Starrfall on 8/6/2009 at 20:21
Quote Posted by demagogue
So you'd have to add two additional arguments that need defending, 1: sentience doesn't create any interest for the fetus. It's sentient, but snuffing out that consciousness isn't a problem, so an abortion for no good reason from 10-20 weeks is fine. 2: viability does create an interest, even though the perspective/consciousness of the fetus has not changed in kind in any way, only the state of its body in maintaining that perspective on its own. So the wrongness of killing isn't about the conscious state of the fetus, but how well its cells can live on their own
after that point. Now you need a good reason.
What if I accept that sentience creates an interest, but also say that the interest is contingent on viability? (I just did a bunch of property mbes so I don't know if I'm serious about that ;) Or we could do licenses: the mother grants the fetus a license to the womb that becomes irrevocable (absent exigent circumstances) upon viability.) It seems like sentience may add "something" but viability adds the ability to do something with that "something". This'll just be pretty much be repeating what SubEff said, but regardless of sentience it seems like viability is the first point where you can really call the fetus an independent life.
Phatose on 8/6/2009 at 20:47
Quote Posted by Thirith
Except not. Your way, yes, the result is an unwanted pregnancy carried to term. In DDL's version, the woman actually has a choice. She may still carry the fetus to term or not. And, frankly, if you think that a) having an abortion always means not taking responsibility for your actions and b) having the baby always means you take responsibility, you don't seem to know that many women who had an abortion considered it a fucking difficult decision and a pretty heavy experience, and there are lots of women (often teenage girls) who may have had the kid but are crap at taking responsibility, e.g. looking after their baby.
At some point when I wasn't looking, did dead babies stop qualifying as fucking awful?
DDL on 8/6/2009 at 20:54
Dead bundles of cells have never been terribly awful. Messy, sure, but awful...no.
And up until pretty damn near term: bundle of cells it is.
And even after that: foetus. Not baby. Foetus. And up until really near term, non viable foetus outside the womb.
"Dead babies" is a pretty pointless shock term that is essentially meaningless in this debate.
Phatose on 8/6/2009 at 22:31
Quote Posted by DDL
Dead bundles of cells have never been terribly awful. Messy, sure, but awful...no.
And up until pretty damn near term: bundle of cells it is.
And even after that: foetus. Not baby. Foetus. And up until really near term, non viable foetus outside the womb.
"Dead babies" is a pretty pointless shock term that is essentially meaningless in this debate.
DDL, the premise of the statement I made that you're still attacking included an "If the fetus is human."
Now if you want to disagree with the premise, feel free. *I* disagree with the premise.
But agreement or disagree with a premise has precisely nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of implications of that premise. Attempting to use a negation of the premise in an argument about the implications of that premise is contradictory, and the logic does not follow.
DDL on 9/6/2009 at 06:49
Quote Posted by Phatose
DDL, the premise of the statement I made that you're still attacking included an "If the fetus is human."
Now if you want to disagree with the premise, feel free. *I* disagree with the premise.
But agreement or disagree with a premise has precisely nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of implications of that premise. Attempting to use a negation of the premise in an argument about the implications of that premise is contradictory, and the logic does not follow.
Then you should be slapped for repeatedly supporting what you yourself agree is an entirely flawed premise, since all it's doing is making you look like a fundamentalist asshat.
At the very least you should be slapped for not clarifying exactly what you mean, and that you actually
don't believe a word you're saying at any point in this argument.
To be honest, this essentially reads like hasty backpedalling, but lets give you the benefit of the doubt and welcome you to "team abortion" (we have hats, and everything).
Thirith on 9/6/2009 at 07:26
Quote Posted by Phatose
At some point when I wasn't looking, did dead babies stop qualifying as fucking awful?
I'm sorry, perhaps I'm being dense here, but how does what you wrote here relate to my post? I honestly don't see the connection.
SubJeff on 9/6/2009 at 07:29
Love the way Phatose has totally sidestepped anything Starr or I have posted for the last page or so.
Phatose on 9/6/2009 at 13:28
Quote Posted by Thirith
I'm sorry, perhaps I'm being dense here, but how does what you wrote here relate to my post? I honestly don't see the connection.
Because you seem to have left off the rather crucial difference between the two approaches is that one involves dead babies and one does not. It's all well and good to talk about choice, but talking about the issue without acknowledging that one involves dead babies and one doesn't is just ignoring the elephant in the kitchen.
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Love the way Phatose has totally sidestepped anything Starr or I have posted for the last page or so.
Subjective Effect, I've got about five different people after me here. What exactly did I avoid?
Quote Posted by ddl
Then you should be slapped for repeatedly supporting what you yourself agree is an entirely flawed premise, since all it's doing is making you look like a fundamentalist asshat.
At the very least you should be slapped for not clarifying exactly what you mean, and that you actually don't believe a word you're saying at any point in this argument.
To be honest, this essentially reads like hasty backpedalling, but lets give you the benefit of the doubt and welcome you to "team abortion" (we have hats, and everything).
*Sigh*
I've clarified what I mean several times already. Multiple times, now, in fact. To you, directly, in fact. This is still that same conversation, about the same statement.
DDL on 9/6/2009 at 13:41
So, to summarise: if we assume that at all stages of foetusness, the foetus is a human child with all the rights that that entails, you argue that it's not within the woman's rights to get rid of it?
Is that your stance?
So if we simply acknowledge that point A, "that at all stages of foetusness, the foetus is a human child with all the rights that that entails" is of course obvious nonsense, then your actual viewpoint in sight of the fact that a tiny cluster of cells ISN'T a human child, is that it IS within a woman's rights to get rid of it?
CHRIST. You know, if it'd been me, I would've made that more clear, because as you can see: IT WASN'T.
