iPOW #01

[Lesotheron]

...fuck... I'm too tired for this.

Get some sleep and come back refreshed, I'm just getting started.

Self-awareness is a gradual process, there is no sudden moment of "Whoops! I exist!" Once again, we're talking about degrees. If self-awareness is a gradual process, how do we determine when it can be measured?

Like you said, it can be argued that dolphins have self-awareness. It can even be argued that domesticated dogs and cats may have self-awareness. If they do, we don't have an accurate way of testing for self-awareness, we just know it when we can see it. But at which point are we able to see it? Is self-awareness when my cat (her name is Zoe, if you'd prefer to refer specifically to her), can "understand" the fact that she exists? Or is it when I can "see" that she "understands" that she exists?

Zoe "seems" to be "self-aware", but she could just be using a complicated series of "stimuli-response". If I swing my foot at Zoe, she would move out of the way, so that it doesn't hit her. Is that not "self-aware"? If my foot were to connect with her body, she "understands" that it could cause her pain or injury, even if she doesn't "understand" what pain or injury are, she knows that they're unpleasant, so she avoids the foot. If that's the case, she might not really be "self-aware", she's only "aware" and is responding upon the "instinct" of self-preservation.

But what if that's all "self-awareness" is, the human mind's way of justifying that "instinctual" drive for self-preservation. Human's are the only biological organisms that "care" about "self-awareness" because humans are the only bioligical organisms that want to use it to separate themselves from other biological organisms and call themselves "better".

We can "understand" that other bio-orgs (just to keep things shorter) can be and are "aware". We can "understand" that other bio-orgs have the "instinct" of self-preservation. When do we get to decide when the bio-org makes the connection between "awareness" and how it affects "self-preservation". That's what "self-awareness" is, "What is that, and how does it affect ME".

That's where you start to discuss anthropomorphizing, and how we're just "assigning" those traits to other bio-orgs. But maybe it's not anthropomorphizing, maybe it's just "recognizing" that those traits are there.

And how can we tell the difference? My closet isn't alive, it shows no characteristics of thought, reason, or anything resembling "awareness". Therefore, if I ascribe it "awareness" equal to that of a human, it's anthropomorphizing.

But that's the problem with anthropomorphization, it assumes that "self-awareness" is solely a human trait (slowly, we're actually learning that it may not be, but once again, some people will argue anything).

If that's the case, "self-awareness" can be possible in any bio-org, we just may not be able to "recognize" it because it shows in different ways than we "understand" it.

We need common traits to compare. For example, "pain-response". Something causes you pain, you move away from it to prevent it from causing you more pain. If you're not "self-aware", how can you reason that there is another place to move to where pain won't be caused? If you cannot concieve of "self" then any awareness of "location" is irrelevant because you can not reason how the difference between them affects "you".

So, how do we know whether or not a fetus shows pain response? Well, there are many studies that show that a fetus can feel pain (established well before abortion was ever an issue), so the question then becomes when does the fetus begin to feel pain? There are many studies for this as well, and they conclusively prove ONE thing: We don't know. Okay, so a fetus can feel pain, but when does it respond to it? Once again: We don't know. These are questions that need to be asked and conclusively answered before we can assume any answers.

I can show evidence of voluntary movement in fetuses. If a fetus isn't "self-aware" then how can it "voluntarily" move? How is it "aware" that it can move? How is it aware that there is an "it" to move? Once again, I refer you to the scientific concensus: We don't know.

I could go on and on, but eventually, when the questions get broken down into their component parts, the answer is always the same: We don't know. Anything else that people choose to infer from that is on them because it is nothing more than what they're willing to accept.

Please do not mistake my choice to not accept Developmental Psychology at it's current stage of development to mean that I don't understand it.

I'm not saying we'll never know the answers to these questions, I'm just saying we don't right now. I've provided a compromise that allows for everyone to be treated equally regardless of the answers to these questions. It makes the answers and the questions themselves irrelevant.

Is a fetus "self-aware"? It doesn't matter. There are times when it is justified to kill someone that is and can proven to be "self-aware". There are times when it is not justified to kill someone that may not be and cannot be proven to be "self-aware". The law has decided when it is or is not justified. Abortion is a matter law, and the law is a matter of "justified". Not "right" or "wrong" according to any individual, but "justified" to apply to each individual equally.

