Legalise abortion

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And again I tell you this is not so. DNA can be usurped and they can have all the DNA they want and inherit nothing. With the mere written word and my signature it doesn’t matter how closely related someone is to me, they will get nothing. They can “Challenge” it all they like, they are “guaranteed” nothing. DNA therefore is not all they need. They need a case.

Incorrect, they indeed do. You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts I am afraid.

That's true, except in some countries [not in this one.] They can challenge a will, but just as much as anyone else can.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

And again I tell you this is not so. DNA can be usurped and they can have all the DNA they want and inherit nothing. With the mere written word and my signature it doesn’t matter how closely related someone is to me, they will get nothing. They can “Challenge” it all they like, they are “guaranteed” nothing. DNA therefore is not all they need. They need a case.

I said they have a right to inheritance. I never said anything about guarantees.

Incorrect, they indeed do. You are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts I am afraid.

You seem to be relying upon pedantry at this stage.

The Corinthian wrote: »

You seem to be relying upon pedantry at this stage.

Oh come off it. If someone pointing out that science DOES say something that you claimed it does not is pedantry then I am afraid I am likely to be a pedant for life and I will never apologise for it. Your claim is either correct or incorrect and it can not be both. In this case it was entirely incorrect.

You can not back up your position with totally inaccurate science, nor am I admonished to let it pass either. You clearly said sperm does not contain DNA when it does. You clearly said its DNA is unique when it in fact clearly is. SOME decorum please.

drkpower

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes, I think at this point it should have absolutely no rights. None.

Fine; I appreciate this is your view. I think that it is an incorrect one or at least a misguided one. The idea that completey unrestricted experimentation on foetus' aged 14-15-16-17-18 weeks (or whatever is a pre-sentience/conciousness foetus) is, well, wrong...!

And I have yet to hear a convincing argument why adults lacking sentience/conciousness and/or a born child who never had sentience/conciousness (for various medical reasons) should have any rights if the only criteria for human life is sentience/conciousness.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Oh come off it. If someone pointing out that science DOES say something that you claimed it does not is pedantry then I am afraid I am likely to be a pedant for life and I will never apologise for it. Your claim is either correct or incorrect and it can not be both. In this case it was entirely incorrect.

The definition I gave for unique, independent DNA - that genetically it is an independent homo sapien, with all the genetic material capable of developing to maturity without further generic input from other parties - all it needs is a location to incubate, and after birth to care for it until it can care for itself.

This is actually what egg donation fertility treatment relies on - post fertilization the zygote is implanted into another woman, with no genetic connection to it. Even the 'father' may not be related as the sperm may have also been donated. It's not really that difficult a concept to understand.

Of course, not being a biologist, perhaps I really should have said genome rather than DNA. But then again, on another point of pedantry, we should not be referring to it as a foetus so liberally. And, more importantly, your use of the term 'conciousness' was incorrect - 'sentience' is what defines human higher functions, otherwise goldfish have 'conciousness'.

However, rather than dismiss your entire argument, I corrected your term, even addressed both. You on the other hand are now doing your best to use pedantry to dismiss my argument, when it could have been used against you. It's actually quite intellectually dishonest of you.

On which point, you have never properly defined your criteria for 'personhood'. We're still somewhere between 'conciousness' and 'sentience' and, other than using multiple caveats to shore up your definitions failings, you still have not really addressed how your definition would either include animals or exclude infants.

drkpower wrote: »

Fine; I appreciate this is your view. I think that it is an incorrect one or at least a misguided one. The idea that completey unrestricted experimentation on foetus' aged 14-15-16-17-18 weeks (or whatever is a pre-sentience/conciousness foetus) is, well, wrong...!

Well since you put it that way. Wow. I did not realise I did not actually need evidence, science, argument, or debate. I just needed someone to call it "wrong" and thats that. My entire world view is changed

Sorry no Corinthian, you can not just change what you said. You clearly said “Sperm and ova do not posses DNA”. Yes they do. You quite clearly said “sperm or eggs do not have unique DNA”. They in fact do.

Now you are changing it with caveats of your own, which is comical after you being so obsessed with caveats before. It now has to be in an independent homo sapien and that independent has to be capable of developing to maturity.

