|
Post by Cody™ on May 28, 2018 15:44:37 GMT
If nobody is disputing that life begins at conception, then why are so many people for abortion?!?! To terminate a life is to commit murder. Nobody is disputing that egg cells, sperm cells, zygotes etc are alive and human, any scientist will tell you that life began about 3 billion years ago and we're on a continuum. When an individual Human life begins is somewhat trickier and open to interpretation. In this country we go by when a foetus is viable outside the womb which is why abortion is legal up to about 24 weeks, this limit is set by politicians who are informed by the medical council. This limit is supported by the overwhelming majority of people here, in Ireland it seems about 12 weeks will be the limit. You should probably look up the meaning of the word murder before you use it. Murder is unlawful killing, abortion is going to be legal in Ireland so it's not murder, you may think it's unethical but fortunately you're in a small and dwindling minority. I don't know if you have children but I do and I would never take choice away from other women. Children are a blessing, not a punishment for failed contraception, chaotic lifestyles or sexual assault. In fact this probably won't make much difference to the abortion rate in Ireland it just means thousands of Irish women won't have to cross over to Britain to pay for a termination - they're not eligible for NHS treatment like we are. The fetus’ body is not your body - it should not be your choice to kill it. I also like the way you pro-choicers carry on like there are only two options open to the mother. - terminate the fetus or give birth and raise it. How about giving the baby up for adoption?
|
|
|
YES!
May 28, 2018 17:13:50 GMT
Post by Arlon10 on May 28, 2018 17:13:50 GMT
You are the board's most obvious representative of this phenomenon and have been for years--the irony will of course be lost on you. I suppose we can count on you to keep saying that even after you've been shown hundreds of times to be wrong. I am the opposite of a person with Dunning Kruger effect. They have a superficial understanding of things that gives them "certainty" about almost everything. I have a thorough understanding of things that gives me very little certainty -- about only those things in my sphere of activity, and then only those things I can test repeatedly. Why are so many here so "certain" they know the age of the Earth to within 2 percent? That's because they have a superficial understanding of the methods involved. I have a thorough understanding of the methods involved so I realize they require rather sweeping assumptions without which there are very few clues how old the Earth might be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
YES!
May 28, 2018 18:06:45 GMT
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2018 18:06:45 GMT
The 'pro-life' side has been avoiding bringing religion into it explicitly, in order to not make it appear as a clear cut case of church interference with state. The "sanctity of life" is religious, by definition, because sacred is a religious term and they believe in ensoulment of the foetus and that human life is of divine provenance. From what I remember, you were peddling the old "the universe is god" line. But even if you consider yourself an 'atheist', you're a religious joke. The foetus does not have any desires or interests invested in life and neither knows nor cares about being aborted, and therefore loses nothing when being aborted (from its perspective). Any evidence for that conspiracy theory? "The foetus does not have any desires or interests invested in life and neither knows nor cares about being aborted, and therefore loses nothing when being aborted (from its perspective)." Why does that matter? The evidence is that, with very few exceptions, it's the religious organisations that are lining up to back the 'pro-life' side and the secularists and moderate Christians backing pro choice. I doubt that this is a coincidence. The fact of the matter is, the religious know that "my religion forbids it, therefore I should get to impose my religion on you" won't cut the mustard in 2018, so they need to pretend that there is some secular basis to what they're trying to push. It's the same case with the opposition to assisted suicide, where they've abandoned the religious arguments to a great extent, but it's still mainly the devout religious that are intransigently opposed to any liberalising of the laws. The foetus is having nothing taken away from it, and it is therefore only morally relevant if it is planned to be carried through to conception (so if the mother abuses drugs, for example, that would be a relevant issue because it would have repercussions for a future person). You can't lose from an unharmed position, and if the foetus cannot experience significant harm from being aborted, then abortion is a no-lose proposition.
|
|
|
YES!
