- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Question for pro choice advocates
Posted on 5/26/19 at 3:58 pm to AggieHank86
Posted on 5/26/19 at 3:58 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Until this thread, I had always considered the OP to be just another run-of-the-mill SoCon ... not particularly bright, but likewise not too much dumber than the norm for the breed. This thread has revised that analysis to “truly dumber than dirt.”
The username looks familiar, but I don't really remember anything about OP.
0
Posted on 5/26/19 at 4:28 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
The attribute that distinguishes us from other forms of life is our sapience/sentience, not the mere presence of 23 chromosome pairs.. Some would argue that it does not develop until well after birth, but approximately 24-30 weeks is the ABSOLUTE earliest that fetal brain function begins to even ARGUABLY resemble that of a sentient organism (much less a sapient one). As such, the VAST majority of us ARE willing to “err on the side of caution” and cut-off elective abortion at 20 weeks ... or even 16 or perhaps 12 weeks.
So, we arbitrarily establish a twofold criteria of sentience/sapience based on brain wave activity that could maybe, perhaps, possibly be characterized as sentience (a much lower standard than sapience) at 30 weeks, and then, applaud ourselves for our wisdom and compassion for balancing the yet born child's "right" to live and its mother's "right" to kill him or her at 20, 16, or 12 weeks.
quote:
This seems a reasonable balance between the self-determination rights of the woman and the potential, developing sentience of the fetus. Balancing those two issues seems superior to just saying “screw the woman’s rights” OR “screw the late term fetus” ... as seems to be the position of the absolutists on each end of the spectrum.
I feel better now. Because, unless there's real problems with the baby, it will become "sentient", possibly, perhaps, maybe, at 30 weeks and in some distant future week actually attain "sapience". But as we're going to balance the competing rights fairly and compassionately by allowing the mother to kill her child at 20, 16, or possibly 12 weeks, we'll never get within shouting distance of 30 weeks which, after all, is barely, possibly, maybe, "sentient". The child is spared even the remotest chance of ever achieving the all important criteria of a right to exist, sentience and sapience.
No country for yet born ones either, apparently. 
Posted on 5/26/19 at 5:37 pm to Mr. Misanthrope
None of what you say has anything to do with why it’s unconstitutional to ban abortion.
Posted on 5/26/19 at 6:57 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
There is SOME evidence that a fetus can respond to certain sensory input beginning around 20-24 weeks.
So that’s when you should start playing Sex Pistols records?
Posted on 5/26/19 at 7:55 pm to xiv
quote:
None of what you say has anything to do with why it’s unconstitutional to ban abortion.
I was responding to a particular line of reasoning advanced by a usually thoughtful, informed, and well reasoned abortion supporter for whom I have considerable respect although he and I disagree greatly on this topic.
I'm not sure the original OP nailed his topic down so tightly that its sole focus was is it "constitutional to ban abortion?". I can certainly be wrong about that though.
However, I think the idea that, through a debatable constitutional right to privacy, one finds the right of a mother to kill the child in her womb at various times during her pregnancy and for varying and nebulous reasons is grotesque, barbaric, and constitutionally questionable.
Which is at the core of what I wrote responding to AggieHank86 who was laying out a compromise to protect the rights of the mother and the yet born child which was no real compromise and was instead a feel good, sound good formula that ended up with what the abortion industry enriches itself upon, beaucoup dead babies.
Posted on 5/26/19 at 9:58 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
checking back in. buckeye has still not provided anything of substance on the issue. thinks linking the word science is accomplishing something. HEY BUT LISTEN, SCIENCE AND STUFF! returns to watching jersey shore: family vacation. it's not season 7 you know! it's a totally different show!
Posted on 5/26/19 at 10:18 pm to Mr. Misanthrope
quote:I do understand that you are being sarcastic, but "Yes, absolutely."
Because, unless there's real problems with the baby, it will become "sentient", possibly, perhaps, maybe, at 30 weeks and in some distant future week actually attain "sapience". But as we're going to balance the competing rights fairly and compassionately by allowing the mother to kill her child at 20, 16, or possibly 12 weeks, we'll never get within shouting distance of 30 weeks which, after all, is barely, possibly, maybe, "sentient". The child is spared even the remotest chance of ever achieving the all important criteria of a right to exist,
The alternative is to say that a woman who diligently uses any means of birth control (whether rhythm, condoms, Norplant, foam, gel, IUD, daily contraceptive pills or some combination of ALL of the above) and for whom her chosen method fails ... should be left with ZERO option to avoid 9 months of unwanted pregnancy, all to avoid terminating a non-sentient organism just because it has the potential to develop into a sapient organism with the passage of additional time.
