this context.

I wonder if I traveled back in time far enough, and changed history so we had two different words for this rather than the one word "human"..... and then I traveled back in time to present day............ how altered would this debate, and this thread, be.

Who knows, but all I can say is that I see nothing going on at the level of a 16 week old fetus that in ANY way makes me feel compelled to afford it any moral or ethical concern/consideration at all. And the accuracy (biologically at least) of the term "human" is certainly not going to get me there personally.

Tbh with you noz, I'm not very arty myself.
I see your point to an extent.
When you see an artist starting a portrait with a blank canvas and his/collage of colours and watch it form into a beautiful picture there is a sense of watching something beautiful being created, in a lot of cases anyway.
Art attack on TV or yer man, can't think of his name, on rte.
But its still only paint and canvas, on their own probably nothing worth remarking on, but the end product, that's the art.

nozzferrahhtoo

I am not arty either. I struggle to draw stick men.

And to me the fetus is the canvas. And if someone burned a canvas and poured paint down the drain it would be at best mildly annoying and wasteful, but nothing of any great import.

When one murders a PERSON or destroys a work of art however, that is the moment of horror.

And so that transition point between art materials and actual art..... a fetus and an actual person..... does not just become important it becomes EVERYTHING. And that we have one word "Human" to describe the entity before and after that transition is, I fear, a detriment to us all. And most importantly a detriment to the discourse on the topic.

2wsxcde3

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

When one murders a PERSON or destroys a work of art however, that is the moment of horror.

Some of Da Vincis sketches in his copybooks would be considered unfinished, but they are still priceless. I think if you destroyed one of his sketches and then claimed "Well, it was unfinished so it wasn't really worth anything" ...i dont think too many people would have sympathy for you.

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Some of Da Vincis sketches in his copybooks would be considered unfinished, but they are still priceless. I think if you destroyed one of his sketches and then claimed "Well, it was unfinished so it wasn't really worth anything" ...i dont think too many people would have sympathy for you.

The point Noz was making was that if you destroyed one of his blank easels and poured his paints down a drain, it would be just an annoyance for him but would have no adverse affect on anyone else. Destroying something like the Mona Lisa, however, would be revolting (hence movies and books that want to put across the extent of the dystopian world it's set in routinely do destroy it).

So, unless you actually understand the point a user is trying to make, I suggest you refrain from putting your foot in your mouth.

EDIT: Also, seeing as your point was on unfinished sketches, those sketches are still of great value. They may be unfinished, but they are still a look into his mind and thought process and allows us to better understand his genius. If he had a blank easel, no-one would really care if it was lost or destroyed.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

The point Noz was making was that if you destroyed one of his blank easels and poured his paints down a drain, it would be just an annoyance for him but would have no adverse affect on anyone else. Destroying something like the Mona Lisa, however, would be revolting (hence movies and books that want to put across the extent of the dystopian world it's set in routinely do destroy it).

So, unless you actually understand the point a user is trying to make, I suggest you refrain from putting your foot in your mouth.

EDIT: Also, seeing as your point was on unfinished sketches, those sketches are still of great value. They may be unfinished, but they are still a look into his mind and thought process and allows us to better understand his genius. If he had a blank easel, no-one would really care if it was lost or destroyed.

What is a ‘blank’ human? By 11 weeks a developing child is already either male or female, the opposite sex features have been in retreat for several weeks by that point. So you could say at a week 11 abortion that you are destroying either a boy or a girl.

david75

Went to see an exhibition of da Vinci’s sketches last year in the national gallery.

They were all very beautiful. He was an immense talent.

david75 wrote: »

Went to see an exhibition of da Vinci’s sketches last year in the national gallery.

They were all very beautiful. He was an immense talent.

I think we should burn the ones in storage, they aren’t sentient and are therefore worthless.

Charmeleon wrote: »

What is a ‘blank’ human? By 11 weeks a developing child is already either male or female, the opposite sex features have been in retreat for several weeks by that point. So you could say at a week 11 abortion that you are destroying either a boy or a girl.

Why are hampering your point by saying week 11? The haploid cell of the father already contains either the X or Y chromosome so, from minute 1, whatever forms is either going to be male or female.

You see the problem here? The anti-choice/pro-birth side keeps picking and choosing certain points, making an argument for emotion rather than anything (a fallacy, seeing as how Pleas Advice loves them).

A blank human would be one which is not alive. Which an 11 week old fetus isn't. A fetus at 12 weeks could still never make it to life. It might be a miscarriage, FFA, stillbirth etc. It's not a life. It is still developing and is therefore still a blank canvas or, to be nicer, a canvas that has been whitewashed.

