Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Legalise abortion

1…78101213…40

Comments

  • #272
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

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

    1. How do you know that?

    2. Why does this give you your rights more than a brain and a heartbeat does?


  • #273
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    1. How do you know that?

    As I said before, we know many of the things that this faculty just can not exist without. At this point in the development all of those things are absent. I gave one example before and citing a paper that is worth reading.
    metrovelvet wrote: »
    2. Why does this give you your rights more than a brain and a heartbeat does?

    Because we do not assign rights to brains and heartbeats. We assign it to the "person". The person does not exist before 16 weeks because those parts of the brain that create this have not even started to form. Not that they are there but not switched on, not that they are there but not working properly. Those things are simply not there at all and if they are not there the person would appear not to be either.


  • #274
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Yes but I talk about the faculty not the ability to use it.
    LOL. Sounds like the 'potential' argument.
    A 16 week old developing piece of DNA does not.
    Are you suggesting that DNA is 'developing' at 16 weeks?


  • #275
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    As I said before, we know many of the things that this faculty just can not exist without. At this point in the development all of those things are absent. I gave one example before and citing a paper that is worth reading.



    Because we do not assign rights to brains and heartbeats. We assign it to the "person". The person does not exist before 16 weeks because those parts of the brain that create this have not even started to form. Not that they are there but not switched on, not that they are there but not working properly. Those things are simply not there at all and if they are not there the person would appear not to be either.

    How do you know they are not there?

    Are you suggesting that you are not taking away their life but their right to evolve?

    Your arguments are about as clear as downtown manhattan on the morning of 911.


  • #276
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Yes. That part of us which comes up with this notion of rights in the first place.
    That's a bit vague. Please be more specific.


  • Advertisement
  • #277
    Noffles
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,549 ✭✭✭Noffles


    How many times has this been argued now... I actually gave in arguing and am happy in the thought that a girl / woman can nip over to Blighty have a quick "procedure" and get back to normal... whew... thanks Blighty!! =)


  • #278
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    Are you suggesting that you are not taking away their life but their right to evolve?

    Hmmm. I can not even fathom why you are asking me this. How can I be taking away somethings rights when I have been saying so far that at this stage I beleive them to HAVE no rights.

    I can not take away what something does not have.

    My whole position is based on the fact that there is a part of us from which rights come, and it is this same part that we assign rights to. We know the building blocks required for this part of us to exist and we know that at certain stages these blocks are not there.

    We can not have this notion of rights without this structure, we can not have this structure without those blocks, and those blocks are not there.


  • #279
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    That's a bit vague. Please be more specific.

    It is specific enough for my purposes, as you will see in my post immediately before this one. If you wish to have it defined more specifically above and beyond MY requirements for defining it then I invite you to read more about it.

    I would suggest starting with Daniel Dennetts "Consciousness explained". Not just because it is a good book for anyone from the layman to the hobbyist, but because the list of references and further reading in the back of it is indispensable as a starting point to learn more.


  • #280
    AARRRGH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    Does anyone think if the fetus had a choice it'd choose to be aborted?


  • #281
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    AARRRGH wrote: »
    Does anyone think if the fetus had a choice it'd choose to be aborted?

    Depends on whether its will to survive has developed yet.


  • Advertisement
  • #282
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    How do you know they are not there?

    Ok I have a few minutes to donate to you and I will gladly work with you on this one as it seems to be a sticking point and although I have answered it a few times, I have only done so briefly and it is not sticking.

    It is hard to answer without getting to into the science of it, and after you saying that our gravity comes from the earth spinning I think maybe science might not be the be the best way to proceed.

    So let me put it another way completely. When a person is lying on a hospital table dead, how do you "know" they are dead? How do you "know" they are not in there somewhere? How is it we can definitively say that there simply is no person there any more? Are we guessing or what?

    No, we know what to look for. We can measure electrical patterns, brain waves, the function of certain pieces of the brain. We can definitively as science ever allows us say that the person is gone, dead, just not there any more.

    What I am saying about the fetus therefore is this: Not only are those same things like brain waves and electrical pulses and ingredients not there... the places they COME FROM are not there either.

    So if you can be in ANY way sure a dead person really is dead on an operating table, I can be doubly sure that this fetus is too.**

    **Dead in the sense of the person, not in the sense of completely dead, before someone pedantically jumps on that one. I am aware the fetus is BIOLOGICALLY alive (sure so is an amoeba) and is in the process of attempting to build those parts of the brain to which I refer. The fact is however, it hasnt built them yet in the 16 to 20 week area.