*Anyone thinking that I in any way, shape or form condone or endorse animal violence can kiss my ass, it's a hypothetical illustration. I'd go to jail for murdering anyone before I'd kick a cat, but that's just my position, it's neither "right" or "wrong" and it doesn't affect anyone else's position in the matter, so there's no way I'm going to bother to argue it with anyone*

[Lesotheron]

Just because I had the time and it was in my head, I thought I'd post this for the collective intellect to chew on:


Honor states that a fetus cannot be considered a "child" because it does not have "personhood", which is at least partially defined as having "self-awareness".

She then states that she believes infants cannot possably be "self-aware" and that the evidence is as clear as the "moon orbiting the Earth".

This implies (and is supported by statements made by Honor) that Honor feels that infants should not be considered children in the eyes of the law becuase they do not have "personhood".

This implies that it is acceptable to "terminate" children up until they can prove "self-awareness" and therefore "personhood".

Now, once a "child" has been born, the law feels that "abortion" is no longer necessary, because the responsibility of caring for the "child" can be on anyone that is able to be responsible for the "child" (up to and including taking the "child" away from its parents if they prove that they cannot be responsible for the "child").

The only reason "abortion" needs to exist is because there's no way to pass on responsibility of carrying the fetus. If a woman could pass on responsibility of carrying the fetus, she could make the choice to do so (just like she can about passing on responsibility of caring for the child with adoption).

Once technology advances to a stage where it is possible to pass on responsibility for carrying the fetus, "abortion" becomes just another option (just like adoption and preventive birth control). These options can be used at the discretion of the individuals involved.

Acknowledging that the law recognizes that a "child" (and even a fetus, it's a medical fact), is made up of the genetic material of both a mother and a father, both parents have rights and responsibilities to the "child" (and the fetus, paternal rights and responsibilities apply before birth except in the case of "abortion").

Realizing that the mother of a fetus is the only one legally recognized to be able to "terminate" the fetus and therefore, the only one of the parents who has the option of removing all rights and responsibilities to the "child" both before and after it is born.

I state that both the mother and the father should have the option of removing all rights and responsibilities to the "child" (or fetus if it hasn't been born), as it offers equal "protection" to the parents and the "child" (and the fetus before it is born).

Since the father cannot take on responsibility for carrying the fetus (even though he can be compelled to take responsibility for caring for the "child" (or the fetus) whether or not the mother wants it) at this point in time, the father is the only one that has no right to remove responsibility either before or after the fetus is born.

I state that the father should be able to "waive" his rights and responsibilities to the "child" (or the fetus) as this ensures him equal "protection" to the mother in the matter.

Once technology allows the father to take the responsibility of carrying the fetus, he can choose to do so, or he can choose to "waive" his rights and responsibilities, just like the mother can now.



This is nothing more than a restatement of the arguments as they apply to the issue being discussed (in an attempt to clear some of the "muddy water").

I would like opinions from the rest of the board of whether or not they consider this solution to be "fair" and "just". I would also like you to explain why you feel that this is or is not "fair" and "just".

[Swordsman3003]

Lesotheron, I think the only people reading your posts are me and Honor at this point. If there IS somebody else reading, you don't have to post a messege tellings me I'm wrong.

I just have a couple of suggestions for your comments, because I think your readership is about to dwindle further:

1. Try not to be so liberal in your use of quotation marks. It's really "annoying" to read a "sentence" where every fourth "word" is marked that way. Not on that, but it reduces the effect if you are actually trying to say something about a particular phrase. I mean, there are interesting times to use quotes to imply that you don't really respect that use of the word, but seeing every word marked up this way is so annoying that I can't even pay attention to what you are trying to say.

2. It really wrecks a debate when you try to argue into infinite regress. Any debate could be turning into a fight about the validity of claiming our own existence. We accept that this reality is the true reality based on dogma and convinience. It's one thing to support your claim based on the definition of a word, but to trouble everyone by attacking every definition of every word is a waste of time.

3. Your recent posts keep questioning all kinds of things from the validity of psychologly and biology, without supplying any decent answers or alternatives or explanations.


Whether or not you agree with my points here, I don't really mind, but I just want to be able to understand what you are trying to say. I'm not trying to make an ad hominem attack on you, this has nothing to do with your position.