So call it names all you like, pedantary or whatever, but I am in no way admonished to sit here and let you invent your own science and facts to back up a non-point and then put up with attempts to make me feel guilty for pointing out the errors.

Quite simply we do not assign rights to DNA, we assign it to the person, and there is no person to be found in a developing fetus and no such thing has even begun to form all the way to 16 weeks.

drkpower

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Well since you put it that way. Wow. I did not realise I did not actually need evidence, science, argument, or debate. I just needed someone to call it "wrong" and thats that. My entire world view is changed

Being a smartass doesnt become you; nor does repeatedly failing to answer the substantive question about born children who never had sentience or adults who have lost it, and why these entities are worthy of society's consideration when they do not have what supposedly makes one human.

And why, when you say here with such proud definitiveness, that the foetus with no conciousness/sentience is not human and has no rights whatsoever and that there is certainly no conciousness/sentience at 16 weeks, do you say, on the other thread on abortion in this forum, that the fact that 66% of women abort <9 weeks "comforts you"?

Is it possible you dont even agree with what you say yourself? Because if you genuinely believe that a foetus <16 weeks is an entity entirely devoid of rights ("as much a human to me as my IKEA instructions ARE the wardrobe I am building"), why would its destruction at 9 weeks or 15 weeks make any difference to you?

Im sooo confused.

1. I never knew that sperm didn't have dna.

2. What is sentience exactly? How do you measure it scientifically?

3. Why does it qualify your right to life moreso than being human does?

4. How do you know a foetus at 8, 9 weeks, or up to 16 weeks whatever DOES not have sentience, whatever that is?

5. How can you be confident in science technology to be able to detect and measure how old the foetus is?

AARRRGH

dlofnep wrote: »

Is a fetus always a fetus, even 5 seconds before a woman gives birth? When does it become a child? What's the difference between a child inside a womb, or outside? Does it not have the same capacity to think, to feel?

I think society should err on the safe side, and assume life starts a lot earlier rather than later. Unfortunately it seems a large part of society is pushing for later so abortions can be had after many months.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Sorry no Corinthian, you can not just change what you said. You clearly said “Sperm and ova do not posses DNA”. Yes they do. You quite clearly said “sperm or eggs do not have unique DNA”. They in fact do.

And I should have said genome. My bad. Should we discount your arguments because you confused consciousness with sentience? This is what I mean by pedantry.

Now you are changing it with caveats of your own, which is comical after you being so obsessed with caveats before.

I'm not, I'm simply correcting the term I was using, which was incorrect - just as consciousness was the incorrect term for you. A caveat is something different - it is where you state something as fact and then 'warn' (hint: that's what it means in Latin) of exceptions to the rule. I have not done this.

It now has to be in an independent homo sapien and that independent has to be capable of developing to maturity.

Actually, I said this several pages ago, so please do not accuse me of changing anything.

So call it names all you like, pedantary or whatever, but I am in no way admonished to sit here and let you invent your own science and facts to back up a non-point and then put up with attempts to make me feel guilty for pointing out the errors.

Don't be juvenile. I used an incorrect term, so have you. I corrected it. It is not a caveat and to now use this as a dismissal without bothering to defend your own position is intellectually fraudulent.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Wow. I did not realise I did not actually need evidence, science, argument, or debate. I just needed someone to call it "wrong" and thats that. My entire world view is changed

To begin with you have presented precious little evidence yourself to defend your own position.

Secondly, arguments have been put forward - you have consistently failed to address the issue that your position is heavily dependant on numerous caveats to make it hold together. You've denied that they exist, even though it has been put to you on numerous occasions - you have not even bothered to address them.

Finally, this debate is about two different definitions of what constitutes a person deserving of (unspecified) rights - essentially a peer review that seeks to test them. This does not mean that either of them are correct - just because one may be, the other is not necessarily the truth, only our best available stance at the present time, until demonstrated otherwise.