May 28, 2018 18:52:40 GMT
Post by faustus5 on May 28, 2018 18:52:40 GMT
I suppose we can count on you to keep saying that even after you've been shown hundreds of times to be wrong. You couldn't document so much as one instance of me being shown wrong about a single subject if your pathetic life depended on it. And that's a fact. And here, ladies and gentlemen, we have a shining example of why Arlon is the poster child example of the Dunning Kruger effect, and has been recognized as such by board veterans for years. You don't get better than this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
YES!
May 28, 2018 19:16:29 GMT
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2018 19:16:29 GMT
Here is an irony, the atheists here who seem absolutely certain that everything a person thinks, says or does is determined by their DNA, enzymes, and chemical balances in specific reaction to the outside world. without any free will or soul and that consciousness otherwise is an illusion. How do those atheists reconcile that with abortion? Well, since these atheists are a fiction that you have invented, you would have to be the one to explain that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
YES!
May 28, 2018 19:43:32 GMT
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2018 19:43:32 GMT
No, it is not a human yet, and by clump of cell I mean literally as a clump of cells like at cell division stage. YOU are claiming this as a person. As I said the rest is a sliding scale with potential to be a person when it can be sentient AND survive on its own. If you read my previous posts you would know this. As Clusium and I decided it is a living organism butt not yet a person and is a potential human. From her link not mine. Here is an irony, the atheists here who seem absolutely certain that everything a person thinks, says or does is determined by their DNA, enzymes, and chemical balances in specific reaction to the outside world. without any free will or soul and that consciousness otherwise is an illusion. How do those atheists reconcile that with abortion? Now you might ask me, if I believe there is more to a person than enzymes and DNA when do I believe that is present in human development? Why don't I allow people to assume it's not present for a long time after conception? The reason is that people from all walks of life; religious, scientific, both, and neither in many cultures believe that a person exists even before conception. They believe that the "ruling part," as Marcus Aurelius would put it, is present at conception because of the dependence it has on that body. Most importantly however is the fact that it is wise to be cautious. When in doubt err on the side of caution. If there is a good chance people are in a building who shouldn't be killed, then you don't blow up that building even when you are not absolutely certain they are even in it. What bearing does determinism have on abortion? What you're referring to in your second paragraph is ensoulment, and there is absolutely no scientific evidence for the existence of souls. All the evidence suggests that the foetus possesses no sense of self, nor any sense of invested interests in its own existence. The foetus is only morally relevant inasmuch as the fact that in the future, if it is brought to term, it will be capable of experiencing harm. So even then, it's the actualised future person that we're considering, and only in the event that the mother decides to carry the foetus to term. If the mother chooses to have an abortion, then we have not morally trespassed against a person by acceding to her wishes. We have not caused undue harm or deprivation to any person.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
YES!
May 28, 2018 19:44:08 GMT
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2018 19:44:08 GMT
I have a thorough understanding of things No.
|
|
|
YES!
May 28, 2018 20:12:14 GMT
Post by Arlon10 on May 28, 2018 20:12:14 GMT
I suppose we can count on you to keep saying that even after you've been shown hundreds of times to be wrong. You couldn't document so much as one instance of me being shown wrong about a single subject if your pathetic life depended on it. And that's a fact. And here, ladies and gentlemen, we have a shining example of why Arlon is the poster child example of the Dunning Kruger effect, and has been recognized as such by board veterans for years. You don't get better than this.
There is a significant and increasingly obvious difference between "board veterans" (interesting choice of words) and real life, or I wouldn't still be here. People who are the opposite of those with Dunning Kruger are also known as "skeptics" by the way. People with Dunning Kruger were and are also known as "superficial."
|
|
|
YES!
May 28, 2018 20:14:00 GMT
Post by Arlon10 on May 28, 2018 20:14:00 GMT
I have a thorough understanding of things No. Then how is it I demonstrate more understanding than you?
|
|
|
YES!
May 28, 2018 20:17:49 GMT
Post by Arlon10 on May 28, 2018 20:17:49 GMT
Here is an irony, the atheists here who seem absolutely certain that everything a person thinks, says or does is determined by their DNA, enzymes, and chemical balances in specific reaction to the outside world. without any free will or soul and that consciousness otherwise is an illusion. How do those atheists reconcile that with abortion? Well, since these atheists are a fiction that you have invented, you would have to be the one to explain that. It appears you don't read the entire board.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
YES!