  • #283
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    It is specific enough for my purposes, as you will see in my post immediately before this one. If you wish to have it defined more specifically above and beyond MY requirements for defining it then I invite you to read more about it.
    Actually, I want to know your understanding of it, how you would define it and, finally, apply it in this context.


  • #284
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Malty_T wrote: »
    Depends on whether its will to survive has developed yet.
    How do you measure that? An infant has a will to survive, but pretty much on the same level as an animal. Intellectually it has very little self awareness. Does this count, and if so, should we not afford similar rights to all animals with comparable will to survive? Or if not, should we allow infanticide?


  • #285
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Are you suggesting that DNA is 'developing' at 16 weeks?

    Quite simply no, I am not. I am inferring that it is DOING the developing.


  • #286
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    Actually, I want to know your understanding of it, how you would define it and, finally, apply it in this context.

    Again I have made a point and I have defined it enough to satisfy the point I am making.

    In fact if you go back to my first post you will see that my entire position is to say that because we are so unable to define it, what it is, how it works and why that I base my entire position on finding instead a point in time in the development when it is wholly absent. Which I have done.


  • #287
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Ok I have a few minutes to donate to you and I will gladly work with you on this one as it seems to be a sticking point and although I have answered it a few times, I have only done so briefly and it is not sticking.

    It is hard to answer without getting to into the science of it, and after you saying that our gravity comes from the earth spinning I think maybe science might not be the be the best way to proceed.

    So let me put it another way completely. When a person is lying on a hospital table dead, how do you "know" they are dead? How do you "know" they are not in there somewhere? How is it we can definitively say that there simply is no person there any more? Are we guessing or what?

    No, we know what to look for. We can measure electrical patterns, brain waves, the function of certain pieces of the brain. We can definitively as science ever allows us say that the person is gone, dead, just not there any more.

    What I am saying about the fetus therefore is this: Not only are those same things like brain waves and electrical pulses and ingredients not there... the places they COME FROM are not there either.

    So if you can be in ANY way sure a dead person really is dead on an operating table, I can be doubly sure that this fetus is too.**

    **Dead in the sense of the person, not in the sense of completely dead, before someone pedantically jumps on that one. I am aware the fetus is BIOLOGICALLY alive (sure so is an amoeba) and is in the process of attempting to build those parts of the brain to which I refer. The fact is however, it hasnt built them yet in the 16 to 20 week area.

    You know someone has died when their heart stops beating.

    You keep saying the scientist know and the technology can detect the part of the brain that has this very fuzzy conciousness you keep talking about but I am asking you how you know the scientists and the technology are sentient enough to be able to detect and interpret this fuzzy term you keep talking about.


  • #288
    Turtwig
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    metrovelvet wrote: »
    You know someone has died when their heart stops beating.

    I know this is dragging a thread off topic, but I'm glad you're not a doctor.
    The heart can stop beating, but the person can still come through again.

    Btw this is a peculiar statement to make because, according to Google, the foetus's heart doesn't start beating until Week 3 - So a foetus is not a living person until then ? :confused:
    You keep saying the scientist know and the technology can detect the part of the brain that has this very fuzzy conciousness you keep talking about but I am asking you how you know the scientists and the technology are sentient enough to be able to detect and interpret this fuzzy term you keep talking about.

    Basically you're asking "How does science work?"
    Michael Marshall, Newscientist. wrote:
    Science works in the sense that, if we chuck out all the ideas about a subject that don't fit the available evidence, we end up with a small number of remaining ideas (ideally just one) that do fit the evidence, and we tentatively accept them as being, possibly, not wrong. Then we try and get some more evidence.

    Some of our theories now do very well, in the sense that we don't find any evidence that contradicts them, but in a sense they still have to be thought of as tentative.

    This is what the philosopher Karl Popper called "falsifiability". If a theory can be disproved by observable evidence, then it is science, and if it can't, then it isn't.

    In other words, science can tell us that a theory conforms to all the available evidence, but that still doesn't tell us whether the theory is really, definitely, for all time, 100% categorically true. You can get that sort of certainty in maths, but science is always about a balance of probabilities.

    That balance can be incredibly strongly weighted in one direction - so for instance we are all very confident indeed that the nucleus of a carbon atom contains six protons, not 17 or 43 - but it's still about probabilities.