This is not the politics board. The purpose here is not to convert. We may both be wrong or one of us may be right or, quite possibly, one of us may simply be closer to the truth than the other but still incorrect. It is only through such discussion that you can test what we believe and change - if, on the other hand, you want to convert, then this is probably not the correct forum for you.

drkpower wrote: »

Being a smartass doesnt become you

No but it becomes the response you gave me. Saying something is wrong and thats that is hardly a killer argument is it? I am afraid I dignify what I read with responses of equal merit. Quid Pro Quo.

drkpower wrote: »

nor does repeatedly failing to answer the substantive question about born children who never had sentience or adults who have lost it

Ignoring my answer is not the same as me ignoring the question. Quite the opposite. I already answered this. I shall repeat it however. We do not know enough about consciousness to make judgments one way or another. I simply say that when the faculty forms then the "person" gets rights and holds on to them until death do them part. Anyone born without it, or who loses it, is essentially brain dead and I have no qualms about saying there is no rights to be assigned here.

However do not mix that up with "losing consciousness" and comas and the like, which is entirely different but it is an easy pitfall to make. I made it myself often at the beginning of reading all I read before forming my position on this.

The faculty is still there, it is just not operating normally. Developing without it, or losing it but not dying, is a phenomenon so rare that I can not even think right now of a condition to which you refer. Maybe you can give me an example and I can clarify further.

drkpower wrote: »

And why, when you say here with such proud definitiveness, that the foetus with no conciousness/sentience is not human and has no rights whatsoever and that there is certainly no conciousness/sentience at 16 weeks, do you say, on the other thread on abortion in this forum, that the fact that 66% of women abort <9 weeks "comforts you"?

Ah this is easy, you have simply misread what I wrote, or I did not get my point over clear enough. However I can clarify quite quickly without quibbling over you misunderstanding me or me not being clear enough.

Quite simply what I mean by this is my cut off is 16 weeks and the US and UK it is 24-26 weeks which distresses me. So it comforts me greatly that even though the law is way higher there than I would like it, most people do not wait that long. In other words it is not that I am happy that 66% are <9 weeks per se, but that the fact that 66% of them ARE <9 weeks means that said 66% are then by definition < the 24 weeks which distresses me.

Hi metro, thanks for the questions, let me see if i can help with some.

metrovelvet wrote: »

1. I never knew that sperm didn't have dna.

They do. The person who claimed they did not on the thread was entirely wrong in this. If in doubt, check it out. Do not take my word or the others persons word for it. Read the science. I linked to a few articles specifically referring to Sperm DNA which should help you start.

metrovelvet wrote: »

2. What is sentience exactly? How do you measure it scientifically?

We can not at this time. Our science at this time is not good enough. Anyone who tells you we can is lying or misinformed. This is why I do not base my opinions on abortions on levels of sentience, or types, but at a point in the development when we can very safely say it is not there at all. Not a little bit, not a lot, but not AT ALL.

metrovelvet wrote: »

3. Why does it qualify your right to life moreso than being human does?

I feel this is so because it is FROM that part of us that "rights" come. It is not me therefore that is elevating it in this discussion, but it that elevates itself. If such a thing did not exist we would not be here talking about rights in the first place. We wouldnt give a toss. Dogs and Dolphins do not sit around talking or thinking about rights do they?

metrovelvet wrote: »

4. How do you know a foetus at 8, 9 weeks, or up to 16 weeks whatever DOES not have sentience, whatever that is?

I answered this before but it is fine. Like Gravity and Matter most people do not know what they are, where they come from, how or why. However we are still able to identify clearly when they are entirely absent arent we?

Similarly we have so much more to learn about this stuff, but what we do know is certain building blocks have to be present. I do not know much about cars, but I know without parts of its engine it does nothing. Similarly we know little about this stuff but we know the parts of the engine it simply can not operate without. I read about many of these and I find the the earliest one of them to form does not even begin to form until 20 weeks on average.

Just like a car will not run without spark plugs, we know sentience and consciousness will not run without these things.

metrovelvet wrote: »

5. How can you be confident in science technology to be able to detect and measure how old the foetus is?

Actually the ability to date the age of a fetus accurately is well within our capabilities. Hell we even know generally how many cells it has at a given time for the most part.

metrovelvet wrote: »

1. I never knew that sperm didn't have dna.

They have DNA in that they have genetic material, however they do not have a full human genome.