[Lesotheron]

Lesotheron, I think the only people reading your posts are me and Honor at this point. If there IS somebody else reading, you don't have to post a messege tellings me I'm wrong.

I just have a couple of suggestions for your comments, because I think your readership is about to dwindle further:

1. Try not to be so liberal in your use of quotation marks. It's really "annoying" to read a "sentence" where every fourth "word" is marked that way. Not on that, but it reduces the effect if you are actually trying to say something about a particular phrase. I mean, there are interesting times to use quotes to imply that you don't really respect that use of the word, but seeing every word marked up this way is so annoying that I can't even pay attention to what you are trying to say.

2. It really wrecks a debate when you try to argue into infinite regress. Any debate could be turning into a fight about the validity of claiming our own existence. We accept that this reality is the true reality based on dogma and convinience. It's one thing to support your claim based on the definition of a word, but to trouble everyone by attacking every definition of every word is a waste of time.

3. Your recent posts keep questioning all kinds of things from the validity of psychologly and biology, without supplying any decent answers or alternatives or explanations.


Whether or not you agree with my points here, I don't really mind, but I just want to be able to understand what you are trying to say. I'm not trying to make an ad hominem attack on you, this has nothing to do with your position.

Ah, you've stumbled onto my secret. I'm purposefully keeping this argument going from different angles, attacking definitions and even questioning existence itself.

I'm actually trying to frustrate Honor into submission to show the futility of argument, especially when there's a perfectly acceptible compromise on the table. The only reason I've been given why this compromise can't work is "It could be used in the future to take away rights." I intend to prove that anything can be used to argue for or against anything, at any point in time.

What I have proposed can work, but it's being rejected out of hand, just because someone might question it's validity in the future. I didn't propose it because it can only work if nobody argues against it, I proposed it because it can work no matter what anyone argues, because it works no matter what anyone believes. At least nobody has said that it couldn't, Honor excepted.

Honor is well aware of this because I said as much in an earlier post. If Honor wasn't willing to argue it, I gave her an opportunity to "agree to disagree" and move on.

The post previous to yours is exactly what it looks like. I'm asking for the opinions of people who aren't involved in the discussion because if my solution isn't workable, I won't know if someone doesn't point it out. So any flaws that exist in the solution need to be pointed out, so I can iron them out.

This argument isn't only about abortion anymore. It's about why people can't seem to admit that they might be wrong and come up with solutions that benefit everyone, regardless of belief.

And this isn't a platform for me to yell from a soapbox, this is a place intended for discussion. I would really like it if you would continue to discuss these matters, but I'm not going to stop trying to show the futility of argument. People can work together for their own benefit, we've just forgotten how.

That said, if you have any suggestions for improving my compromise, I'd love to hear them. You may not believe it, but I value your beliefs and opinions. I just refuse to let them override my own. But I warn you, this argument between Honor and I could get a lot worse before it gets better, but I'll try to keep that just between her and I.

[Honor]

again... too many words to make the same two invalid points.

1) Again... Just because you don't understand the science involved doesn't mean it's invalid. Yes, we can test dogs and cats for self-awareness... Yes, we can show a six month old doesn't have it.

2) Again... Sometimes, the compromise is more dangerous/harmful than the fight. Just because you don't mind integrating fantasy into your science for the sake of the warm, fuzzy eventuality of everyone holding hands and "agreeing" doesn't mean I am.

When there's a "perfectly good" compromise on the table, I'll happily accept it. If you've got nothing new, though, I might well ignore endless reposts of the same inaccurate and logically flawed speculation.

Courtroom procedure has a handy objection for the kind of situation you're headed into...

"Objection! Asked and answered."

then, the judge says:

"Sustained. Do you have anything new to add, counselor?"

[Lesotheron]

I understand the science completely, it's flawed because psychology, in any form, relies on understanding the human brain. We can't do that yet. We're trying, we're getting better at it, but we don't understand the human brain or how it works.

Any scientist will tell you that a hypothosis based on a flawed assumption, can prove true, but that doesn't make it any less flawed. Once we know more about the brain's functions, we can start to examine what they mean. Once we understand what they mean, we can start to find out when they develop. Once that happens, then, I'll accept that we "know" whether or not something has self-awareness.

