The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

baylah17 wrote: »

I call Bull****, you've well decided, as your constant linking of anti choice anti woman videos clearly shows.
Personally i think you've reached the End of The Road with this charade!

Anti woman videos?

You mean the video I just referenced which included three women discussing the issue?

Do you mean the video I posted with four women discussing the issue, two for and two against?

Are women who have a fundamental difficulty with abortion to be termed as being anti woman?

swampgas wrote: »

For someone who claims to be undecided your posting style is indistinguishable from someone who is 100% anti-repeal.

You seem to be primarily concerned that a viable foetus might be aborted. What if that viable foetus is in the body of 14 year old rape victim? You know the 8th says she should be forced to continue the pregnancy, right?

At what point will you stop fixating on the foetus and stop for 5 minutes to consider the well-being of the women (and girls) who find themselves with crisis pregnancies?

How about you tell us how your "undecided" stance might be swayed by your concern for the plight of women who are affected by the 8th?

The reason I mention the foetus is because its going have its life ended and I cannot understand how people can try and argue that it isn't human.

So what if a foetus isn't as fully developed as it would grow to be. The intentional death of born lives, where those lives haven't consented to their deaths, aren't justified on the basis of being at an earlier stage of human development, than later in a human life cycle.

horseburger wrote: »

The reason I mention the foetus is because its going have its life ended and I cannot understand how people can try and argue that it isn't human.

So what if a foetus isn't as fully developed as it would grow to be. The intentional death of born lives, where those lives haven't consented to their deaths, aren't justified on the basis of being at an earlier stage of human development, than later in a human life cycle.

Again, if you are undecided, what do you think the benefits of Repeal might be?

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Because of the 8th amendment.

You may have heard of it, it's this thing with law-type words.

Smart ass.

As I understand it, provision could have been made in legislation to cover for it before now.

If anyone can clarity, I'd appreciate that.

horseburger wrote: »

As I understand it, provision could have been made in legislation to cover for it before now.

If anyone can clarity, I'd appreciate that.

Sure: you don't understand it.

You're welcome.

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Again, if you are undecided, what do you think the benefits of Repeal might be?

@horseburger - ICYMI

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

nobody has said that it isn't human. You have asked this question several times already and received an answer several times already.



how can you describe a foetus as a "born live"

Someone has just shouted at me that a foetus is not human, having already stated it eariier on.

baylah17 wrote: »

A FETUS IS NOT A HUMAN BEING!

baylah17 wrote: »

How many times do you need it explained , a fetus is NOT a living human being.
Get over it and move on.

Here's a video of a guy being asked, at the eight minute mark, if he would accept being told that the person he was talking to is a bobcat. He said he would.

I suppose if you say it to yourself over and over, it's possible to believe anything. I guess if you convince yourself that a living being that was created by two separate human beings, and is growing in one of the two separate human beings, is not human, if you say it to yourself often enough.

pitifulgod wrote: »

It could not have. Would require yet another amendment. You don't seem remotely on the fence...

Fair enough so, thanks for your courteous reply,

horseburger wrote: »

Here's a video of a guy being asked, at the eight minute mark, if he would accept being told that the person he was talking to is a bobcat.

I must admit that I sometimes get the feeling that I am talking to a parrot.

horseburger wrote: »

Someone has just shouted at me that a foetus is not human, having already stated it eariier on.





Here's a video of a guy being asked, at the eight minute mark, if he would accept being told that the person he was talking to is a bobcat. He said he would.

I suppose if you say it to yourself over and over, it's possible to believe anything. I guess if you convince yourself that a living being that was created by two separate human beings, and is growing in one of the two separate human beings, is not human, if you say it to yourself often enough.

Human ie being of human genetic material is different to a human being

If a swap is taken from my mouth and analysed and compared to that of a chimp the scientist will mark mine as human but it is not a human being. I by contrast am a human being

horseburger wrote: »

I cannot understand how people can try and argue that it isn't human.

It is not that you "cannot understand" it at all. It is that you do not agree with the explanations you have been offered multiple times, so you instead wholesale ignore the posts in which it was explained.

You claim over and over to not understand it, ignore the posts as if they did not happen where people explain it, and then continue to claim you do not understand it. To the point a moderator has had to ask you to stop asking over and over the same question that has been answered many times.

But even if you refuse to engage with that topic in good faith, there are users who join this thread periodically to whom we can offer an explanation should they require it.

So an explanation for people who might actually want it, even if HB patently and demonstrably doesn't:

1) The word "Human" has different definitions in different contexts. It does not mean the same thing in philosophy as it does in, say, taxonomy. HorseBurger and similar posters wish to conflate all the different contexts into one so as to take implications from one context into any other where it suits them.

2) No one, despite HorseBurger feigning ignorance in this regard, is arguing that it is not "argue that it isn't human" in any biological or taxonomy sense. Hence the repeated mantra about "What is it given it was created by a human man and human woman" and other such disingenuous and egregious deflections of the actual point being made.

3) Rather what is ACTUALLY being argued is a point that HorseBurger ignores because he can not even remotely rebut it. That is that the fetus is not "Human" in terms of more philosophical notions such as consciousness, sentience, humanity, personhood and so forth.

4) Human concepts such as morality, ethics, rights are intrinsically and inextricably linked with consciousness and sentience. With personhood and humanity.

5) Therefore no one, least of all HorseBurger, appears able to construct an argument as to why we should afford rights, or harbor moral and ethical concerns, towards an entity that is not sentient or conscious, never has been, and is quite a distinct period of time away from even forming the pre-requisite faculties to ever be such.

6) Which leaves him and his cohort with only two approaches that they can even pretend are valid, even though they can not defend them as valid. That being either A) should the word "Human" at the problem a lot in order to repeat the conflation described in point 1 above or Try to ignore what the fetus IS and instead appeal to what the fetus might BECOME, in the hope that rights and moral concerns it could have in the future can be brought forward in time and applied in the present.

To call those two moves desperate is an understatement. To call them in any way defended or substantiated or coherent would be a fantasy. They are two moves constructed solely and subjectively to defend a conclusion the speaker already holds and is now desperate to validate.

baylah17 wrote: »

How dare you misquote me for your own twisted ends, I did not say a fetus is not human, I said a fetus is not a human being!
More drivel from you and your ilk, misrepresent, deflect and lie.

Sensitive little soul aren't you!:)

And the difference in the human status of a human foetus and human being is what?

It is human bit that's critical is it not, considering the living being is developing as part of its human life cycle before birth and after birth?

horseburger wrote: »

Was it not altered with out a referendum in 2013, and also altered to allow for risk of suicide?

The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act of 2013 did not 'alter it', it simply enacted the 8th Amendment in accordance with the judgment in the X case (rather late, but...).

The risk of suicide also did not 'alter it', the Supreme Court ruled that the 8th always meant that suicide was a valid reason for an abortion.

Sofiztikated wrote: »

My wife had a miscarriage, am I a father? Is she a mother?

Sorry to hear that.

Edward M wrote: »

Firstly, I'm very sorry for that. You were imo yes, A parent to that child.
Do you not think so yourself and if not why not?

I'm pregnant. I won't consider myself a mother until I have a child in my arms. Before that 'mother' is shorthand for 'biological material donor'.

What is there to parent before birth? I can try lay down the law, but it's like the blasted things ears don't even work yet. On the plus side grounding it is dead easy.