2. What is sentience exactly? How do you measure it scientifically?

You'd better ask him whether he means sentience or conciousness - he appears a bit fuzzy on that one.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

We can not at this time. Our science at this time is not good enough. Anyone who tells you we can is lying or misinformed. This is why I do not base my opinions on abortions on levels of sentience, or types, but at a point in the development when we can very safely say it is not there at all. Not a little bit, not a lot, but not AT ALL.

But you cant safely say that can you if the science at this time is not good enough? You are in a xeno's paradox.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I feel this is so because it is FROM that part of us that "rights" come. It is not me therefore that is elevating it in this discussion, but it that elevates itself. If such a thing did not exist we would not be here talking about rights in the first place. We wouldnt give a toss. Dogs and Dolphins do not sit around talking or thinking about rights do they?

They might for all we know in their own way. They defend their lives, their territory, their young.

I dont think our rights have anything to do with sentience, whatever that is, they are from us assigning them to us, based on being human.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I answered this before but it is fine. Like Gravity and Matter most people do not know what they are, where they come from, how or why. However we are still able to identify clearly when they are entirely absent arent we?

Who are most people? Who are the other people that do know, where what and why?

We do know where gravity comes from, it comes from the force of the earth spinning. We do know what matter is, it is carbon based material [at least taht is what I remember from eigth grade science. We know the world is made of of atoms and particles and strings and whatever else the physicists have discovered.

But what the hell has this got to do with anything?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Similarly we have so much more to learn about this stuff, but what we do know is certain building blocks have to be present. I do not know much about cars, but I know without parts of its engine it does nothing. Similarly we know little about this stuff but we know the parts of the engine it simply can not operate without. I read about many of these and I find the the earliest one of them to form does not even begin to form until 20 weeks on average.

What are you talking about? The earliest car doesnt form until 20 weeks? WHAT?????

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Just like a car will not run without spark plugs, we know sentience and consciousness will not run without these things.

A car will not run without a lot of things, petrol, a battery, an engine,and a driver. What has this got to do with the price of butter?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Actually the ability to date the age of a fetus accurately is well within our capabilities. Hell we even know generally how many cells it has at a given time for the most part.

Well, given they got the age of my son way off in the second trimester and I ended up in surgery, I dont have absolute faith in our technology or the human interpretive error behind it. Not something I would want to base life and death on.

Insults demean only the insulter, not the insulted Corinthinan. You can go around calling people Juvenile or pedantic all you want. The fact is you came out with inaccurate science and I corrected it. If insults are all you have to offer someone who does this then there is little more to say to you. Insults are last hiding place of people with nothing left to offer in the conversation but feel they have to say something.

If the best you have to offer me a this time is calling me pedantic while being pedantic yourself then there is little I have left to learn off you. My use of the word consciousness is both fine in this context and I have further clarified on two occasions what I mean by it. It is interchangeable with sentience in the right context and you only need to google the phrase human consciousness or “the rise of human consciousness” to find many 100s of people using it in exactly the same way as I. Not all words have black and white meanings, but with a huge portion of them context is everything.

You are indeed right that this is not a conversion board, but a place to learn by discussion, and if inaccurate science of the gamete and meiosis and name calling is the sum total of what you have to offer then all that is left for me is to thank you profusely for your time (thank you thank you) and move one.

Turtwig

The Corinthian wrote: »

You'd better ask him whether he means sentience or conciousness - he appears a bit fuzzy on that one.

Really?
Seems to me like he's doing his best to be as clear on it as possible.

Eliot Rosewater

I always find it funny, albeit a little annoying, and boring, when the abortion discussions (invariably) progress to the arena of science and biology. In particular, the ridiculous way in which both sides insinuate that their views stem from science, not philosophy.

In fact, people never talk about actual science, they merely cloak their philosophy in scientific terminology in a profound measure aimed to add credence to their views. The other side will then return with another list of terms and acronyms, and always with an amazingly subjective interpretation of what they mean.

The saving grace, in terms of my faith in medicine, is that I sincerely doubt that any of ye are real biologists. Merely frequenters of the biology section of Wikipedia I imagine.