    So in a sense the answer is: "science works because it knows its limits".


  • #289
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    Malty_T wrote: »
    I know this is dragging a thread off topic, but I'm glad you're not a doctor.
    The heart can stop beating, but the person can still be through again.

    Btw this is a peculiar statement to make because, according to Google, the foetus's heart doesn't start beating until Week 3.



    Basically you're asking "How does science work?"

    No Im not a doctor nor ever said I was. But I knew my dad was dead after his eyes rolled up and his heart stopped beating.

    I should remind you this is humanties, not the biology forum.

    Can you provide that google link?


  • #290
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Again I have made a point and I have defined it enough to satisfy the point I am making.
    I disagree. To begin with I need to question this as your understanding of the concepts in question may be inaccurate - after all, while 'hundreds of people' on the Interweb may confuse consciousness with sentience, someone who is apparently better versed in the subject (given the extensive study they've made) really should not do so.

    Secondly, I raise in response to the next part of your reply.
    In fact if you go back to my first post you will see that my entire position is to say that because we are so unable to define it, what it is, how it works and why that I base my entire position on finding instead a point in time in the development when it is wholly absent. Which I have done.
    How can you tell something that you cannot even define is absent?


  • #291
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    Malty, whenever you get a chance, I'd really appreciate clarification on 'the will to survive'.


  • Advertisement
  • #292
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Metrovelvet, no the heart stopping is not a factor in deciding when death occours. It, like Malty said, can restart etc. The reason we die when the heart stops is the other parts of us that require blood and oxygen IN TURN die because the heart is not supplying them any more.

    Not to mention that we perform many heart transplants. It is not to the heart we assign rights is it? Or if I get someones heart do I get all their rights too??? No clearly something else attains rights and something else has to die before they are lost.


  • #293
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Corinthian I have defined my terms adequetly to support the points I am making. There is not a conversation on the planet you could not end or "win" by simply going into it, picking a term from your antagonist, and asking him to define it to YOUR unattainable standards until you reach a point when he can go no further and you just claim their argument is negated.

    My argument is targeted at that part of us that gives us the human mind, human consciousness, sentience, creativity and personhood. That part of us that comes up with this notion of rights in the first place. I do not have to understand everything and anything there is to know about it to know when it is entirely absent.


  • #294
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    ^ Your terms and definitions remind me of that time that the US Supreme Court locked themselves away and watched hours and hours of pornography trying to come up with a definition for it. One of them said [I think it was Sandra Day O'Connor] "I know it when I see it."

    I guess for you, sentience, higher conciousness, whatever it is you are talking about, is a case of "i know it when I dont see it."

    Not too convincing.


  • #295
    drkpower
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,475 ✭✭✭drkpower


    Nozz, you clearly have given the issue a great degree of thought but your theory/manner of rationalising your viewpoint still smacks of formulating a theory to come to a given conclusion. Of course, we all do that from time to time and it is not unacceptable per se, but it seems to have resulted in a number of unsurmountable difficulties that you cannot overcome.

    1. You, nor anyone else, cannot really determine what it is that constitutes sentience/conciousness. You certainly have not made it clear to many here what you mean by this concept and, most importantly, how you know if it is present.

    You seem to use 2 constructs to protect you here; one, 'you know it when you see it', which isnt good enough in this particular situation, and two, 'I use a robust buffer of "x weeks" to ensure that no foetus which has gained sentience/conciousness is killed' - again, thats admirable but ainty

    When asked about those at the other extreme of life, who may have lost sentience/conciousness, you say that they deserve protection because 'the faculty is still there, it is just not operating normally'. That is simply dishonest; it is a false construct. It is creating a moral framework to suit a particular end. If the 'faculty' is not functioning in any practical way, and will never function in a practical way, why do you give a 100 year old who has lost all sentience/conciousnes of any practical value protection when it does not have (to any practical extent) that which makes it human.

    2. But, most importantly, your sentience/conciousness argument is based on the premise that that is the quality upon which we, as a species, as societies, assign ourselves rights, and that therefore, if an entity has not acquired this quality, it does not attract protection.
    But is that really the sole basis upon which rights are assigned? Im afraid it is not. Assuming you are correct scientifically about the development of sentience/conciousness (at somewhere between 12-20 weeks), why is it that every society that I am aware of, even those with liberal abortion laws, does assign rights to the pre-12 week foetus?