But as I've said, the compromise is legally sound regardless of anyone's beliefs. Unless you can prove that it isn't or try to help me fix it, that's only the means of the argument, not the argument itself. Since you're not doing that, this argument is only secondary to the main argument about why two rational, intelligent people can refuse to work together and choose to argue just because neither one is willing to admit that they might be wrong (actually, I'm admitting that I might be wrong, I just haven't seen enough evidence to prove that I'm wrong).

That's why I gave you the option to "agree to disagree". It's a valid way out of the argument, without either one of us having to admit that we might be wrong. You chose not to take that option, so the only last words I'll make or accept are "I Give Up". And I'm not going to be the one saying them.

The only other option at this point is to accept that I might be right (because I've never once said that you couldn't be right) and we work together to fix the problem.

[Swordsman3003]

I understand the science completely, it's flawed because psychology, in any form, relies on understanding the human brain.

No shit sherlock. And chemistry relies on understanding chemicals.

We can't do that yet.

We can't understand the human brain? Not "we don't completely understand" or "we understand some" or but...CAN'T?

We're trying, we're getting better at it, but we don't understand the human brain or how it works.

Wait...what the fuck is this shit. The science of psychology is invalid because...it doesn't know everything?

Some serious bullshit dude. We understand a lot about how the human brain works. And I'll tell you what: It definitely does not work when there is none.

Any scientist will tell you that a hypothosis based on a flawed assumption, can prove true, but that doesn't make it any less flawed.

Look...I'm highly educated and Honor is too. These schoolings in basic principles of logic are really starting to piss me off. If you say 'straw man argument', we will know what you are trying to say.

Just say 'you have flawed assumptions,' and then list them.

Your patronizing posts are not only annoying, they are boring.

Once we know more about the brain's functions, we can start to examine what they mean. Once we understand what they mean, we can start to find out when they develop.

We know the brain's fuctions. We know what they mean. We know how they develop.

Why don't you read every goddamn article on wikipedia on the human brain for starters? There are thousands. That's just wikipedia!

There are dozens of psychology and medical journals describing all sorts of new findings and research. I don't mean some magazine you can pick up at a book store.

You have chosen to ignore an entire branch of science to suit your whims. Your sheer stupidity should disgust anybody and dissuade them from listening to anything you have to say.

Once that happens, then, I'll accept that we "know" whether or not something has self-awareness.*

*UNLESS WE KNOW EVERYTHING, WE KNOW NOTHING.

But as I've said, the compromise is legally sound regardless of anyone's beliefs. Unless you can prove that it isn't or try to help me fix it, that's only the means of the argument, not the argument itself.

I don't quite understand what you are trying to say here. I'll tell you how it reads to me:

My idea is right. Prove that I'm wrong. Even if you show my premise and reasonings are wrong, I'm still right.

Since you're not doing that, this argument is only secondary to the main argument about why two rational, intelligent people can refuse to work together and choose to argue just because neither one is willing to admit that they might be wrong (actually, I'm admitting that I might be wrong, I just haven't seen enough evidence to prove that I'm wrong).

Red herring: Even if Honor were completely unwilling to ever admit she was wrong or compromise, that does not make your arguement here any more correct.

Secondly, why should someone whose arguement is based on logic, science, and the law give in to a side whose arguemnt is based on emotion, ignorance, and supposition?

Thirdly, Honor constantly reminds everyone around her that her knowledge is based on science, fact, study, reason, and proof. Her mind cannot work any other way. Her mind would automatically change if you were to prove anything, which you have not.

That's why I gave you the option to "agree to disagree". It's a valid way out of the argument, without either one of us having to admit that we might be wrong.

The only people who have ever asked me to "agree to disagree" were religionists.

Agreeing to disagree solves nothing.

You chose not to take that option, so the only last words I'll make or accept are "I Give Up". And I'm not going to be the one saying them.

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?

You are unwilling to ever admit you are wrong? After all that shit about stubborness and compromise?

Get lost.



[/quote]
The only other option at this point is to accept that I might be right (because I've never once said that you couldn't be right) and we work together to fix the problem.[/quote]

You didn't say she couldn't be right, be you said you would never admit it, asshole.

[Lulujayne]

I was following Swordsie but somewhere few pages back things started to go 'round in circles, and various points got lost because they kept being repeated in increasingly obtuse ways.

