Healthy baby aborted at 15 weeks

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am not sure ignoring a persons answer and then claiming they did not answer is suggesting that it is THEIR position "falling asunder" to be honest

Sorry, I must have missed your answer.

What was it again? 6 weeks and 2 days?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

You not liking or understanding an answer does not mean I did not give one. My answer was clear, coherent, and in plain english.



I gave an answer. It just does not come in the form YOU want it to. But you do not get to dictate what other peoples answers are. You say "the answer is a number". No. It is not. YOURS might be. That does not mean mine has to be.

So you won't answer.

You'll talk out your pipe about your ethics and philosophies and laws and ifs and maybes and buts.

But at the end of the day, for all your "really important stuff", you can't even answer the simplest bloody question in the beginners guide to abortion.

Full of shyt, that's what your answer is. And you full well know it.

beejee wrote: »

Sorry, I must have missed your answer.

What was it again? 6 weeks and 2 days?

Not great on the old reading are you? I can copy and paste my answer to help you. But remember you WANTING a numerical answer does not mean I have to give one. You asked a question and I gave MY answer to it. Not yours. Mine.

In terms of biology I do not really disagree MUCH with your simplistic "fusion" notion. The biological life of a new individual entity pretty much can be said to start there. No one appears to be disagree with you on that. We could get pedantic, talking about how it is not yet distinct from the mother, or how it is not really the beginning of life but just one step in an ongoing life CYCLE. But it would be pointless. I think we can flag that as common ground.

In terms of philosophy, which is actually what is relevant to abortion in a way biology is not, I think Life (again, capital L here to make the distinction) starts when the entity attains the faculty of sentience. The biological starting point is simply not ethically relevant to my mind, nor has anyone in over 20 years discussing and researching this debate given me a single argument why it might/should.

beejee wrote: »

So you won't answer.

I will not give the answer YOU want no. But I did answer.

I think biological life can safely be said to start at conception in most senses.

The Life of a Human Person however I believe starts when the faculty of sentience/consciousness arises. We do not know an exact time line on that. I do not think there even is one. There is no on/off moment I suspect.Rather it is a slow boot up process over several weeks. Likely somewhere between week 28 and week 34 of gestation. Estimations vary.

What we do know however is that a fetus at 12 weeks or 16 weeks.... you know when nearly all abortions by choice actually occur.... are a LONG way from having not just that faculty, but nearly all of it's pre-requisites too. I see no reason to consider that a "Life" in anything but the basic biological sense.

beejee wrote: »

Full of shyt, that's what your answer is. And you full well know it.

Oh so now suddenly you are acknowledging that i did answer. Despite dishonestly claiming I did not. Funny that.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Not great on the old reading are you? I can copy and paste my answer to help you. But remember you WANTING a numerical answer does not mean I have to give one. You asked a question and I gave MY answer to it. Not yours. Mine.

In terms of biology I do not really disagree MUCH with your simplistic "fusion" notion. The biological life of a new individual entity pretty much can be said to start there. No one appears to be disagree with you on that. We could get pedantic, talking about how it is not yet distinct from the mother, or how it is not really the beginning of life but just one step in an ongoing life CYCLE. But it would be pointless. I think we can flag that as common ground.

In terms of philosophy, which is actually what is relevant to abortion in a way biology is not, I think Life (again, capital L here to make the distinction) starts when the entity attains the faculty of sentience. The biological starting point is simply not ethically relevant to my mind, nor has anyone in over 20 years discussing and researching this debate given me a single argument why it might/should.



I will not give the answer YOU want no. But I did answer.

I think biological life can safely be said to start at conception in most senses.

The Life of a Human Person however I believe starts when the faculty of sentience/consciousness arises. We do not know an exact time line on that. I do not think there even is one. There is no on/off moment I suspect.Rather it is a slow boot up process over several weeks. Likely somewhere between week 28 and week 34 of gestation. Estimations vary.

What we do know however is that a fetus at 12 weeks or 16 weeks.... you know when nearly all abortions by choice actually occur.... are a LONG way from having not just that faculty, but nearly all of it's pre-requisites too. I see no reason to consider that a "Life" in anything but the basic biological sense.



Oh so now suddenly you are acknowledging that i did answer. Despite dishonestly claiming I did not. Funny that.

"what is 2+2?"

"well it's very complicated, you can't just give an answer. Philosophically, "" what are numbers"" anyway? Ethically, I don't believe I should have to answer, and morally the answer is 17"

Yeah, very useful information that amounts to diddly squat.

It's all convenient excuses. You know that if you had an answer, an actual numerical answer to a numerical question, you'd have to stick to it. You'd have to justify it. You'd have to have conviction and actual founded belief.

But, if you talk in circles, you can bend waffle to mean whatever you want, whenever you want.

How convenient.

And when one considers that such slithering avoidance is put into practice against indisputable simplistic fact, just imagine the mental meltdowns of engaging with that crap in actually complicated issues.