It also brings me to another argument the anti-choice/pro-birth side makes. "That fetus could have the cure for cancer/be the next Da Vinci/something else great!". What's equally as likely is that it could be the next serial killer/mob boss/sexual assaulter ala Weinstein and the USA gynmastic doctor. Your making arguments to emotion, not to reason, which says it all really.

blanch152

Charmeleon wrote: »

What is a ‘blank’ human? By 11 weeks a developing child is already either male or female, the opposite sex features have been in retreat for several weeks by that point. So you could say at a week 11 abortion that you are destroying either a boy or a girl.

What is a blank canvas? By the time you have put it up on an easel, it could be one of three types:

https://www.claessenscanvas.com/en/products/types-of-canvas

It still isn't a work of art.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Why are hampering your point by saying week 11? The haploid cell of the father already contains either the X or Y chromosome so, from minute 1, whatever forms is either going to be male or female.

You see the problem here? The anti-choice/pro-birth side keeps picking and choosing certain points, making an argument for emotion rather than anything (a fallacy, seeing as how Pleas Advice loves them).

A blank human would be one which is not alive. Which an 11 week old fetus isn't. A fetus at 12 weeks could still never make it to life. It might be a miscarriage, FFA, stillbirth etc. It's not a life. It is still developing and is therefore still a blank canvas or, to be nicer, a canvas that has been whitewashed.

It also brings me to another argument the anti-choice/pro-birth side makes. "That fetus could have the cure for cancer/be the next Da Vinci/something else great!". What's equally as likely is that it could be the next serial killer/mob boss/sexual assaulter ala Weinstein and the USA gynmastic doctor. Your making arguments to emotion, not to reason, which says it all really.

Because the sexual characteristics of the phenotype don’t begin to diverge until a few weeks in.

nozzferrahhtoo

Ah good to know you are not ignoring ALL my posts, just the ones I actually write to you personally.

2wsxcde3 wrote: »

Some of Da Vincis sketches in his copybooks would be considered unfinished, but they are still priceless.

Yes that fits with exactly what I said. Though the way you present it makes me suspect you think you are rebutting me rather than what you are actually doing which is essentially agreeing with me.

However to repeat what I said in the part of my post you edited out........

"And so that transition point between art materials and actual art..... a fetus and an actual person..... does not just become important it becomes EVERYTHING."

.......... I would say a lot of unfinished sketches from such an artist have indeed passed that transition point. A piece of paper he happened to draw an "X" on, probably not so much.

Charmeleon wrote: »

Because the sexual characteristics of the phenotype don’t begin to diverge until a few weeks in.

Ah, so time does matter then? It's not really a human being, in the non taxonomy sense of the word, until time has passed? Thank you for conceding!

pilly

Edward M wrote: »

Well I'm a round earther, you're a sphere earther, blanch is a flat earther.

But that is at least direct comparison.
If someone says to me that they don't believe a child is human from conception because of my post, then that's a direct comparison against my belief. If that's a sincere belief then that's fine and I have respect for that belief.
But if they stoop to being stupid and making condescending remarks towards my sincere beliefs then I give no respect to their stance, as that implies ridicule of those that don't have have their beliefs.

Hear hear Edward, I wish both sides would have a little bit more respect for other peoples beliefs.

We can't continually go around screaming at people to respect our view without respecting theirs.

up for anything

I'm wondering why there aren't warehouse facilities dotted around the countryside containing non-viable humans on life support. Life is life according to pro-lifers. Therefore just because that life isn't sentient or capable of staying alive without help surely no one has the right to just switch off the machinery keeping the body functioning? The machinery should be obliged to run for as long as it takes for the body to die or for something to bring the person back to normal life. If it's legal to turn off life support machinery then it should be equally legal to obtain an abortion in this country. There's not much difference to my mind.

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Ah, so time does matter then? It's not really a human being, in the non taxonomy sense of the word, until time has passed? Thank you for conceding!

Hold on, where did I say it wasn’t human until it had sexual characteristics? If you were serious about that point you could also say ‘so you are saying children aren’t human until breasts or facial hair appear after puberty?’. Humans pass through stages over a very long time but remain human throughout.

blanch152

up for anything wrote: »

I'm wondering why there aren't warehouse facilities dotted around the countryside containing non-viable humans on life support. Life is life according to pro-lifers. Therefore just because that life isn't sentient or capable of staying alive without help surely no one has the right to just switch off the machinery keeping the body functioning? The machinery should be obliged to run for as long as it takes for the body to die or for something to bring the person back to normal life. If it's legal to turn off life support machinery then it should be equally legal to obtain an abortion in this country. There's not much difference to my mind.

Those on life support don't have an equal right to life as the mother so they don't have constitutional protection.

It really shows up how bizarre the current constitutional provision is.