*stabs and cooks a fetus*

[Honor]

::cries::

See... My problem isn't an inability to admit I might be wrong (in this case, the probability is up there with the probability of sprouting wings out of my ass) or that you might be right (similar probability from what I can understand of your position)...

My problem is an inability to "just let it go" when it's patently obvious, at least to me, that someone doesn't have the facts, doesn't understand the facts, or just "doesn't get it".

It's a certain combination of obsessive perfectionism, insatiable curiosity, and that old demon of interpersonal relations "do unto others..." I hate having avoidable blank spots in my knowledge and understanding, and I assume others do, as well. If I'm laboring under false "knowledge", there is nothing I want more than to have it cleared up for me... And I assume in others a similar desire.

This extends from "big picture / big idea" topics down to the most trivial and meaningless things... I am all but constitutionally incapable of hearing someone misuse a word in conversation and not pointing it out for them. You can, I suppose, imagine how popular this makes me with some people. This has caused me to learn a great deal about communication and tact, which, unfortunately, I can't always convince myself to use...



I really don't intend to say this again... So I hope I can succeed in clarifying it in this post.

I understand the science completely, it's flawed because psychology, in any form, relies on understanding the human brain. We can't do that yet.

...So I can clearly not choose the wine in front of you!


Actually, Vizzini, the brain we understand pretty durned well. The mind is a little less understood.

The subject under discussion - the self-awareness and "personhood" of unborn fetuses - simply isn't as mysterious or unknown as you seem to think and/or hope it is.

This isn't a topic where we're grasping in the dark, or making reckless assumptions on very limited data. It's just not that confusing or obfuscated. We've got a pretty fucking good idea of how the brain works, thank-you-very-much, and there's not a lot of serious dissent there.

One of the possible places where you're getting hung up is the word "psychology". This is a very broad "meta-field" which "contains" several areas of thought, study, science, and supposition... The area you seem to be focusing on is concerned with the way the mind works, while the area you should be focusing on is concerned with the way the brain works...

We're not concerned with why the fetus hates it's mother or votes republican... We're concerned with whether it's self aware. And that's pretty fucking easy when the subject speaks a language you understand (which is why Dolphins, and to a lesser degree higher primates, dogs, and cats are still under debate among some more liberal researchers... All have a language, of varying complexities, and we have varying levels of imperfect understanding of those languages. Really, of the four, Dolphins are the only ones with much more than a snowball's chance...)

Now... Fetuses don't have a language we understand... Largely because they're not even conscious, living, independent beings. But human children -do- use a language we understand. Making the determination of when they become self-aware is a fairly simple exercise, and not poorly understood at all.

One of the simplest channel markers, which I believe I've mentioned earlier in this discussion, is when children first learn that it's possible for them to lie.

This is an incredibly important milestone in the development of self-awareness... To understand that you can lie - that it is even possible - requires (and causes) an extant (and advancing) understanding of a sense of separateness of self... Before that time, a child is completely unaware that they are a separate being. They are unaware that "mommy" doesn't automatically know everything they themselves know - Not because they view mommy as some kind of super-being, but because they don't understand that all beings are not them, and knowledge is not universal.

Consider how far into development the assumption carries that if they close their eyes, you can't see them. This is also a very clear indication of the state of development of a child's sense of self-awareness.

Consider how amazed and surprised, and thus terrified or amused a very small child is at a simple game of peek-a-boo. This is -not- a self-aware creature.

And how does this relate to our unborn fetus? Well, if the subject hasn't passed stage 0 yet, it's a pretty clear bet it hasn't passed stage, say, 10 either. A 'proto-creature' that's not even aware that it has eyes or ears or an ass certainly, requisitely, and above all, obviously isn't self-aware.



Letting go of a flawed belief that you hold dear is often very much like a standard example of the old "grief cycle" process... Tracking recognizably through denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and -with luck, one would hope- acceptance... People who know or suspect, deep down, that God doesn't exist... Children that have suffered a 'big' disappointment... Lovers who've discovered that their lover is a cheating rat...

You keep taking this "denial stage" tack of "Well, you can't prove it... You can't know for sure..." Well... Yeah. We pretty damned well do know for sure. Of course, there's always room for a surprise somewhere, theoretically... But it'd be less surprising if, say, it was proven that dogs know how to read.

