Woman dies in Ireland for want of an abortion

[Dyakovo]

No one is saying that a human foetus isn't human.

Yeah, but, you see, Zephie's only aim is showing how we "Libs" are dehumanizing foeti because we want to kill them, so to prove that we're evil and that he's good.

When you got such a righteous end, all means are ok, including outright lies and systematical misrepresentation of reality.

Not sure what your argument has been for the past hour if it's not "Fetuses aren't human."

Either you're a liar or you're unable to read English.

Evidence would seem to indicate that both are true.

[Zephie]

A fetus has bodily sovereignty...

No it doesn't. Bodily sovereignty is an expression of ownership, and ownership requires participation. A foetus lacks consciousness of it's environment and capacity to coherently respond to external factors - it cannot 'own' anything, even itself.

Please prove to me it's not conscious.

[Dyakovo]

According to your logic it is a tree, because it might someday become one.

Straw man. I see those grammar lessons did nothing for you.

You don't know what a strawman is do you?

I'll make it simple tor you...
If a a foetus is a human being (ie a person) because under the right conditions it will develop into a human being, then an acorn is a tree tor the same reason.

[Dyakovo]

I'm pretty sure everyone agrees with that.

....have you ever opened a biology text book?

And you think killing a human is ok because it's an unwanted human?

Yes. Also because it isn't a person.

[Grave_n_idle]

That's a nonsense. I suspect what you mean is that there is no genetic difference - but there are obvious biological differences.

Not many. A newborn infant is about as self-aware as a late-term fetus.

One of the few people logically consistent on this issue is Peter Singer, who says that infanticide is justifiable up to a certain time period, which I don't quite remember. He bases this on the fact that infants are not self-aware and are not capable of valuing their existence.

Self-awareness is not the only measure of 'biological difference'. Indeed, the fact that you skipped straight past the biological difference that the new born baby is breathing, and eating at one end and excreting at the other - is interesting. Size. Coherency of nervous system. Development of organs. There are considerably more massive 'biological differences' than JUST how they each respond to stimuli.

I don't think infanticide is justifiable, and I think 'Peter Singer' has issues to resolve. I don't really approve of late term abortion, either (indeed, I'm not a fan of ANY kind of abortion, honestly) - but that doesn't mean my position is logically inconsistent.

To put it simply - a born child should be surrendered by a parent that doesn't want it. The child risks abuse and violence if it remains where it's not wanted. It's not too much to ask that kids brought into this world should be loved, wanted and treated well.

So how is that logically consistent? Simple - if a woman no longer wants to carry a baby to term, the pregnancy should be ended at that point and IF POSSIBLE, the product of that pregnancy should be surrendered into the care of another.

The day someone invents the technology to effectively and efficiently remove a foetus without terminating it's development, and to bring that foetus to term externally and place it where it is wanted - is the day I'll stop arguing for 'abortion' rights. And at that point, they'll be irrelevant.

My position is entirely logically consistent.

[Grave_n_idle]

No it doesn't. Bodily sovereignty is an expression of ownership, and ownership requires participation. A foetus lacks consciousness of it's environment and capacity to coherently respond to external factors - it cannot 'own' anything, even itself.

Please prove to me it's not conscious.

Can you prove to me that a ham sandwich is not conscious?

[The Calldari State]

Please prove to me it's not conscious.

Consciousness is not a black and white thing that is either on or off. And it's difficult to accurately define.

It's something that develops during the early stages of life after a child is born. A newborn for example is not fully self aware, however it responds to stimuli and reacts negatively to discomfort and vise versa. Likewise, late stage fetuses occasionally react to auditory stimuli but are also not self aware.

A child can't truly be considered "conscious" until some point during it's first year of life.

[Grave_n_idle]

If it is actually about calling a foetus what it is, why are you calling a foetus a person?

fetus, infant, child, adolescent, adult, as many words as you want to use, still a human. Not sure why people are so desperate to say underdeveloped humans aren't human. They surely aren't aliens.