My advice: cut out the scientific crap because the abortion topic is a solely philosophical discussion and anyone who can take a peep out from behind their trench knows that.

metrovelvet wrote: »

But you cant safely say that can you if the science at this time is not good enough? You are in a xeno's paradox.

There is no certainty in science. None at all. It is not a 100% operation. Nothing in science is proven 100% ever. Science is about making the best interpretation at any time based on all the evidence present without assuming any evidence or ignoring any evidence.

That said, everything we now know tells us that there are very clearly identifiable points when conciousness is not present in a human. That is why I use this to base my opinions on. It is as close to certain as science gets.

Once it BEGINS To form however we have no such certainty. We have no way to measure the subjective experiences of a fetus once this area of their being kicks in. Even when the elements of it are irregular and not sustained we can not be sure there are not flashes of awareness etc.

So no I see no problem or paradox with saying that everything we know firmly tells us that before 16 weeks there simple is no faculty of conciousness present in the fetus.

metrovelvet wrote: »

I dont think our rights have anything to do with sentience, whatever that is, they are from us assigning them to us, based on being human.

A very bold postulation and one that is easy to start to prove if you actually believe it. Name for me one source of this notion of "rights" external to the human mind. Can you find it in rocks? Up a tree? In the ocean? Beaming at us from the sun? Find it for me.

Failing that then find me a part of the human being that it comes from aside from the faculty of higher conscience. Cut off some arms and legs... no still there... paralyse them from the neck down.... no still there.... remove their eye balls... you get the picture. And when you have searched every place there is aside from the area I say it is coming from, come back to me and we will talk again.

Until that time I feel safe enough in my assertion that the human faculty of higher consciousness is both the source AND the allocator of this notion of "rights". "Rights" comes from no where else that we know of. Therefore I think this faculty is not just important in a discussion on rights and who to assign them to, but paramount to said discussion.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Who are most people? We do know where gravity comes from, it comes from the force of the earth spinning.

Actually it appears you may be one of the people to whom I refer as this is not accurate.

Spinning can indeed create artificial gravity due to centrifugal forces, but this is not what we are experiencing and gravity itself is another thing. It is caused by matter warping space time. The more mass at a point, spinning or not, the more gravity there is. There is even an equation of Newton for this which you can look up and if you want to have fun you can actually prove that you exert more gravity on your computer screen than the nearest star to our system or you can work out what gravity you are exerting on your son in the next room etc etc.

So see what I mean? Most people actually do not know where these things come from, and a lot of those people, yourself included, have been misinformed as to where they come from. Yet despite this you have no issue whatsoever in identifying when this thing you do not understand is absent.

However what it has to do with anything, which you asked, you will find here:

www.dictionary.com/browse/analogy

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

I always find it funny, albeit a little annoying, and boring, when the abortion discussions (invariably) progress to the arena of science and biology. In particular, the ridiculous way in which both sides insinuate that their views stem from science, not philosophy..

You are indeed right to a large extent. I know myself that my position is a philosophical one.

However it would be useful to be clear on the difference between basing an opinion on science and INFORMING your opinion with science.

Even philosophy has to take into account what we know to be true of the world.

1) My position that rights come from the human mind is a philopsophical one.

2) My position that this human mind has not even started to form in a fetus until 20 weeks is a scientific one which is informed by reading not wikipedia as you suggest but a relatively large number of modern peer reviewed papers on the subject of the development of the human brain after conception.

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

My advice: cut out the scientific crap because the abortion topic is a solely philosophical discussion and anyone who can take a peep out from behind their trench knows that.

So with the above in mind, I thank you very mush for your advice but I can not take it on board. Philosophy without science is useless to me. We can not simply brush under the carpet all we know to be true of the world when engaging in it.

In fact the very notion of disregarding ANY source of knowledge when coming to conclusion on ANY subject is really abhorrant to me.

Eliot Rosewater

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

So with the above in mind, I thank you very mush for your advice but I can not take it on board. Philosophy without science is useless to me. We can not simply brush under the carpet all we know to be true of the world when engaging in it.

Indeed your very right. However debaters of the abortion topic don't use science so much as they abuse it. And what can you prove with science in relation to this topic? The time a a "fetus" becomes a "human being"? Thats really about it. And thats not even known! And then back to "what is a human being" etc etc.

The rest is just philosophical discourse cloaked in scientific terminology, as I said. I have no problem using science to prove something but the issue is that in relation to abortion it proves nothing and is just used to make ones argument sound more convincing to oneself. In this topic no one is won over by science it seems.

In addition to this, it is my opinion that a proper debate focuses on the reasoning people had to emerge at a particular viewpoint, rather than the supplementary evidence (I call it an excuse) that is found later and that all too conveniently fits in with what they have believed previously.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Insults demean only the insulter, not the insulted Corinthinan. You can go around calling people Juvenile or pedantic all you want.

What you have attempted is pedantry, especially given that I could accuse you of the same type of factual error. And the use of pedantry to avoid responding to points and effectively dismiss and argument made to you is frankly juvenile. Now you have appear to be using the excuse of ad hominem attacks as another diversionary tactic.

The fact is you came out with inaccurate science and I corrected it.

I responded to this above. Why are you ignoring my response?

My use of the word consciousness is both fine in this context and I have further clarified on two occasions what I mean by it.

And earlier I even said that it was the wrong word, corrected you, but let it pass because is was sentience you meant. Funny how you did not extend me the same courtesy.

It is interchangeable with sentience in the right context and you only need to google the phrase human consciousness or “the rise of human consciousness” to find many 100s of people using it in exactly the same way as I. Not all words have black and white meanings, but with a huge portion of them context is everything.

They are interchangeable only if you want to use them incorrectly. But apparently this is all right with sentience and consciousness, but not with DNA and genome. Surely you're joking?

Malty_T wrote: »

Seems to me like he's doing his best to be as clear on it as possible.

By using one term incorrectly, then changing halfway through? Refusing to respond to the criticisms that have been put forward in his position (to the point that he denies they exist - without addressing them, naturally)? Then picking on an error, that he committed earlier, and using this as a pretext to refuse debate?

You have a pretty bizarre definition of clarity in that case.

As I said, you have no wholly left the discussion at hand and have made this entirely about me, while degrading only yourself by throwing out insults. I literally have nothing to learn from this and so as I said I thank you for your time thus far, but I require no more of it at this time. Next time I see anything relevant to the actual topic, you can be sure I will reply again. However pulling me up on using a word in the same way as 100s of people all over the place is not likely to keep this thread moving especially when after doing so you call OTHER people pedantic.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

There is no certainty in science. None at all. It is not a 100% operation. Nothing in science is proven 100% ever. Science is about making the best interpretation at any time based on all the evidence present without assuming any evidence or ignoring any evidence.

That said, everything we now know tells us that there are very clearly identifiable points when conciousness is not present in a human. That is why I use this to base my opinions on. It is as close to certain as science gets.

Once it BEGINS To form however we have no such certainty. We have no way to measure the subjective experiences of a fetus once this area of their being kicks in. Even when the elements of it are irregular and not sustained we can not be sure there are not flashes of awareness etc.

So no I see no problem or paradox with saying that everything we know firmly tells us that before 16 weeks there simple is no faculty of conciousness present in the fetus.

A very bold postulation and one that is easy to start to prove if you actually believe it. Name for me one source of this notion of "rights" external to the human mind. Can you find it in rocks? Up a tree? In the ocean? Beaming at us from the sun? Find it for me.

Failing that then find me a part of the human being that it comes from aside from the faculty of higher conscience. Cut off some arms and legs... no still there... paralyse them from the neck down.... no still there.... remove their eye balls... you get the picture. And when you have searched every place there is aside from the area I say it is coming from, come back to me and we will talk again.

Until that time I feel safe enough in my assertion that the human faculty of higher consciousness is both the source AND the allocator of this notion of "rights". "Rights" comes from no where else that we know of. Therefore I think this faculty is not just important in a discussion on rights and who to assign them to, but paramount to said discussion.

Actually it appears you may be one of the people to whom I refer as this is not accurate.

]

I still dont see what this science has to do with anything.