Every now and then, you get as far as "bargaining"... Again, amusingly, in the same way our above example in religion would: "Well... We could either of us be right or wrong... So let's just agree to disagree."

Agreeing to disagree comes in one of three forms...

• 1) One doesn't have the stomach for the debate - could be because they're uncomfortable with conflict, or because they don't want to offend you before you get to the part of the conversation they hope to profit from. People who disagree with you, but want something from you, are very big on "respectfully agreeing to disagree".
  2) One doesn't have the patience for the debate... They're somewhere between "pretty sure" and "absolutely sure" they're right, they think you're somewhere between "woefully undereducated" and "complete idiot", and/or they simply don't see the profit in wasting all day trying to re-educated you... or
  3) One is running scared. They're really uncomfortable with the fact that you're handing them data that's getting more and more difficult for them to rationalize away and/or ignore.

If, in this case, you catch me "agreeing to disagree", you can safely bet it's not option 1 or 3.

But as I've said, the compromise is legally sound regardless of anyone's beliefs. Unless you can prove that it isn't or try to help me fix it, that's only the means of the argument, not the argument itself.

No. The momentary legal soundness - whether we can legally say a fetus is a human life and a life a woman has a 'right' to take isn't the issue... The risky precedent of the legal fiction that the fetus is a human life is.

I've shown why the compromise is legally risky, for those reasons of precedent, and, to be honest, I've addressed the legal risks as much as I care to. Either you understand the legal precedents involved, or you don't. Simply choosing to be obstinate about denying them doesn't make them any less obvious or real.

[Lesotheron]

::cries::

See... My problem isn't an inability to admit I might be wrong (in this case, the probability is up there with the probability of sprouting wings out of my ass) or that you might be right (similar probability from what I can understand of your position)...

My problem is an inability to "just let it go" when it's patently obvious, at least to me, that someone doesn't have the facts, doesn't understand the facts, or just "doesn't get it".

*SNIP*

Ah, now we're getting somewhere. You've restated your position, as eleoquently as before, but this time you've actually tried to explain it. Before, you just said something along the lines of "I have neither the time, nor the inclination to show you what I'm talking about, so you'll just have to believe me." And with that, we move from arguing, back to discussion. Although, I have trouble believing that "::cries::" applies to anything you would do while either arguing or discussing, I'm not going to assume that it's not possible.

I would agree with you about the "agree to disagree" reasoning, but I'm not exactly a "normal" person. My reasoning was because I planned on taking this as far as it would go, even using any dirty trick that would keep things civil. I made you aware of that, and offered you the chance to leave before it got ugly. But you stuck it out, and I am again impressed. Sorry for having to push so many buttons, but as I've said, arguing is futile.

That said, I would like to reiterate that I do understand what you're saying, I've understood it for years, I just don't feel that it invalidates my beliefs on the matter. If you'll remember, I did not say that any of your beliefs are wrong, only that there are other beliefs out there that disagree, like mine. I just don't understand why people feel that their beliefs can't be truly correct unless anyone who disagrees can be made to see the "error of their ways". The point I've been trying to prove is that we can disagree and still work towards the same goal.

But as I've said, the compromise is legally sound regardless of anyone's beliefs. Unless you can prove that it isn't or try to help me fix it, that's only the means of the argument, not the argument itself.

No. The momentary legal soundness - whether we can legally say a fetus is a human life and a life a woman has a 'right' to take isn't the issue... The risky precedent of the legal fiction that the fetus is a human life is.

I've shown why the compromise is legally risky, for those reasons of precedent, and, to be honest, I've addressed the legal risks as much as I care to. Either you understand the legal precedents involved, or you don't. Simply choosing to be obstinate about denying them doesn't make them any less obvious or real.

And now, we're back to arguing. The law has upheld the terminating of the vegatative, even though other people argue that they're still alive. The law has upheld the death penalty, even though serial killers pretty obviously have "personhood". The law has upheld that a child, under the level of development where they achieve "personhood", has the protection of the law and is under the responsibility of its mother and father. The law disagrees with your position on "personhood" and disagrees with my position on "life", yet it has upheld its own position in spite of both.