    And they all do; its just that they assign less rights to the early foetus. Most states that have abortion justify it on the 'balance of rights' argument, that the mother's right to privacy/bodily integrity etc is greater than the foetal right to life. But they all assign rights to the early foetus, even the embryo, which I think we can all agree, probably doesnt have sentience/conciousness, whatever that is!

    If you were right, the early foetus would have been assigned no rights by society. But almost every 'society' does the opposite, so clearly there is far more to the acquisition of rights than your concept of conciousness/sentience; membership of the human race, unique DNA, many emotional, moral, ethical and scientific factors go into the acquisition of rights. But one thing is clear, almost all Western societies do assign rights to the early foetus.

    Your theory is admirable but suffers from all theories which attempt to come to a nice clear result which says: 'this one is a life, protect it; this one is nothing; discard it'. The black and white answer isnt there; i admire you for trying to find it, but you aren't quite there yet and Im afraid, I dont think you are going to get there.:rolleyes:


  • #296
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    Corinthian I have defined my terms adequetly to support the points I am making. There is not a conversation on the planet you could not end or "win" by simply going into it, picking a term from your antagonist, and asking him to define it to YOUR unattainable standards until you reach a point when he can go no further and you just claim their argument is negated.
    I'm afraid I do not believe that you have defined your terms adequately enough to support your position. I do agree that there is not a conversation on the planet you could not end or "win" by simply going into it, but you appear to be going to the other extreme in that you are effectively rejecting any attempt to go into it. To date, in this discussion, you have dismissed, ignored and even deflected any criticisms. You don't even want to define your position and are asking us to effectively take it 'on faith' that it is correct. Indeed, suggestion (deflection) that we should all go off and read a particular book is highly reminiscent of religiously orientated arguments where I have been told that if I wanted to inform myself further I could read the Bible.

    It's what I would call the "[pay no attention to the] man behind the curtain" defence.

    Of course many arguments cannot be definitively decided - I have already conceded this - that is why, for example, we have the principle of 'beyond reasonable doubt' in law - thus you must believe that my "unattainable standards" must be unreasonable and if so you really have to put forward why.

    Ultimately, rather than risk my 'unattainable' standards, you will not test your position against any standards - and that really does not wash in debate.
    My argument is targeted at that part of us that gives us the human mind, human consciousness, sentience, creativity and personhood. That part of us that comes up with this notion of rights in the first place. I do not have to understand everything and anything there is to know about it to know when it is entirely absent.
    I'm not asking you to understand or explain everything, but you're giving us precious little. You believe in something, but refuse to define what that something is outside of the most vague of terms. Even if we are to accept that a person is defined by "human mind, human consciousness, sentience, creativity and personhood" (the last being a tautology), you repeatedly ignore that this definition alone is insufficient. Young infants lack both sentience and creativity. Adults can lose any or all of these qualities, through illness, accident or just the effects of old age. Which means you need to add caveats or at least better define your position, because as it stands it simply does not, well, stand.

    It's pretty difficult to ignore these apparent flaws and just as difficult for one to accept a position that requires multiple caveats to deal with them. And that is before we even consider if your basic premise has merit to begin with. And so asking us to take your word on it just is not good enough.


  • #297
    metrovelvet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,375 ✭✭✭metrovelvet


    I believe it used to be known as a soul.


  • #298
    PomBear
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,885 ✭✭✭PomBear


    Can I ask people that are pro choice, when do you believe life starts?


  • #299
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    drkpower wrote: »
    1. You, nor anyone else, cannot really determine what it is that constitutes sentience/conciousness.

    We have a lot of information on that, even though we do not know everything. However I do not see the issue here. We know which electrical activity in the brain for example is connected to it. This is just one of many examples I could give.

    Through much testing of these patterns, measuring of them, disruption of them and analysis of damaged brains we know much about which parts constitute "self" "language" "Love" and more. We know if you disrupt or kill these things that all this stuff disappears.

    These things are not just disrupted in the fetus, they are NOT PRESENT and in many cases the things that generate them are NOT PRESENT either.

    I feel no qualms or impotentcy therefore in saying I am in a very safe position that this part of our being is not present at this time in the fetus. All the science backs me up on this and no science goes against me at all that I have found. Nothing is 100% in science but if all the evidence supports your conclusion and not a jot goes against it then you are on very safe ground.
    drkpower wrote: »
    When asked about those at the other extreme of life, who may have lost sentience/conciousness, you say that they deserve protection because 'the faculty is still there, it is just not operating normally'. That is simply dishonest; it is a false construct.

