aloyisious wrote: » And if the self-interest of the pregnant woman is her life [not lifestyle] but her actual human existence would you deny it to her in the interest of the feotus in her womb?
I believe that MENTAL HEALTH is NOT the only aspect of the pregnant woman's HEALTH that should be considered when evaluating her life in respect of a request for an abortion, [Mens Sana In Corpore Sano] as a woman's body made unhealthy by way of a feotus growing inside her is reason enough to terminate the feotus.
pleas advice wrote: » That's just begging the question, 'its a fetus because it says so in the video'
ohnonotgmail wrote: » I will rephrase: does a 12 week old foetus possess ANY sentience?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » the qualities i ascribe are pretty fundamental components of being human.
recedite wrote: » Neither of us can say when the first drop of magical sentience appears.
recedite wrote: » Is sentience your benchmark for determining humanity,
recedite wrote: » and if so, what level of it turns an animal into a human being?
ohnonotgmail wrote: » We can be pretty certain that a 12 week old foetus does not possess any.
antiskeptic wrote: » Doubtlessly. But are they the only fundamentals. And is there any fundamental which trumps other fundamentals? Your philosophy decides. I'd point out that this isn't religion vs. materialistic philosophy necessarily. I've talked to two atheists who are voting No. They can't put their finger on what the chief fundamental is which steers them towards No, but they both recognize that: a) There is something about humanity that is more than any components of it you care to identify and throw on the table. To define humanity by listing components is to attempt to grab smoke in your hands.
antiskeptic wrote: » Why the equivocation? Sentience is critical in this (to you). Surely you ought to know? Because if you don't know, Vote No.
aloyisious wrote: » The answer to both maybe the unbidden but sentient thought in the back of the atheist's mind that, "there, but for the grace of God go I"? The humanity definition that recognizes itself in the feotus and goes into auto-defense mode when it come to one of the same species
antiskeptic wrote: » An evolutionary response that which help propel us to the top of the world... ...about to go the way of the dodo. It would appear that YAYtheists are building a tower of Babel, supposing they can outdo the very god that created them.
antiskeptic wrote: » It would appear that YAYtheists are building a tower of Babel, supposing they can outdo the very god that created them
aloyisious wrote: » Ah yes. I was wondering if some-one would introduce the angle of "are we outreaching ourselves here, making ourselves out to be gods, going beyond what we, as a species, were designated to go", using our superior intellect over that of other species to go beyond whatever.......
ohnonotgmail wrote: » *looks at name of forum* Hmmmmmmmm
ohnonotgmail wrote: » I'll rephrase then. We can be certain that a 12 week old foetus does not possess any. Better?
antiskeptic wrote: » Creation in the naturalistic evolutionary sense of course. Blind, non-sentient ... creation. The very characteristics you hold life in the womb to have, as it happens.
Zubeneschamali wrote: » What a strange world you live in!
antiskeptic wrote: » Is that open to scientific discovery to the contrary?
antiskeptic wrote: » Do you suppose the possibility that abortion will one day be looked upon as we now look on the ancient use of bloodletting?
antiskeptic wrote: » Generally, it's an interesting discussion. How does a person who supposes themselves to be the product of naturalistic evolution go on to suppose themselves of having escaped the process? Whether disposing of our progeny will confer evolutionary benefit ... well, only time (and a lot of it) will tell
BMMachine wrote: » Edginess and a distorted paranoia mixed with nastiness and fear. Quite the brew. Bubbles over too, mostly online. I really wonder what "Outlaw" Peter is over compensating for. Everything he says is taken to the furthest point he can bring it and there he sits on it as justified proof that he isn't just spiteful, he's right. It's why he trawls through twitter, he needs that confirmation. He needs to be justified in his aggression and hatred. It's all quite simple. He needs to dance around that large bigoted aspect of his personality and hide it as something else. What I'd love, and I'd pay good money to see this, is for Peter to go to a rape crisis centre and tell everyone there how feminism is toxic or whatnot. The clash of reality, empathy and his identity would be awesome. There is no point debating him or guys like him, it's too absorbed into their digital personality. No matter what is said or shown, it will never be good enough. Because it's not about the issue. It's about them. It's about their limitations and their fear of that. What really cracks me up though is that he's exactly what he hates. The narrow teeth nashing "SJW" with such a limited perspective on society that he so decries. He is that, just another flavour but with the exact same problem. The exact same insecurities, defense mechanisms and venting systems. And no matter what anyone says or what happens he will never ever see that. And that, to me, is utterly hilarious
antiskeptic wrote: » Whether disposing of our progeny will confer evolutionary benefit ... well, only time (and a lot of it) will tell
antiskeptic wrote: » Indeed. A world where we'll do our own in for any and all reasons is strange indeed.
Outlaw Pete wrote: » So no actual argument against anything I have posted then. Just ad hominem nonsense.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » we consider it non-equal because it is not equal on a number of levels. Real actual levels. The slavery argument is just a very poor strawman.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » No real as in actual scientifically provable real. The Yes side have not attempted to dehumanise a foetus. They simply argue that a foetus doe not yet possess the qualities that would put it on a par with a living, breathing, human.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » do you think they possess all the qualities that are normally ascribed to human beings? Does a 12 week old foetus possess sentience for instance?
end of the road wrote: » people consider it not equal because they need to so that they can justify ending it's life for any reason. it's been done to many different groups throughout history. and that argument fails because the fetus at that stage of development doesn't need to have those qualities to determine them to be a human being. science is being used for something it wasn't intended to be used for. again whether they do or not isn't relevant. sentience is simply a last ditch attempt to justify the making of the life of the unborn disposible. fundamental components but not the only components. that is why basing humanity on those alone isn't enough of an argument to allow the life of a fetus to be disposible.
BMMachine wrote: » you are too narrow [...] The internet has snapped your brain [...] justify your inherent nastiness [...] you are the perfect example of this new broken mindset [...]
Zubeneschamali wrote: » Religious people often assume that something else must replace God in an atheists worldview, and Evolution and Darwin its prophet are often taken to be the replacement...
smacl wrote: » Dude, 'first drop of magical sentience'? On the A&A forum? Seriously? :pac:
recedite wrote: » Only that in some countries they are routinely aborted, and that has become the new "normal".