May 28, 2018 20:18:31 GMT
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2018 20:18:31 GMT
Then how is it I demonstrate more understanding than you? You demonstrate more understanding than me because you exist in your own imagined world that has no connection with actual reality. Out here in the real world, you in fact repeatedly demonstrate no understanding at all. Generally you just like to claim that you do and then refuse any explanation of whatever gibberish you espouse. I seems to fool Erjen, but it doesn't fool anybody else.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
YES!
May 28, 2018 20:20:10 GMT
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2018 20:20:10 GMT
Well, since these atheists are a fiction that you have invented, you would have to be the one to explain that. It appears you don't read the entire board. So point to, oh, let's say three posts that espouse the viewpoint you just described. In case you're wondering, this is the part of the discussion where you run away from proving your claim whilst still pretending victory.
|
|
|
YES!
May 28, 2018 20:29:55 GMT
Post by Arlon10 on May 28, 2018 20:29:55 GMT
Here is an irony, the atheists here who seem absolutely certain that everything a person thinks, says or does is determined by their DNA, enzymes, and chemical balances in specific reaction to the outside world. without any free will or soul and that consciousness otherwise is an illusion. How do those atheists reconcile that with abortion? Now you might ask me, if I believe there is more to a person than enzymes and DNA when do I believe that is present in human development? Why don't I allow people to assume it's not present for a long time after conception? The reason is that people from all walks of life; religious, scientific, both, and neither in many cultures believe that a person exists even before conception. They believe that the "ruling part," as Marcus Aurelius would put it, is present at conception because of the dependence it has on that body. Most importantly however is the fact that it is wise to be cautious. When in doubt err on the side of caution. If there is a good chance people are in a building who shouldn't be killed, then you don't blow up that building even when you are not absolutely certain they are even in it. What bearing does determinism have on abortion? What you're referring to in your second paragraph is ensoulment, and there is absolutely no scientific evidence for the existence of souls. All the evidence suggests that the foetus possesses no sense of self, nor any sense of invested interests in its own existence. The foetus is only morally relevant inasmuch as the fact that in the future, if it is brought to term, it will be capable of experiencing harm. So even then, it's the actualised future person that we're considering, and only in the event that the mother decides to carry the foetus to term. If the mother chooses to have an abortion, then we have not morally trespassed against a person by acceding to her wishes. We have not caused undue harm or deprivation to any person. You have no authority on these matters and only imagine that "scientific evidence" has given you any. That's much worse than the people who imagine a god has given them any authority, by the way. At least they are more likely to admit theirs is only faith. They can become quite the nuisance when they believe they are winning elections though. Real science is way over both those groups, as you might see if you stay tuned.
|
|
|
YES!
May 28, 2018 20:46:52 GMT
Post by Arlon10 on May 28, 2018 20:46:52 GMT
It appears you don't read the entire board. So point to, oh, let's say three posts that espouse the viewpoint you just described. In case you're wondering, this is the part of the discussion where you run away from proving your claim whilst still pretending victory. I have a website. It contains the truth on most issues here. This is the point where I cannot be bothered by the "board veterans" here. Maybe you did and maybe you didn't argue against points made on my website, either way it has the truth. The Man in the Machine Euthanasia Can Anyone Prove a Negative? Is 0.99999 ... (and so on to infinity) Equal to One? That is just a few, there is much more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
YES!
May 28, 2018 20:55:57 GMT
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2018 20:55:57 GMT
So point to, oh, let's say three posts that espouse the viewpoint you just described. In case you're wondering, this is the part of the discussion where you run away from proving your claim whilst still pretending victory. I have a website. That's nice. I have two of them myself. So you're not going to post those examples, then? Instead you're going to change the subject and start talking about something completely different? So surprised, I am! Such a shocking turn of events that could not possibly have been predicted! And you wonder why everyone thinks you're Mr Dunning Kruger?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
YES!