I make no apologies for opining that this is simply a batshit crazy worldview.
Posted on 5/26/19 at 10:20 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
non-sentient organism
Baby
Posted on 5/26/19 at 10:28 pm to TigerBait1971
quote:quote:Baby
non-sentient organism
You think Pic1 and Pic2 are equivalent to one another and should have the same legal rights.
I respectfully disagree.
Posted on 5/26/19 at 10:30 pm to AggieHank86
quote:*admits he was ignorant on the issue* perhaps you should pump the brakes on your certitude in the future
I finally deciphered what you are trying to say
quote:you are referring to privileges, not the right to life. completely different.
At 12, a child can essentially pick the home of which parent with whom (s)he will reside. At 15, she can get a learner’s permit, and a driver’s license at 16. Other rights vest at 18, 19 and 21. At 25, your right to run for Congress vests and the same right vests at 30 for Senate. You cannot run for POTUS until age 35
quote:because your list doesn't refer to personhood. it refers to aspects of life that are contingent upon personhood. also, it's not a negative right; not to be aborted. it's the positive right to live. nice try though.
I see no reason that the negative “right” (I use the quotation marks because no such LEGAL right exists) not to be aborted should not also vest at a particular level of development
and you didn't really understand the premise you cited. level of development is not about applying a scaffolding of rights to a person based on their capacity to contribute to society. it's about NOT using that AGAINST a human, whether unborn, persistent vegetative state, handicapped, elderly, mentally challenged, etc, all which fall under the rubric of sanctity of life. the reason why is because people like you will start to introduce irrelevant, ad hoc, ill defined qualia to determine if that person meets some relative societal moving target.
Posted on 5/26/19 at 10:34 pm to bfniii
quote:You think I am ignorant because I did not immediately decipher your misuse of a term that is only used by your side of the argument ... even when actually used correctly. OK.quote:*admits he was ignorant on the issue* perhaps you should pump the brakes on your certitude in the future
I finally deciphered what you are trying to say
First, it is "S.L.E.D." and not "sled." A "sled test" relates to materials testing. Second, your (mis-used) term is simply a method of categorizing four broad categories of pro-choice arguments (3 of which I did not even use), not a "test" of any sort. Simply put, you are not even capable of correctly using your OWN side's terminology.
My view of your intellect and analysis continues to involve comparison to dirt or rocks.
This post was edited on 5/26/19 at 10:43 pm
Posted on 5/26/19 at 10:47 pm to AggieHank86
quote:if you can't understand that this manufactured, artificial premise has NOTHING to do with personhood, i can't help you. the moment of conception, consciousness, personhood can absolutely be determined without any reference to the animal kingdom at all. heck, killing an animal for merely the sake of convenience is morally spurious as well so that road isn't really helping your argument.
If it is NOT acceptable to kill humans, and it is OK to kill other animals, we must determine what factor distinguished humans from other animals and thus affords protection to one and not the other.
quote:it's not a question of species and that's why this line of reasoning is irrelevant. personhood can be determined without any reference to the animal kingdom. there is no reason to introduce that ad hoc element into the discussion. it's not solely a biological matter and even if it were, it doesn't help your argument because we shouldn't be irresponsible with animals either. iow, you are lowering the human threshold based on physiological considerations when you should be raising animal thresholds for moral reasons.
Now, why? How is OUR species different from our closest cousin (the chimpanzee), and WHY does membership in our species protect us and non-membership NOT protect the chimpanzee? How are WE different from our distant cousin?
quote:if you weren't aware of one of the most basic pro life arguments, you probably should back off your bravado. also, lol that it's "internal." another example of your ignorance. and to be real honest, you haven't shown the ability to integrate analytical philosophy, epistemology, axiology into your assertions, much less any sort of sentential logic, which happens to be present in the op. you have one trick, a popular level ad hoc approach that doesn't even address the basic question in the op, much less treat it in an a fortiori manner that would be typical of a scholarly approach.
