United Forum
Go Back   United Forum > Everything else > News, Current Affairs & Politics
Reply
 
Old 08-03-2018, 12:39 PM
Jammy Dodger
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by irk
See. No point going on. You dont understand the implications of your stance.
Explain them then.

How does me never having researched foetal development mean I donít understand the implications of my stance?

Quote:
All of your last points (except the blue/scouse conundrum) would be equally applicable to killing anyone.
No. It wouldnít. People are alive, can feel and suffer. As can the people who love them. A foetus that hasnít developed those aspects isnít and canít. May as well equate killing to *****ing into a sock.

Last edited by Jammy Dodger; 08-03-2018 at 12:42 PM.
 
Old 08-03-2018, 12:41 PM
irk
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammy Dodger
Explain them then.



No. It wouldnít. People are alive, can feel and suffer. A foetus that hasnít developed those aspects isnít and canít. May as well equate killing to *****ing into a sock.
I already have. You just didnt give it any thought.
 
Old 08-03-2018, 12:44 PM
Jammy Dodger
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by irk
I already have. You just didnt give it any thought.
I havenít given the subject much thought. Educate me.

I havenít seen a post of yours on this thread that explains the implications of my stance. Iíve seen poor logic and arguments I donít agree with, which I countered.

How does me never having researched foetal development mean I donít understand the implications of my stance? And where are your posts that have explained this?

Last edited by Jammy Dodger; 08-03-2018 at 12:50 PM.
 
Old 08-03-2018, 12:49 PM
irk
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammy Dodger
I havenít given the subject much thought. Educate me.
I donít have the time and you dont have the will.
 
Old 08-03-2018, 12:51 PM
Jammy Dodger
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by irk
I donít have the time and you dont have the will.
You appear to have devoted plenty of time to this thread and forum in general, and Iíve demonstrated the will by asking the question. I will happily change my opinion if these implications you mention are convincing.

But I think you have no answer to my argument so your denial mode is activated to protect your beliefs.

Last edited by Jammy Dodger; 08-03-2018 at 12:56 PM.
 
Old 08-03-2018, 03:43 PM
irk
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jammy Dodger
You appear to have devoted plenty of time to this thread and forum in general, and Iíve demonstrated the will by asking the question. I will happily change my opinion if these implications you mention are convincing.

But I think you have no answer to my argument so your denial mode is activated to protect your beliefs.

this might have more credence if I hadn't already pointed out the flaws in your thinking only for you to completely ignore them.

all you have to do to be "educated" on the matter is reassess your opinions logically in light of the contradictions in your thinking. However, it is apparent that you don't even acknowledge them, hence my saying it is a waste of time.

I'm in denial about nothing. I haven't even professed any beliefs. I merely observed that your stated position was nonsense, which it is. the irony in that remark. sheesh.

so, I grant your wish for education and shall have at it. Understand, this - I'm not having a go at you personally (maybe a bit), but you haven't thought your opinion through.

here is what you wrote.

"Yes, it becomes a human being, a person, when itís born. Thatís when life begins and it starts breathing. Until then itís a foetus developing into a human being. Itís a future person. Though thereís obviously a time during the 9 months where it would be wrong to halt the process due to how far the foetus had developed. Regardless of where that point is, itís not at conception."

from that we can understand that your position is -

It is wrong to take a life

Life starts at birth

Personhood is bestowed at life

Life definitely does not begin at conception.

A foetus is not a life and therefore not a person

A foetus is a future person

At some undefined point during pregnancy it becomes wrong to kill the foetus even though it is neither alive nor a person



you fail to explain

why, if the foetus is neither life nor a person, it is wrong to abort it at any stage up to birth when it magically takes on the characteristic of life and becomes a person.

the nature of the characteristic that the foetus comes to possess that is neither life nor personhood that makes it wrong to kill it at some point but which is not life or personhood.

and, when this transformation can be said to have taken place and its status.

herein arises a contradiction as you, presumably, wouldn't advocate the killing of a late term foetus despite it having on your view neither life nor personhood. what is it about this non-life, non-person that is to be valued?

hold on, you may say, I said it is a 'future person' and that is the value the foetus possesses that makes it wrong to kill it.

in which case you fail to explain why this potential that is defined in neither nature or temporally does not apply to each earlier iteration of the foetus backward in time to the point of conception. conception being the point where the foetus comes into being and from which point on it is at all times a 'future person' until being born.

the contradiction here being that your argument attempts to value and not value for mere expediency the concept of 'future person'. there is no point from conception at which the foetus is not a 'future person'. yet, you argue, that there is a point before which being a 'future person' apparently has no value to prevent the foetus from being aborted.

you can either value the concept of 'future person' or not. therefore as a concept it is useless for your purposes.

the logical implication being - that if you then necessarliy have to discard the concept of 'future person' you are left with no reason with which to oppose the killing of all foetuses up to the moment that they are born. each stage of a foetus being neither a 'person' nor a 'life' from conception until birth.

the implication of accepting the value of being a 'future person' (or life/personhood from conception) is that it is wrong to abort any foetus.



