Abortion

[Tom Mazanec]

Pro-life people are oppressing people in the womb. People in the womb are only not reasoning for a few years. People asleep are not reasoning for a few hours. The timescale is irrelevant. Why can you not understand what I am saying? I suspect it is because you do not want to.

Of course I have an opinion. Are you trying to say you do not after lying and repeating yourself endlessly?

Thou shalt not kill sapients. A fetus in the first two trimesters is not sapient. Period.

Of course I am not saying I do not have an opinion. I have repeatedly stated my opinion here. And I have not lied.

Thou shalt not kill innocent humans at any stage of life, from conception to natural death. Period.

A zygote, in your statement, will be sapient in six months. A sleeping person will be sapient in six hours. What about a comatose patient who will be sapient in six days (say for some medical procedure)? Does it change if the time span is six weeks?

[Guest]

What do the Catholics on this board think of Malachi Martin?

[Bob Butler]

Thou shalt not kill sapients. A fetus in the first two trimesters is not sapient. Period.

Of course I am not saying I do not have an opinion. I have repeatedly stated my opinion here. And I have not lied.

Thou shalt not kill innocent humans at any stage of life, from conception to natural death. Period.

A zygote, in your statement, will be sapient in six months. A sleeping person will be sapient in six hours. What about a comatose patient who will be sapient in six days (say for some medical procedure)? Does it change if the time span is six weeks?

See my quote above. A pre sapient is not sapient. A temporary loss of consciousness such as in sleep or coma does not change sapience. In a court of law, 'he was asleep therefore he was not sapient therefore it is not murder' is not a defense against murder. Do you believe it should be? Your value of non sapient life is but a religious doctrine, and you should not try to impose it on others without your faith.

Try to define a property that implies sentience and is detectable in a fetus in the first two trimesters. The fetus should have it. A meat animal or other animal which is commonly killed should not. A hypothetical alien or artificial electronic sapient should. The style of it would match 'able to reason' or 'able to use language', excepting you want the fetus to measurably have the property in the first two trimesters. If you can do this and get others to agree with your definition, you have an argument. To date, you have not been able to do this.

Again, we are at risk of the argumentum ad-nausium fallacy. We are repeating ourselves. Continuing to assert the same refuted claim does not make it more true, no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

And again, religious doctrines are not necessarily sensible. Would you oppress women for exposing their hair, or punish people for eating meat on Friday? These might be given big deal status by various cults, but they are in fact irrational and nonsensical. Thus, a secular government should not try to enforce them.

And continuing the nature of crisis oppression argument.

If you are doing the following in the Industrial Age or Information Age, especially in the west, the following are prone to failure.

• Conquest
• Trying to force your culture on others
• Resisting change
• Continuing to have an advantage over others]

On the other hand, doing the following gives you an advantage, a better chance.

• Freeing your culture or group from the oppression of others
• Trying to advocate new technology

[Tom Mazanec]

You are arguing ad nauseum your view as much as me. I have as much a right to try to protect preborn humans as you have to lobby for a woman being able to kill her child for two trimesters.

[Bob Butler]

You are arguing ad nauseum your view as much as me. I have as much a right to try to protect preborn humans as you have to lobby for a woman being able to kill her child for two trimesters.

As long as in doing so you do not oppress others. Hey, if on other issues you are progressive, making sure the women's vote is on the Democratic side is a win anyway. Perhaps I should encourage you. As I said, trying to oppress others in a crisis is problematic.

[Jack Edwards]

Tom,
I've been on this forum well over a decade, and you were here before me. I've read many things you've written including your great short story. You seem like a very genuine and honest person who is passionate about your beliefs, particularly concerning abortion and other matters of religion. Do yourself a favor. Stop replying to Bob. You're in an abusive relationship with him. He doesn't treat you the way you deserve to be treated. He has massive confirmation bias and doesn't listen to anybody. Just ignore him, you'll be happier.

Best regards

Jack

[Bob Butler]

Hmm. What do you mean by a massive confirmation bias? I do have a strong worldview. I have often said worldviews do not change until after they fail entirely. Past failures at the crisis peak might include the march to the sea and Hiroshima / Nagasaki. Thus, I can see everybody here has a strong worldview and never changes it. Is this what you mean by a ‘massive confirmation bias’?

I see worldviews as a convenient way of getting a quick answer to a complex question. They are a framework for rapidly getting things done. If you are serious about getting people to seriously examine their biases, you can’t pussy foot around. We all have massive confirmation biases.

[Guest]

Hmm. What do you mean by a massive confirmation bias? I do have a strong worldview. I have often said worldviews do not change until after they fail entirely. Past failures at the crisis peak might include the march to the sea and Hiroshima / Nagasaki. Thus, I can see everybody here has a strong worldview and never changes it. Is this what you mean by a ‘massive confirmation bias’?

I see worldviews as a convenient way of getting a quick answer to a complex question. They are a framework for rapidly getting things done. If you are serious about getting people to seriously examine their biases, you can’t pussy foot around. We all have massive confirmation biases.

It means you're stuck in 1973.

JCP

[Bob Butler]

It means you're stuck in 1973.

I doubt it. I was a college freshman then. Still was trying to settle a conflict between Newton and God. Reagan hadn't invented the modern Republican yet. At that age I hadn't a finished perspective, but was heading towards stuck.

I actually haven’t pinned down exactly when and how firmly worldviews lock down. For myself in 1973, I had already rejected the Catholic approach. The nun’s taught of a God who tortured people after death, and no, such a being I could not worship. An engineering student and member of the Christian Fellowship, I was questioning on whether laws such as Newton’s and Ohm’s were always followed, or under what conditions God broke such laws. I didn’t resolve that until well after college, doing so with the help of parapsychology experiments, having to develop a quantum theory of psi in the process.

At a guess, John might have been a confirmed conservative in college, but would not have developed Generational Dynamics fully? Tom might have been a confirmed Catholic, but might not have resolved every Catholic controversy yet? The basics of what you are going to be would have been locked in, but tweaking it would be possible at that age. One is still capable of learning and growing, but the basic core beliefs are set.

Think on the Middle Eastern wars for a moment. Before the wars, there was a feeling among the conservatives that we could and should have stuck with it, that victory was possible. Among progressives, it was a lost cause that never should have been started. After the wars? No boots on the ground. You cannot change other cultures. You cannot spend lives for a cause which may or may not be noble. We might not agree on what exactly was learned, but given a strong enough basis, worldviews can be changed within reason, but the basics are not apt to change.

[Tom Mazanec]

Past failures at the crisis peak might include the march to the sea

Nope. Just ask Jim Crow. Or it took a century.