No wonder people are walking around in a daze in this country, they're being bombarded with double-speak shoite day in day out. What a strategy.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

That is what I said though isn't it? We do not KNOW an exact numerical answer. At least I am honest about that. We have a numerical RANGE which I gave you. But that is all we currently have. I am not going to lie and make up a number, just to satisfy an incoherent demand.

I am not sure what you think "excuses" are required however. You have not established a single moral and ethical argument against the termination of a 12 week old fetus. Therefore there is nothing that requires any excuses, because there does not seem to be anything wrong with it in the first place.

Maybe you differ, but I tend not to seek justification for actions that require no justification in the first place.

My moral and ethical concern is for sentient agents only. I have no moral or ethical concern for entirely non-sentient individual entities. Rocks. Tables Legs. 12 week old fetuses. Bacteria. Potatoes. And so on.

But there IS an exact answer. Life begins at cellular fusion.

You say "we don't know", so that means you don't agree with cellular fusion. Why you believe this? Who knows?!

You keep accusing me of not using any ethical, moral etc arguments. That's because I'm not trying to make one.

Yet, when I ask you what the sum total knowledge of philosophy et al amounts to, the thing you accuse me of not having, you've got nothing to say.

It's waffle, convenient, go-nowhere waffle.

If you can't give a plain answer to a simple question, why on earth would anyone engage you on a complicated level?

I don't think you're genuine. I think it's sneaking behind it all, intellectual cowardice.

You can prove those statements wrong by providing an answer that is short and sweet and appropriate. Not waffle. Not "I have time to tell you I answered in the most roundabout confusing way possible but not enough time to answer" stuff.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

In biology terms yes, I already said that. I am not sure why you are repeating it at me. You keep saying people disagree with that but you have yet to show me who these "people" are. Who are they exactly? I have not met one yet.



I said I do not know when the Life of a Human Person exactly starts. I believe it starts when the faculty of sentience arises. We do not currently know exactly when that is. Do you?



Once again you pretending an answer was not given, does not mean an answer was not given. Pretending it is not there is just a cop out move to not engage with it. Pretending I have to give the answer YOU want rather than the answer I actually give is too.

Why do you keep splitting answers into different areas?

In the world of biology it's this answer, in the world of ethics it's this answer...

So? What's the final answer? All combined? You said it's all important to consider. You've obviously considered it. So...

"I don't know". Is that the sum total of all this?

Do you just not know? You have no personal belief derived from it all?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

To try and get you to answer? While pretending I did not answer, when I did, you have managed not to answer my direct questions. Again: Who exactly are these "people" you are talking about? Perhaps if I could figure out who they are I will get a more coherent picture of their position than you have thus far provided vicariously on their behalf. I suspect these people are straw men of your construction and aside from a small handful of random individuals they do not actually exist outside your imagination.



I think on the subject of abortion it is important to consider when the fetus becomes an entity for which we should have moral and ethical concern. Absolutely. I think it not just important, I think it is KEY.

I think it becomes such when sentience arises in it. We do not know EXACTLY when this is, but we have a general ball park figure. In fact I believe there IS no "exact" value. I think it varies from fetus to fetus a little. And I think it is likely not a simple on/off process but a drawn out iterative one over the course of some time.

However I also know that all our science suggests this happens LONG after abortion usually occurs. It happens somewhere after 28 weeks. The near totality of choice based abortion happens at 12 weeks. And it is for this reason that A) I think the biological "start" of life is irrelevant and I see absolutely nothing morally or ethically wrong with such abortion and C) I do not think people are actually disagreeing with the biological "start" of life despite your pretence and imagination to the contrary.

What part of that answer is not clear to you?

So you believe life only begins at sentience.

Id ask "why?" but what's the point.

Do you think it's convenient that your personal, ill-defined definition of life just so happens to be after most people get abortions?

It's handy, that.

Have you ever had an ethical conversation with yourself that doesn't end up justifying what you want? Food for thought.

And I'm done with this. An exercise in frustration that went nowhere except back to hazy, vague convenient beliefs. Good luck.

So not answering the question then? Run forest run!

beejee wrote: »

So you believe life only begins at sentience.

I believe "Life" as in personhood begins then yes. And I think that is what most people mean when they talk about "Life" in the context of abortion.

I think the reason you can not answer the question about who these people are is because of that. There is pretty much NO ONE disagreeing with the biological terminology of when "life" begins. You just pretended there was and when called on it, and explained what they likely were saying, you have basically run away from the original claim.

What I suspect people are actually doing is the same thing I am doing. Making a distinction between biological "life" and the "Life" of a human being. And you could not tell the difference.

Hopefully now you can. IF nothing else I hope I did you that service so you do not embarrass yourself with a sweeping claim without foundation like that one again.

beejee wrote: »

Do you think it's convenient that your personal, ill-defined definition of life just so happens to be after most people get abortions?

I am not sure convenient is the right word. I could not care less one way or another. My interest is in what is TRUE about the world. My interest is in forming morals and ethics that are couched in what is real and important in our world.

If sentience arose before most abortions occurred I would campaign AGAINST abortion. I would be on this thread arguing AGAINST abortion with the same passion I argue for choice.

It doesn't, so I don't.