Why are you conflating the terms 'human' (which here is referring to biological markers, i.e. DNA) and 'a person' - which is a legal status of recognition?

[Grave_n_idle]

Please prove to me it's not conscious.

Consciousness is not a black and white thing that is either on or off. And it's difficult to accurately define.

It's something that develops during the early stages of life after a child is born. A newborn for example is not fully self aware, however it responds to stimuli and reacts negatively to discomfort and vise versa. Likewise, late stage fetus occasionally react to auditory stimuli but are also not self aware.

And an early-to-mid stage foetus lacks even that capacity to respond - because it lacks coherent brain activity and a coherent neural network.

[Dyakovo]

Which is human?




Here's a human and a dolphin about 4 weeks in. Which one is human?

[Grimlundt]

Yes, it does. As you've been shown already... So no, I don't want lessons in not understanding.

No, see. I'll try to use simple words. She died because she did not get an abortion which she had want for. Instead, the fetus was removed when it was too late, the infection killing her. So, she died because she was denied an abortion she originally wanted. When she ultimately got the abortion, it was already too late and she died of the infection. So she did get an abortion, but not when she originally wanted it. What killed her was being denied the original abortion, not 'wanting' one.

You realize we all can see what happened.
You argued for several posts on the basis of an unnecessary narrative clarification.

[Grimlundt]

Straw man. I see those grammar lessons did nothing for you.

You don't know what a strawman is do you?

I'll make it simple tor you...
If a a foetus is a human being (ie a person) because under the right conditions it will develop into a human being, then an acorn is a tree tor the same reason.

Imho, the argument from human potential IS the only good strong pro-life argument.
To argue that a bundle of a few thousand cells is sentient or even capable of feeling pain is absurd.
But a zygote IS a potential human.
Now are you folks ready for the ramifications of your argument?
Because you will eventually have to say, if you want to remain consistent, that is wrong to stop anybody reaching their full potential. And we do that all the time

[Grimlundt]

Regardless, you cannot stop abortions by banning them ... not without Orwellian surveillance in every home (no private sphere).
banning abortion has no effect on abortion rates. Contraception does.

[Free South Califas]

Quit all the double- and triple-post spamming. If you think of something to add, go back up and click "Edit" and add it to the existing post (if your post is the last one).

[Grimlundt]

Not many. A newborn infant is about as self-aware as a late-term fetus.

One of the few people logically consistent on this issue is Peter Singer, who says that infanticide is justifiable up to a certain time period, which I don't quite remember. He bases this on the fact that infants are not self-aware and are not capable of valuing their existence.

Self-awareness is not the only measure of 'biological difference'. Indeed, the fact that you skipped straight past the biological difference that the new born baby is breathing, and eating at one end and excreting at the other - is interesting. Size. Coherency of nervous system. Development of organs. There are considerably more massive 'biological differences' than JUST how they each respond to stimuli.

I don't think infanticide is justifiable, and I think 'Peter Singer' has issues to resolve. I don't really approve of late term abortion, either (indeed, I'm not a fan of ANY kind of abortion, honestly) - but that doesn't mean my position is logically inconsistent.

To put it simply - a born child should be surrendered by a parent that doesn't want it. The child risks abuse and violence if it remains where it's not wanted. It's not too much to ask that kids brought into this world should be loved, wanted and treated well.

So how is that logically consistent? Simple - if a woman no longer wants to carry a baby to term, the pregnancy should be ended at that point and IF POSSIBLE, the product of that pregnancy should be surrendered into the care of another.

The day someone invents the technology to effectively and efficiently remove a foetus without terminating it's development, and to bring that foetus to term externally and place it where it is wanted - is the day I'll stop arguing for 'abortion' rights. And at that point, they'll be irrelevant.

My position is entirely logically consistent.

Singer is a closet Nazi
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/peopl ... 66342.html
it seems we become what we hate?

[Grimlundt]

Quit all the double- and triple-post spamming. If you think of something to add, go back up and click "Edit" and add it to the existing post (if your post is the last one).

How will I know it is "the last one"
And why is this so important to you?

[Grimlundt]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Y9ZpfYee74w/S ... embryo.jpg
This one is apparently a dolphin -- look at the hands
Cetaceans are descended from a bear like animal? They have a common ancestor with bears.
I learned at uni back in 1980 that embryology recapitulates evolution. I do not know if they still teach that.
http://images.inmagine.com/img/aspireim ... 008163.jpg

[Sociobiology]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Y9ZpfYee74w/Sr0iAsUibcI/AAAAAAAAAJk/jKU8PRPbqSg/s320/embryo.jpg
This one is apparently a dolphin -- look at the hands
Cetaceans are descended from a bear like animal? They have a common ancestor with bears.
I learned at uni back in 1980 that embryology recapitulates evolution. I do not know if they still teach that.
http://images.inmagine.com/img/aspireim ... 008163.jpg

they don't,
it is useful to study however.

[Sociobiology]

You don't know what a strawman is do you?

I'll make it simple tor you...
If a a foetus is a human being (ie a person) because under the right conditions it will develop into a human being, then an acorn is a tree tor the same reason.

Imho, the argument from human potential IS the only good strong pro-life argument.
To argue that a bundle of a few thousand cells is sentient or even capable of feeling pain is absurd.
But a zygote IS a potential human.
Now are you folks ready for the ramifications of your argument?
Because you will eventually have to say, if you want to remain consistent, that is wrong to stop anybody reaching their full potential. And we do that all the time

every sperm is potential human, as is every cell that flakes off of you.

[Cabra West]

Please prove to me it's not conscious.

Well, for a start, it has no measurable brain activity until about the 3rd month...

[Free South Califas]

Quit all the double- and triple-post spamming. If you think of something to add, go back up and click "Edit" and add it to the existing post (if your post is the last one).

How will I know it is "the last one"

How can you not know? Either your post is the latest in the thread, or it isn't.

And why is this so important to you?

How important do you presume it to be, exactly? Spamming is grating, is against the rules, inflates your post count, and causes resentment among those of us who follow the rules. Please don't do it.

[Dyakovo]

You don't know what a strawman is do you?

I'll make it simple tor you...
If a a foetus is a human being (ie a person) because under the right conditions it will develop into a human being, then an acorn is a tree tor the same reason.

Imho, the argument from human potential IS the only good strong pro-life argument.

Meh... I disagree.
The logic behind the argument fails miserably, as I've already shown...

[Risottia]

Again, you're either
a) too thick to understand the difference between "person" and "human".
or
b) a liar.

Jesus Christ. Pick up a thesaurus and look up the synonyms for person.

*Takes dictionary and encyclopedia*
human: adjective. From Latin "humanus,-a,-um", in turn from "homo,-inis". Belonging to, pertaining to, or typical of, or related to, or owned by the species Homo Sapiens, or an individual specimen thereof. Also used as a noun, as in 'an individual human being' where 'being' is understood.
person: noun. From Latin "persona,-ae", in turn from Etruscan. Originally meaning "mask". An entity endowed with personality (q.v.). Neurobiologically: a living being able to interact with other beings consciously and willingly, i.e. having a "mask" other person can see and interact with. Legally: an entity recognized as subject of both duties and rights (such as a member of society, an association, a State).

The fact that SOMETIMES those two terms are used, in non-specific contexts, as synonims, does not make the two concepts identical.

What a poor attempt at weaseling.

[Risottia]

A fetus has bodily sovereignty,

Only people have bodily sovereignity. Foeti aren't people.

It's no different than a terminally ill old person on life support. They are using other people's resources to keep themself alive. We don't kill them for it though.

A terminally ill elderly (appeal to emotions, pretty much?) on life support isn't sucking blood and oxygen directly from a woman's blood. False analogy.
Also, an elderly is a person.

[Risottia]

If it's not human what is it?

Again, no one is saying human foetuses aren't human.

Except for Zephie.