    Not at all. I feel that upon attaining rights that one holds on to them until they are dead. We also respect the fact they once had rights once they get them. Otherwise why do we respect, for example, a persons burial wishes or donor transplant wishes? Why not just do whatever the hell we want with their body when they are dead?

    No, we do not do this because we recognise once we attain rights that we retain them regardless and we even pander to a persons wishes in retrospect after they have died. I am perfectly happy with this idea that once someone attains rights that we should hopefully never have to take them away again.
    drkpower wrote: »
    2. But, most importantly, your sentience/conciousness argument is based on the premise that that is the quality upon which we, as a species, as societies, assign ourselves rights, and that therefore, if an entity has not acquired this quality, it does not attract protection.

    You make it sound like I am the one elevating the importance of this aspect in this discussion. This is not so. It elevates ITSELF. If it was not for this faculty we would not even have this discussion, this notion of rights, or even care either way on any of this. This faculty therefore is not just important in this discussion for me, it is unavoidably paramount. So your accusations that I concluded first and built an argument to support it is false. I have no choice but to elevate this aspect of our being as it is solely the most important attribute of the discussion. This notion came to me first. My conclusions on abortion led from it and not the other way around like you claim.

    drkpower wrote: »
    why is it that every society that I am aware of, even those with liberal abortion laws, does assign rights to the pre-12 week foetus?

    I do not mean to be rude in saying this but I am arguing MY position. If you want to ask why someone else holds another position then kindly ask them, not me. I am arguing for how I think rights SHOULD be allocated. No more. No less and if other people want to allocate it pre-sentience then I would like to hear their basis for same.


  • #300
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    The Corinthian wrote: »
    you appear to be going to the other extreme in that you are effectively rejecting any attempt to go into it.

    False. I quoted sources of science papers that show when activity starts in the brain, how it forms and over what time scale. Not just science opinion, but peer reviewed real science and I can quote you more if you like, but no one has apparently read the first one yet even.

    We know what aspects of the brain gives us "language" "self" "Love" "memory" and more and we know this from observation of normal brains, disruption of normal brains, and analysis of disruption in other brains that were disrupted and damaged not intentionally.

    It is not that these things are just outside normal parameters in the time scale I gave you. It is not even that those things are not there in the time scale I gave you. But the things that generate them are not even there.

    To use an analogy to radio, I am not saying the radio waves are not what we expect, or that the transmitter is powered down. The transmitter is not even there and people on here are essentially asking me "How do you KNOW the radio waves aren't there anyway??" which is patently ridiculous.

    What part of any of that you think I am expecting to be taken "on faith" is really unclear.

    Since ALL the science I have read shows that higher human consciousness is not present and NO science I have read goes against that, I think I am BEYOND "beyond reasonable doubt" in this. However this is entirely falsifiable if you can show me a source of the human mind outside the brain which exists during early fetal development. I am agog to hear your science for this. Show me a study that analyses ideas, rights and beliefs at the level of the brain coming from a part of the brain that exists in the fetus pre-16 weeks and I will re-evaluate my position entirely.

    Meanwhile however we HAVE real scientists releasing real papers studying beliefs and ideas at the level of the brain, and they know exactly what part of the brain these aspects come from while they are doing it. As a random citation of this, since I am the only one here who apparently can cite any science:

    http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0007272

    Here they directly observe the operation of ideas and beleifs at the level of the brain. Do you think this activity is present in the fetus? Do you honestly even think the parts of the brain that GENERATE such activity are even present? If you do, then I am AGOG to hear your citations for it. Truly agog.


  • Advertisement
  • #301
    The Corinthian
    Closed Accounts Posts: 19,777 ✭✭✭✭The Corinthian


    nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »
    These things are not just disrupted in the fetus, they are NOT PRESENT and in many cases the things that generate them are NOT PRESENT either.
    I don't want to point out the obivious flaw in this, but in the case of brain damage (caused by whatever means) these things are destroyed and thus also NOT PRESENT.
    I do not mean to be rude in saying this but I am arguing MY position. If you want to ask why someone else holds another position then kindly ask them, not me. I am arguing for how I think rights SHOULD be allocated. No more. No less and if other people want to allocate it pre-sentience then I would like to hear their basis for same.
    If you don't want someone to question your opinion, don't give it.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement