More leftist hypocrisy, nicely illustrated

[ok doser]

... a fetus doesn't behave like a human until way down the developmental road.

define "behave like a human"

 

[Town Heretic]

I trust the local butcher to chop my meat, and I trust the tire guy to know his stuff about cars. Just like I trust an expert in fetal development to know about fetal development.

Fetal development doesn't illustrate right or the point where it vests, where we must value and protect. It's only utility is in describing process. How we respond to that process is something else.

If you are saying that there is no such thing as an expert, then I disagree.

Of course I'm not saying that. I'm saying your expert in biology doesn't have an answer. He can tell you where this or that is true for the fetus, but not how to value it in relation to the point.

I recognize that. I'm not saying my position is perfect, but I think it's the best we can do with the current knowledge available.

I'm rebutting that presumption by noting the best that we can do is just another way of arbitrarily assigning value and I've noted the inherent danger. The literal and demonstrable best we can do is protect the right at every point.

Otherwise we risk an overstep we aren't entitled to make.

Do you have a better solution than 22 weeks? Do you think it should not be allowed at all? I've answered a lot of questions explaining mt position, but I'm afraid others haven't been so kind as to define and defend a position of their own

I just gave it to you again. Regardless of what we believe about that point of vestment, we know that at some point it exists and that at that point we have no right to abrogate it. The only way to then guarantee we don't do what we should not do and have no right to do is to refrain from interfering at every point and to protect the unborn at every point.

It's the only safeguard of right and protection against that overstep.

The probability comes from the likelihood that we are wrong about the way in which our brains develop and operate. It's not likely that we are, but there's always a shot

The problem is in assuming brain development controls the issue. It's not demonstrably so, only one way of valuing.

I don't think so.

So if a woman believed her fetus wasn't a person, had no rights until it drew breath you wouldn't defend that fetus against her actions the day before she would give birth naturally? If your answer is that you would protect it then you make my point. The rest is simply degree.

Are you saying that by enforcing a long deadline, I'm being militant?

I'm saying the only difference between any of us is where we draw the line. Past that drawing, when we recognize the human right, we are obligated to protect, to act.

But by disallowing any abortion to take place, you are removing certain rights from an adult woman because you think that maybe.....just maybe......the fetus inside her is "human" even though there is no actual evidence showing that. I disagree with that

If the fetus is human, with rights vested, we already agree (supra) no such right exists on the part of the mother. And if we understand that we cannot say where that right is established without imposing an arbitrary value then we must protect the right itself by protecting the unborn who might possess it.

And there is no actual evidence establishing any point, so that appeal is wasted.

Biologists/neurologists would know better than anyone else when a human brain becomes "conscious" (or "human" or whatever. I think you get what I'm trying to convey)

You're deciding that consciousness is what defines our humanity and the point where right attaches. It isn't a logical necessity, only a valuation.

Who would be better, in your opinion? What experts in "humanity" are there that exist?

There is no real better here. That's rather the point. There's no authority that isn't itself inherently subjective.

 

[JudgeRightly]

And completely literally, you are correct. But we both know that a fetus doesn't behave like a human until way down the developmental road.

Doesn't behave like a human? If life begins at conception, then every event and action made by the zygote up until that "22 weeks" would be part of it behaving like a human.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

 

[Greg Jennings]

Fetal development doesn't illustrate right or the point where it vests, where we must value and protect. It's only utility is in describing process. How we respond to that process is something else.


Of course I'm not saying that. I'm saying your expert in biology doesn't have an answer. He can tell you where this or that is true for the fetus, but not how to value it in relation to the point.


I'm rebutting that presumption by noting the best that we can do is just another way of arbitrarily assigning value and I've noted the inherent danger. The literal and demonstrable best we can do is protect the right at every point.

Otherwise we risk an overstep we aren't entitled to make.


You weren't reading me closely enough then, Greg. I just gave it to you again. Regardless of what we believe about that point of vestment, we know that at some point it exists and that at that point we have no right to abrogate it. The only way to then guarantee we don't do what we should not do and have no right to do is to refrain from interfering at every point and to protect the unborn at every point.

It's the only safeguard of right and protection against that overstep.


The problem is in assuming brain development controls the issue. It's not demonstrably so, only one way of valuing.



So if a woman believed her fetus wasn't a person, had no rights until it drew breath you wouldn't defend that fetus against her actions the day before she would give birth naturally? If your answer is that you would protect it then you make my point. The rest is simply degree.


I'm saying the only difference between any of us is where we draw the line. Past that drawing, when we recognize the human right, we are obligated to protect, to act.


If the fetus is human, with rights vested, we already agree (supra) no such right exists on the part of the mother. And if we understand that we cannot say where that right is established without imposing an arbitrary value (and who are we to do that to her or to the unborn) then we must protect the right itself by protecting the unborn who might possess it.

And there is no actual evidence establishing any point, so that appeal is wasted.


You're doing it again, Greg. You're deciding that consciousness is what defines our humanity and the point where right attaches. It isn't a logical necessity, only a valuation.


There is no real better here. That's rather the point. There's no authority that isn't itself inherently subjective.

What this comes down to is that you are more comfortable inconveniencing the woman in order to preserve what could possibly be a human life (for which we have no concrete evidence), because you think it likely that it's already human........

And I'm more comfortable allowing the woman to rid herself of what could possibly be a human life (for which we have no concrete evidence), because I see no reason why it would be human yet


This is about as close as we're going to come probably. This is one of those "agree to disagree" issues

 

[Greg Jennings]

Doesn't behave like a human? If life begins at conception, then every event and action made by the zygote up until that "22 weeks" would be part of it behaving like a human.

Sent from my Pixel XL using TheologyOnline mobile app

Behavior - as in reactions, senses of pain and pleasure, emotion, personality, and so on.

 

[glassjester]

If she has a really good reason, yes. Not for convenience. In order to save her life, I would obviously ok it. Wouldn't you?

Intentionally killing a baby doesn't save anyone's life.
Would you kill a newborn to save a woman's life?

Is this also your "objective" opinion?

The "Sicko" part? That's my opinion. Totally subjective.
The fact that a zygote is an individual human organism?
No, that's not opinion at all. That's scientific fact.

 

[Greg Jennings]

define "behave like a human"

Above

 

[Greg Jennings]

Intentionally killing a baby doesn't save anyone's life.
Would you kill a newborn to save a woman's life?

You've seriously never heard of a situation where a pregnant mother had to have an emergency abortion because her life was in danger?

The "Sicko" part? That's my opinion. Totally subjective.
The fact that a zygote is an individual human organism?
No, that's not opinion at all. That's scientific fact.

Here's another fact: You said "living human being" above. That's not the same as a human organism

 

[glassjester]

Behavior - as in reactions, senses of pain and pleasure, emotion, personality, and so on.

Reactions to stimuli, sensations, even emotions, are all exhibited by animals as well.

Personality is a totally subjective standard.
Besides, newborns have less "personality" than a one month old puppy.

Those standards of yours are hardly exclusive to humans, and completely subjective.

 

[ok doser]

Behavior - as in reactions, senses of pain and pleasure, emotion, personality, and so on.

most of these exist to some degree among non-human organisms

many of them are absent in certain disease states


not sure they're all that useful in this kind of discussion :idunno:

 

[glassjester]

You've seriously never heard of a situation where a pregnant mother had to have an emergency abortion because her life was in danger?

Nope.
I've heard of the baby being removed, late-term, due to an emergency situation. But why kill the baby?

Here's another fact: You said "living human being" above. That's not the same as a human organism

Um... yes it is, dude.

 

[Town Heretic]

What this comes down to is that you are more comfortable inconveniencing the woman in order to preserve what could possibly be a human life (for which we have no concrete evidence), because you think it likely that it's already human........

Disappointing. I met you on a point for point with reason. You don't even return my position correctly. I'd suggest when you feel obliged to do this on some level you're beginning to recognize that your position is problematic.

Points in rebuttal:

1. My "comfort" is no element of my argument. It's only a way to insinuate an ad hom in lieu.

2. Inconvenience (which seems a little trivial, oddly, in relation to the woman) cannot control right. It may be inconvenient of you to abide by the speed limit, but that's the nature of law and right. It restricts as well as protects and the two sometimes go hand in hand.

3. I at no point rested my argument on when "I think" the unborn is human. It doesn't matter when I believe that point to be. My argument functions to protect the right that may as well be as not at every point, demonstrably.

And I'm more comfortable allowing the woman to rid herself of what could possibly be a human life (for which we have no concrete evidence), because I see no reason why it would be human yet

Then you've abandoned the rational for another footing. Your comfort should have nothing to do with it. And the inarguable life is as arguably vested at any one point as another. What isn't arguable is your obligation to it at that point.

And so my argument.

 

[Greg Jennings]

most of these exist to some degree among non-human organisms

many of them are absent in certain disease states


not sure they're all that useful in this kind of discussion :idunno:

I know that!

Humans exhibit them somewhat uniquely don't we? For example, our emotions can be read by our facial expressions. You know exactly what I mean. Quit getting bogged down in semantics. I'm throwing around a lot of words loosely because there might not be concrete terms for what we're talking about

 

[Greg Jennings]

Disappointing. I met you on a point for point with reason. You don't even return my position correctly. I'd suggest when you feel obliged to do this on some level you're beginning to recognize that your position is problematic.

Points in rebuttal:

1. My "comfort" is no element of my argument. It's only a way to insinuate an ad hom in lieu.

2. Inconvenience (which seems a little trivial, oddly, in relation to the woman) cannot control right. It may be inconvenient of you to abide by the speed limit, but that's the nature of law and right. It restricts as well as protects and the two sometimes go hand in hand.

3. I at no point rested my argument on when "I think" the unborn is human. It doesn't matter when I believe that point to be. My argument functions to protect the right that may as well be as not at every point, which is rational given it as likely as not might exist at any point, demonstrably.


Then you've abandoned the rational for another footing. Your comfort should have nothing to do with it. And the inarguable life is as arguably vested at any one point as another. What isn't arguable is your obligation to it at that point.

And so my argument.

To be perfectly honest, I've been answering the same questions on this thread for about a week, and having a long drawn out point-by-point debate with you on this sounds pretty awful.

If you want to go one question at a time, sure I'll do that. But I'm afraid that devoting more than an hour to a forum thread about abortion per day isn't something I want to participate in.

 

[Greg Jennings]

Nope.
I've heard of the baby being removed, late-term, due to an emergency situation. But why kill the baby?

You don't kill it. You take it out and, often due to the trauma that caused the current situation, it's dead or incapacitated in some way

Um... yes it is, dude.

It's not. You insisting that it's so doesn't change that.

A human organism can be anything that could develop into a human, like our zygote. A living human being is like you, me, or a properly developed fetus

 

[ok doser]

I know that!

Humans exhibit them somewhat uniquely don't we? For example, our emotions can be read by our facial expressions. You know exactly what I mean. Quit getting bogged down in semantics

if we're trying to determine universal principles, they must apply universally, whether one is suffering from aphasia, or is unborn (but has brain development) or is at the prime of life or is deteriorating in old age

 

[Town Heretic]

To be perfectly honest, I've been answering the same questions on this thread for about a week, and having a long drawn out point-by-point debate with you on this sounds pretty awful.

If you want to go one question at a time, sure I'll do that. But I'm afraid that devoting more than an hour to a forum thread about abortion per day isn't something I want to participate in.

I made a fairly clear argument and just noted three points of divergence in your summary of it. Either you can answer them or you can't. The rest is up to you.

 

[Greg Jennings]

if we're trying to determine universal principles, they must apply universally, whether one is suffering from aphasia, or is unborn (but has brain development) or is at the prime of life or is deteriorating in old age

I can't answer on the unborn aphasia example as I need more information. If the fetus is just vegetative then I wouldn't consider it human. But if it has already been human and then has broken down to a lower level of consciousness, that person still receives full rights. You don't lose rights once you have them, unless you go to prison

 

[ok doser]

I can't answer on the unborn aphasia example as I need more information. If the fetus is just vegetative then I wouldn't consider it human. But if it has already been human and then has broken down to a lower level of consciousness, that person still receives full rights. You don't lose rights once you have them, unless you go to prison

i'll come back to this, but i wanted to thank you for your participation greg - i know it can often feel like a dogpile when you get multiple people responding to you


especially when they start whining that you're not doing it right :chuckle:

 

[Greg Jennings]

I made a fairly clear argument and just noted three points of divergence in your summary of it. Either you can answer them or you can't. The rest is up to you.

1. I think it's silly for you to pretend that your level of "comfort" or "distaste" for something doesn't play a role in your opinion on it, particularly sans hard evidence

2. You got a bit too hung up on the word choice (I was just avoiding the word "force" as that creates quite the stir here). Here's the issue: if your inconvenience impacts an individual's life significantly, then you better have a good reason for it existing. So far, you have only given suppositions for why it should exist. That's not good enough for me, and it certainly isn't good enough for those women

3. That's wonderful. But the same problem in 2) applies here. How can you convince these women that they SHOULD take on such a heavy burden, when there is no empirical reason for them to?