The 8th Amendment Part 2 - Mod Warning in OP

RobertKK wrote:

If abortion is fine, then what is offensive about aborted babies? Do they look too human?

If pro-life is fine, what would be offensive about pictures of dead women? What's so offensive about pictures of rotting corpse? What so offensive about pictures of recently raped women? What about videos of babies born with FFA that manage to survive a few minutes or hours past birth?

Or are they just too real?

RobertKK wrote:

So you advocate that children should not be taught biology?
Are the above videos offensive, given this is what the repeal side want to be allowed to be aborted?

To be honest, those videos are grand for those interested in the development of a baby, but show them to a woman that has lost a wanted pregnancy, either through miscarriage or medically necessary abortions, and you're causing them needless stress.

Here's an even more fascinating link

https://embryology.med.unsw.edu.au/embryology/index.php/Hearing_-_Outer_Ear_Development

Medical notes on the hearing development in a fetus.

I don't however see anything to say that it should get priority over the woman carrying it.

Here's an honest question, and one I would love an honest answer to, from you. What do you foresee happening, if the 8th is kept in place?

RobertKK wrote: »

Here is what an unborn looks like at 12 weeks, you see no humanity in this...

This is a great example. It's made of plastic but it looks human and elicits our emotional responses. Should we protect the plastic baby because of our perception of this "humanity", whatever that means?

Shall we amend the constitution to protect all things with a human-like face?

AtomicHorror wrote: »

This is a great example. It's made of plastic but it looks human and elicits our emotional responses. Should we protect the plastic baby because of our perception of this "humanity", whatever that means?

I was going to use an image of a real 12 week old that was miscarried but decided against it so used a similar plastic image instead.

RobertKK wrote: »

You see this is not a false image. This is why the repeal side only focus on the woman as this is at 12 weeks.

That is a false image, that is not remotely close to what an actual 12 week fetus looks like.

RobertKK wrote: »

I was going to use an image of a real 12 week old that was miscarried but decided against it so used a similar plastic image instead.

I know. But you inadvertently made a great point. Care to address it?

Here is another post for you to dodge and ignore Robert.

RobertKK wrote: »

Because a lot of what is regarded as lies simply isn’t so they ignore it, as concentrating on something that would negatively affect the repeal side would be harmful.

Yet the only one demonstrably ignoring anything here is you. Project much?

For example you have dodged and ignored quite a number of my points and posts at this stage. Simply pretending they are not there it seems.

However you are not being internally coherent here either. If they are calling something a lie, how could they be "ignoring it" at the same time? That makes no logical or linguistic sense. Calling it anything at all, is the opposite of ignoring it because to label something you have to acknowledge it first.

RobertKK wrote: »

That is you trying to evade that there are at least two lives (more if twins or more) involved.

Except the evasion in that post very demonstrably just came from you, not what you quoted. The user not only said PERSONS life, but they capatalized it too. And in your reply you simply evaded that word entirely.

No one said there is only one life involved. That is your own distortion and narrative. What they did say was there was only one person's life involved, being as the fetus is not a person.

RobertKK wrote: »

So you advocate that children should not be taught biology?

Oh they absolutely should be taught biology, and philosophy too, and it is a shame you do not appear to have benefited from such an education yourself.

Having a deep education in both allows me to see the holes in the narrative you espouse here. There is little going on in the fetus in the videos you offer here that is not also going on in a cow when it is slaughtered for meat.

Autonomic responses, heart beats, organs..... cows have all that too and at a higher level and more developed stage than a 12 week old fetus. Amazing is it not that such things only concern you when it SUITS YOU to be concerned about them. Bias much?

What anyone with any grounding in biology and philosophy quickly realizes is that the things that distinguish human life (which we do not want to kill) from bovine life (which we happily kill for meat all the time) is entirely absent from a fetus at 12 weeks gestation. NOTHING is going on in that fetus that coherently mediated our moral and ethical concerns, or provides a foundation for affording it rights.

So by all means let us teach children biology AND the adults, such as yourself, who have yet to benefit from that teaching.

RobertKK wrote: »

Another lie, pretend the unborn lacks any humanity.

Except at 12 weeks gestation it is not a lie. But by all means expose the lie if you think there is one. How are you defining "Humanity"? What attributes does it consist of? Which of those attributes mediate moral and ethical concern? And where are you finding the attributes listed in a 12 week old fetus?

Expose the lie rather than merely assert it! I am all ears.

RobertKK wrote: »

If abortion is fine, then what is offensive about aborted babies? Do they look too human?

There is nothing offensive about sex either, but if we were campaigning on a sexual issue I would not be rushing to have posters of people copulating all over the public streets. Would you?

Heart Bypass Surgery is fine too. As is brain surgery. I would not generally be advocating for throwing pictures of open heart or open skull surgery in the faces of children however.

Nor are we rushing to bring children on school field trips around morgues. But even if we were, parental consent is a great part of individual field trips.

That said I am more liberal in that regard than some people. For example I would happily bring my daughter (7) to a real time dissection of an animal. For example this dissection of a beaver at a Field Museum was performed in front of quite young children.

But in terms of the emotional well being of children I think there is a difference between the parental choice of exposure to dissections of animals in private............. and exposure to the innards of human adults, children, infants, babies or fetuses in public against parental will, choice or warning.

RobertKK wrote: »

Look at videos, there is a humanity

Again which definition of "humanity" are you using. At a taxonomy and biological level it is clearly "Human" but no one here is denying that at all. How are you distinguishing the words "humanity" and "human"? What are the defining and distinguishing attributes of the two?

Or are you simply using the two words interchangeably in a willful and agenda driven error?

I see Robert's got the Wednesday morning shift. Who's scheduled for this afternoon?

RobertKK wrote: »

Your argument is why a group of ethicists in Oxford University said infanticide should be allowed as the born baby has the same understandings as an unborn baby.

It has nothing to do with "understanding". At 12 weeks the fetus does not even have the faculty of consciousness, sentience or understanding at all. It is not about relative levels of understanding. It is about the presence of the faculty involved in the first place.

You might do well to cite the ethicists you speak of therefore as either they do not know what they are talking about AT ALL or you are misrepresenting what they actually said.

Citations are a wonderful thing. For example here is me actually citing the direct views of Ethical Philosopher Peter Singer:

"Seems like several people want me to answer this question, so the short answer, though, is that I don't think the embryo or fetus should be regarded as having a right to life. That's because, although I agree with opponents of abortion that the fetus is a living being of the species Homo sapiens I don't think that mere species membership gives a being a right to life. As a result, I don't think there is anything wrong with abortion unless the abortion is carried out so late in pregnancy that the fetus might feel pain during the procedure. (That is unlikely to be earlier than 20 weeks - the overwhelming majority of abortions are performed much earlier than this.)"

Now you know how a citation works, maybe you will try one?

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes, people are too sensitive and feel the need that society should shield them away from reality, which aids ignorance in general society.

That doesn't address what I asked...