I pointed this out to you earlier. your response didnt really take us any further along. you wrote -

"Itís ok under some circumstances. The womanís rights trump the foetusí right up to birth. If thereís a health issue or a matter of life and death the woman has the right to decide whether she or the foetus should be given priority."

no argument regarding the matter of life and death here. although, you do appear to concede that the foetus has some rights. as discussed above those rights have to apply from conception if they to have any meaning at all, or else they don't have any.

"I havenít been arguing when abortion should be allowed and when it shouldnít. Iíve been arguing when life starts or a foetus becomes a person with full rights. Until birth it is not a person or a life. It is a foetus becoming a person and developing life."

well, you're all over the place here. you have argued for the analogue that is the notion of a foetus' rights, and why would they need to be discussed unless the issue was of impinging upon them by way of abortion? You mention 'full rights' when born, and repeat your position on 'life' and 'future persons' without any attempt at justification, further argument, or clarification almost as if you've ignored or not understood my previous post.

"As for the issue of abortion just because the woman doesnít want the baby, the relevant question isnít when life begins or when a foetus becomes a person. Itís when does the foetus develop consciousness, have a fully developed central nervous system, is able to experience emotion. Iíve never researched it so have no idea when that point happens. But thatís where I think the cutoff point should be concerning abortions for unwanted pregnancies. And for other reasons, such as health, the motherís right to choose right up to birth remains. Itís her responsibility."

here you attempt to shift the argument (perhaps belatedly realising that you are on shifting sand) from the question of whether a foetus is a life or a person into the quality of such personhood. You neglect to notice that in attempting to redefine the terms you are in fact undermining your position. Conceding that a baby develops consciousness together with the other biological characteristics of a functioning person in the womb and that they shouldn't be aborted after that point is a tacit admission that personhood is not dependent on birth after all. for what possesses human consciousness other than a human life? and you have repeatedly stated that thisdoesn't begin until birth.

this is aside form the fact that no one has the slightest idea about where and when consciousness develops.

do you understand now, finally?
 
Old 08-03-2018, 03:46 PM
no fun
 
Default

Ffs canít decide whether to accuse irk of being hitler or pope john paul 2
 
Old 08-03-2018, 04:00 PM
Zorg
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by irk
I donít have the time
 
Old 08-03-2018, 04:04 PM
irk
 
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zorg


I made time.

Internet, sewious bidniz.
 
Old 09-03-2018, 12:22 AM
Cream
 
Default

Babies are f***ing idiots.

NFT.

Oh except this:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...uclear-weapons

Quote:
Donald Trump to meet Kim Jong-un by May after invitation from North Korea
South Koreaís national security adviser confirms historic talks after delivering letter from Pyongyang to White House


In a stunning development, South Korean officials visiting the White House said that Trump said he was prepared to meet Kim ďby MayĒ. If the meeting takes place it would be the first ever between leaders of the two countries.
Not bad for the worst ever President OTUS.
Reply
Thread Tools
Similar Threads for: The "Trump is actually good" thread
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wayne Rooney, "Wazza", "Wazzoh", "Dickhead" etc. That Boy Ronaldo! Football 73 22-05-2014 09:34 AM
"It isn't just a job to me," he once said. "It's a mission." - good article on fergie borsuk Football 5 14-03-2009 08:44 AM
in tribute to ginlardes "best film director" thread. I give youmy "best ever united player" poll no fun Football 18 18-08-2008 01:43 PM
The Official "Please Dont Die and Good Luck Pure" Thread waynes ear's Off Topic 37 18-05-2008 07:03 PM
The "tell me a good song I can download on LimeWire"-thread Filliam H. Muffman Music 60 19-11-2006 12:08 PM
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:04 AM.

Copyright ©2006 - 2018 utdforum.com. This site is in no way affiliated to Manchester United Football Club.