I understand the debate better than you, but I readily admit that I did not recognize your misuse of the term “sled test” (a term from materials testing) as an attempt to reference an acronym (S.L.E.D.) used internally by a small percentage of those who oppose abortion rights.
also, lol at "abortion rights"
Posted on 5/26/19 at 10:50 pm to xiv
quote:but it is your business if defenseless humans are being murdered for the sake of convenience.
Because it’s none of my business if a woman is pregnant
quote:no one is talking about the constitution. we are talking about the moral imperative and the analytical truth of the situation
it’s unconstitutional to make it my business
quote:my point exactly. so forget the constitution. what is the right thing to do? allow people to murder babies because it might infringe upon their ability to binge game of thrones unimpeded?
The government isn’t God; it can’t make everything right.
Posted on 5/26/19 at 10:51 pm to bfniii
dirt and rocks, dude. Dirt and rocks.
Posted on 5/26/19 at 10:52 pm to xiv
quote:oh my word. first, there are women who are pro life. second, if you're going to complain about guys trying to control women, then you are also subject to women trying to control unborn babies.
This thread is littered with boys who are angsty because girls don’t do what they say
Posted on 5/26/19 at 10:53 pm to bfniii
quote:EXACTLY.quote:my point exactly. so forget the constitution. what is the right thing to do?
The government isn’t God; it can’t make everything right.
And the "right thing to do" is to prioritize a sapient organism over a non-sapient organism.
Even I will admit that Roe is constitutionally suspect. It was entirely results-oriented.
This post was edited on 5/26/19 at 10:55 pm
Posted on 5/26/19 at 11:06 pm to AggieHank86
quote:full stop. she STILL took risks even though you tried to characterize her as so responsible and proactive. there is a chance that birth control can fail and ignorance on her part does not give her the right to murder a baby for convenience. you act like you are knowledgeable but this kind of logical slip up shows you are not well versed in parsing your own positions, such as with sentential truth tables.
The alternative is to say that a woman who diligently uses any means of birth control (whether rhythm, condoms, Norplant, foam, gel, IUD, daily contraceptive pills or some combination of ALL of the above) and for whom her chosen method fails ... should be left with ZERO option to avoid 9 months of unwanted pregnancy
"unwanted?" she can't deliver the baby for adoption in order to avoid murdering another human being? explain how that is erring on the side of caution and the moral thing to do. it's neither. she just doesn't want to be inconvenienced. this is a pathetic effort
quote:still failing the personhood test with a subjective term that is opaque in regards to level of development. my word you are stubborn
all to avoid terminating a non-sentient organism
quote:you are obviously unable to understand this but, you just described erring on the side of caution. you have patently failed the op and opened yourself up to killing people in all sorts of vulnerable situations because you apparently don't understand the logical outworking of your position(s)
just because it has the potential to develop into a sapient organism with the passage of additional time.
quote:says the person who didn't know one of the most basic pro life lines of reasoning, is using a made up comic book level defense and responded with a graphical insult when his position faced adversity. good job
I make no apologies for opining that this is simply a batshit crazy worldview
Posted on 5/26/19 at 11:09 pm to AggieHank86
quote:hank, think about all the people you are approving for death merely for the sake of convenience. yes, it is immoral to level that sentence on human beings merely because they differ in sled. i'm sorry you are so bankrupt and arrogant that you can't understand that
You think Pic1 and Pic2 are equivalent to one another and should have the same legal rights
Posted on 5/26/19 at 11:16 pm to AggieHank86
quote:no, you are ignorant because you didn't know about it and you think i "misused" it and that you think it's relevant who uses it. you have demonstrated you don't even understand it which rendered your response to it moot
You think I am ignorant because I did not immediately decipher your misuse of a term that is only used by your side of the argument
quote:it absolutely is a test, a test of personhood and arguments for/against. if the premise contradicts the sled test, it fails the test. now you're just reverting to semantics because your silly approach is failing miserably.
your (mis-used) term is simply a method of categorizing four broad categories of pro-choice arguments (3 of which I did not even use), not a "test" of any sort
Posted on 5/26/19 at 11:22 pm to Homesick Tiger
quote:How does being born defining a living thing relate to a discussion about abortion?
Amazing how a four letter word determines the definition of a living thing. Oh yeah, the word - born.
Page 8 of 10
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News