We assign ourselves rights, historically not always on the basis of conciousness or even of being human. Once upon a time you had to be white, male and a property owner to have rights.

Once upon a time you would not be served in Dublin restaurant if you were working class.

All your talk about sentience and 16 weeks blah blah blah is basically asking the how many angels are on the head of a pin. Life is a continuum and full of infinite regressions, you cant seriously be pinning your whole argument on that?

And as for what we are able to observe in a feotus at 16 weeks or earlier, how can you be certain that what you call sentience, whatever that is, is there but that the observer's faculities are not acute enough to be "conscience", "sentient" of it?

Yes, exactly. “We assign ourselves rights”. It comes from us and nowhere else. You are half way there with me now.

What part of us does that? Our foot? Our teeth?

No clearly not. It is our faculty of higher consciousness that does it. I do not think it a leap therefore to say it is TO this faculty we assign them.

Therefore, since every bit of science we have on the development of the fetus tells us this faculty is entirely and wholly absent all the way up to 20 weeks on average, but certainly to 16, then what is it exactly you think we are assigning rights to?

There simply is nothing there to assign rights to, except a blue print for that something. Like I said before, the instructions for making an IKEA wardrobe are not themselves an IKEA wardrobe. Similarly the fetus contains all the instructions for forming a human mind, but all the way up to 16 weeks it just has not done so.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

As I said, you have no wholly left the discussion at hand and have made this entirely about me, while degrading only yourself by throwing out insults.

You have attempted to dismiss an argument based upon an error that you yourself have made elsewhere. When this was put to you, you ignored the rebuttal, so what do you want me to think?

I literally have nothing to learn from this and so as I said I thank you for your time thus far, but I require no more of it at this time. Next time I see anything relevant to the actual topic, you can be sure I will reply again. However pulling me up on using a word in the same way as 100s of people all over the place is not likely to keep this thread moving especially when after doing so you call OTHER people pedantic.

I pulled you up on using conciousness incorrectly, but I did not attempt to cynically use that error to my advantage because even if you used the wrong word, I understood what you were trying to say. Had I attempted to dismiss your entire argument on the basis of your misuse of the word, then I certainly would have been a pedant.

Then I did the same with DNA (another word misused my many), but instead you sought to turn this to your advantage, even though it was evident that I meant genome and simply used the wrong term.

Indeed, all of us have technically been misusing the term foetus too!

But perhaps you do not have anything more to learn. As I mooted earlier, when someone doggedly sticks to an unwieldy position, even though it is evident that it is likely flawed, then chances are that they are more interested in maintaining what that position protects, rather than learn anything new.

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

Yes, exactly. “We assign ourselves rights”. It comes from us and nowhere else. You are half way there with me now.

What part of us does that? Our foot? Our teeth?

No clearly not. It is our faculty of higher consciousness that does it. I do not think it a leap therefore to say it is TO this faculty we assign them.

Therefore, since every bit of science we have on the development of the fetus tells us this faculty is entirely and wholly absent all the way up to 20 weeks on average, but certainly to 16, then what is it exactly you think we are assigning rights to?

There simply is nothing there to assign rights to, except a blue print for that something. Like I said before, the instructions for making an IKEA wardrobe are not themselves an IKEA wardrobe. Similarly the fetus contains all the instructions for forming a human mind, but all the way up to 16 weeks it just has not done so.

Look, a two year old does not have the ability to assign him or herself rights? Can you kill a two year old? A six month old? Eight year old? At seven, the age of reason?

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

It is our faculty of higher consciousness that does it.

Could you define "our faculty of higher consciousness"?

metrovelvet wrote: »

Look, a two year old does not have the ability to assign him or herself rights? Can you kill a two year old? A six month old? Eight year old? At seven, the age of reason?

Yes but I talk about the faculty not the ability to use it. At no point do I suggest the ability to use it has anything to do with this, otherwise I would have to start building sub clause after sub clause for people in comas, people of reduced mental capabilities and so on.

The whole realm of rights revolves around the "person". Not the DNA. Not the limbs. Not the Organs. It is personhood alone we assign rights to.

A 2 year old HAS this faculty/attribute. A 16 week old developing piece of DNA does not.