I think what you are trying to suggest, from your strawman collection again, is that I am invested in abortion so I just went looking for arguments to support that position. Nothing could be further from the truth. My moral and ethical world view was formed first. My position on abortion came as a result of that, not a pre-requisite of it.

beejee wrote: »

Have you ever had an ethical conversation with yourself that doesn't end up justifying what you want? Food for thought.

Very often in fact yes. For example I find the fact I a meat eater very hard to justify given the current state of meat farming. While I try to source my meat as ethically as humanly possible, I realise that I eat meat DESPITE my morality on the issue and that I am on the subject of meat basically immoral and a hypocrite.

I do all I can to improve the ethics around meat farming, but I am weak and I have not the moral character to become vegetarian. But yes, that is one example of MANY where I have had ethical conversations with myself that do not justify what I want. There are others. Most of them I stay true to my moral conclusions and deny myself the thing I want. For some reason when it comes to meat, I am quite weak however.

beejee wrote: »

And I'm done with this. An exercise in frustration that went nowhere except back to hazy, vague convenient beliefs. Good luck.

Well then if you ever wish to return and attempt to NOT rely solely on those vague convenient beliefs you might find it less frustrating. I know I do, which is why I put a lot of effort in the last 20 years to form a coherent, rational, evidence based approach to the otherwise emotive topic of abortion. You should try it.

I would like to test out "Nozzferrahhtoo's first law of internet posting" however which states that "The probability of a user posting again in a conversation goes up in direct proportion to the number of times they claim to be finished" It is a law I made up as a joke, but has been validated many more times than not in he past. Let's see if it strikes again shall we?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So not answering the question then? Run forest run!



I believe "Life" as in personhood begins then yes. And I think that is what most people mean when they talk about "Life" in the context of abortion.

I think the reason you can not answer the question about who these people are is because of that. There is pretty much NO ONE disagreeing with the biological terminology of when "life" begins. You just pretended there was and when called on it, and explained what they likely were saying, you have basically run away from the original claim.

What I suspect people are actually doing is the same thing I am doing. Making a distinction between biological "life" and the "Life" of a human being. And you could not tell the difference.

Hopefully now you can. IF nothing else I hope I did you that service so you do not embarrass yourself with a sweeping claim without foundation like that one again.



I am not sure convenient is the right word. I could not care less one way or another. My interest is in what is TRUE about the world. My interest is in forming morals and ethics that are couched in what is real and important in our world.

If sentience arose before most abortions occurred I would campaign AGAINST abortion. I would be on this thread arguing AGAINST abortion with the same passion I argue for choice.

It doesn't, so I don't.

I think what you are trying to suggest, from your strawman collection again, is that I am invested in abortion so I just went looking for arguments to support that position. Nothing could be further from the truth. My moral and ethical world view was formed first. My position on abortion came as a result of that, not a pre-requisite of it.



Very often in fact yes. For example I find the fact I a meat eater very hard to justify given the current state of meat farming. While I try to source my meat as ethically as humanly possible, I realise that I eat meat DESPITE my morality on the issue and that I am on the subject of meat basically immoral and a hypocrite.

I do all I can to improve the ethics around meat farming, but I am weak and I have not the moral character to become vegetarian. But yes, that is one example of MANY where I have had ethical conversations with myself that do not justify what I want. There are others. Most of them I stay true to my moral conclusions and deny myself the thing I want. For some reason when it comes to meat, I am quite weak however.



Well then if you ever wish to return and attempt to NOT rely solely on those vague convenient beliefs you might find it less frustrating. I know I do, which is why I put a lot of effort in the last 20 years to form a coherent, rational, evidence based approach to the otherwise emotive topic of abortion. You should try it.

I would like to test out "Nozzferrahhtoo's first law of internet posting" however which states that "The probability of a user posting again in a conversation goes up in direct proportion to the number of times they claim to be finished" It is a law I made up as a joke, but has been validated many more times than not in he past. Let's see if it strikes again shall we?

To the bolded: are you seriously insinuating that my arguments are vague etc? You have literally replaced my argument by putting yourself into my sentence. Are you mental?

To the point. Here is the choice at hand:

1) believe in straight up biology that presents the simple truth that life begins at cellular fusion. It is simple. Easily understood. Clearly defined, right down to a divisible second of time, nano seconds if you like. It presents a barrier to many abortion arguments and opinions.

2) believe in something far more vague, in your case, sentience. It isn't clearly defined, it isn't intuitive, it can't be pinned down to time and so on. In other words, very convenient for certain abortion arguments. Very handy belief to have!

So, you'll excuse me if I suspect that anyone who prefers vague beliefs that can change on a dime, versus basic biology.

Imagine that the likes of nasa found a cellularly differentiating "thing" on another planet, only to declare, "no big deal, it's just a "yoke".



Hence MY argument on vague, hazy, malleable "reasoning". Get it?

Titclamp wrote: »

It passes time when I'm neurotically bored.

It passes time when I am working and have to wait for things to happen in the background

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Can you correct your post its not a baby at 15 weeks.

I don't get what the fuss was about?

The newspapers love emotive language.