May 28, 2018 21:20:26 GMT
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2018 21:20:26 GMT
What bearing does determinism have on abortion? What you're referring to in your second paragraph is ensoulment, and there is absolutely no scientific evidence for the existence of souls. All the evidence suggests that the foetus possesses no sense of self, nor any sense of invested interests in its own existence. The foetus is only morally relevant inasmuch as the fact that in the future, if it is brought to term, it will be capable of experiencing harm. So even then, it's the actualised future person that we're considering, and only in the event that the mother decides to carry the foetus to term. If the mother chooses to have an abortion, then we have not morally trespassed against a person by acceding to her wishes. We have not caused undue harm or deprivation to any person. You have no authority on these matters and only imagine that "scientific evidence" has given you any. That's much worse than the people who imagine a god has given them any authority, by the way. At least they are more likely to admit theirs is only faith. They can become quite the nuisance when they believe they are winning elections though. Real science is way over both those groups, as you might see if you stay tuned. Give me examples of the "real science" which indicates that foetuses have conscious interests and desires invested in their own future which are being transgressed when the mother chooses to have an abortion.
|
|
|
YES!
May 28, 2018 23:53:41 GMT
Post by Arlon10 on May 28, 2018 23:53:41 GMT
You have no authority on these matters and only imagine that "scientific evidence" has given you any. That's much worse than the people who imagine a god has given them any authority, by the way. At least they are more likely to admit theirs is only faith. They can become quite the nuisance when they believe they are winning elections though. Real science is way over both those groups, as you might see if you stay tuned. Give me examples of the "real science" which indicates that foetuses have conscious interests and desires invested in their own future which are being transgressed when the mother chooses to have an abortion. It has already been explained by the ancient Hindus that there is no indirect way to perceive the atman (self). Direct perception of it is the only way. Quite many people claim to be capable of such perception. We have their testimony, but just as the ancient Hindus said, you can't know they are right without your own direct perception. Although science is not capable of demonstrating the existence of the atman, it is also not capable of proving it does not exist.
|
|
|
YES!
May 28, 2018 23:55:53 GMT
Post by Arlon10 on May 28, 2018 23:55:53 GMT
That's nice. I have two [web sites] myself. Can you link either? This board is about as far from "everyone" as you can get.
|
|
|
YES!
May 29, 2018 0:00:47 GMT
Post by clusium on May 29, 2018 0:00:47 GMT
If nobody is disputing that life begins at conception, then why are so many people for abortion?!?! To terminate a life is to commit murder. A "potential" life is "only" forming at conception. While it is a natural process of gestation, it is still not a natural part of the world as a fully fledged and oxygen breathing human individual. It is dependent on it's host and is not a fully fledged lifeform, the mother is and as a lifeform, she gets total right and total autonomy over her body. You are female, why wouldn't you feel this way yourself?
Just what exactly do you propose to do to "potential" mothers who abort their fetuses anyway? Imagine the human rights issues and not to mention backstreet abortion clinics that would be set up that would have the potential to cause more harm and societal issues. It is dangerous to dictate what a person chooses to do with her own life. That is what came first. If someone you knew and loved and cared about and you found out they had an abortion, would you then judge them as a murderer?
The majority of abortions are performed in the first third of term anyway, after that stage, the mother would know what she wants. It is a very, very small percentage of later stage abortions that are performed and these would be performed for health risks only to the mother.
I don't feel this way, because I believe that it is infanticide. There are plenty of women who hate abortion and want it to become illegal throughout the world again. Some of the biggest voices against abortion are female, & some of the biggest voices that are for it are male. There are plenty of institutions that can & do help pregnant women, with their children. Abortion is an act of despair.
|
|
|
YES!
May 29, 2018 0:04:06 GMT
Post by Arlon10 on May 29, 2018 0:04:06 GMT
Then I know what to get you for your birthday, a mirror! A mirror image is subjective too, it's only a reflection of what is presumed real. A) I am thoroughly convinced that I never oppose myself. B) Objective reality sometimes opposes me. C) I am thoroughly convinced objective reality exists.
|
|