It's not a fetus being considered equal to "life" or a "person" that's dangerous, it's that people will try to use it to remove a person's rights that is dangerous. The law must be held accountable for upholding every individual's rights, including the father's "right of refusal" (and when the technology arrives, his "right of burden" in carrying the fetus). At some point, you have to stop worrying about whether or not someone might fight to take away your rights, and prepare to fight them back. I've provided some ammunition for the battle, and I'm prepared to fight it to the death. I'd like it if you helped me, but if not, could you at least not stand in the way.

[Swordsman3003]

You're prepared to fight to the death? Over what?

Are you saying you will kill people so fathers don't have to pay child support on children they didn't want?

Or that you would continue to support fathers' rights even if you were threatened with death?

People these days are pretty quick to say they would "die" for a cause, without explaining the situation in which they would have the opportunity to do so.

Dying for this particular cause seems like a nice way to waste your life. There are a lot more important things in the world.

[Lesotheron]

You're prepared to fight to the death? Over what?

Are you saying you will kill people so fathers don't have to pay child support on children they didn't want?

Or that you would continue to support fathers' rights even if you were threatened with death?

People these days are pretty quick to say they would "die" for a cause, without explaining the situation in which they would have the opportunity to do so.

Dying for this particular cause seems like a nice way to waste your life. There are a lot more important things in the world.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I'm willing to fight to the death, if it comes to it, to prove that people can agree on something, even if they disagree on others. That differences in belief don't make people enemies. That people can work towards the same goal, even if their reasons for doing so are different, even contradictory.

When people are able to pull their heads out of their asses (not intended towards anyone in this discussion, just the general state of affairs in the world), they may see that the world is crumbling around us because everyone's concerned about who's right, not what's best.

My beliefs that a fetus is a child are not invalid, and they are irrelevant to the issue. They are my beliefs, and I am entitled to them. It is not anyone's place to change them. I do not need to be educated, I do not need to be corrected. These are my beliefs, and I'm not changing them for anyone.

If your position is so weak that you can only defend it by trying to prove that my beliefs are invalid, your position is flawed. As I've shown, I support your position, even though my beliefs are different from yours.

But as soon as I stated my beliefs, they were attacked. My opinion was devalued because of those beliefs. I've had to defend my right to make a choice, to be taken seriously by people who argue for people's right to choose. Do you see anything wrong with that?

[Swordsman3003]

You're prepared to fight to the death? Over what?

Are you saying you will kill people so fathers don't have to pay child support on children they didn't want?

Or that you would continue to support fathers' rights even if you were threatened with death?

People these days are pretty quick to say they would "die" for a cause, without explaining the situation in which they would have the opportunity to do so.

Dying for this particular cause seems like a nice way to waste your life. There are a lot more important things in the world.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

I'm willing to fight to the death, if it comes to it, to prove that people can agree on something, even if they disagree on others.

Ok. That is an even shittier thing to die for.

First of all, dying for a cause does not PROVE ANYTHING, except that you were stupid enough to die for it. Do the thousands of suicide bombers that have sacrificed themselves for their causes prove their ideas by dying for them?

Maybe you mean, you would die to protect the idea? That would be a better way to phrase it. I suppose there are things I would die to protect...seems a better way to die than slowly rotting from the inside.

Even then, if people can't figure out that agreement isn't all or nothing, I think there is probably a more fundamental problem at stake.

That differences in belief don't make people enemies. That people can work towards the same goal, even if their reasons for doing so are different, even contradictory.

Dude dude dude....you astound me. I'm not trying to call you my enemy. I don't want to destroy you or harm you or anything like that. I'm trying to convince you of my ideas. That makes you something far different from an enemy!

You make so many straw man arguements I can't even bear to read your posts anymore. You keep making up ideas that you can easily tackle.

Not only is that a straw man, but it's a red herring. Even if I did view you as my enemy, that does not make your ideas more correct.

Of course people can work towards the same goal for different reasons; that's how American politics work. I'd definitely want you voting for my guy, even if your reasons are wrong.

The problem here is your reasons in this discussion, on this are false, and not only that, they give ammunition to people, I'm sure we can both agree, are our opponents. (I mean to say that anti-choice people are our mutual opponents.)

When people are able to pull their heads out of their asses (not intended towards anyone in this discussion, just the general state of affairs in the world), they may see that the world is crumbling around us because everyone's concerned about who's right, not what's best.[/quote

I think you are making a completely wrong analogy.

Let's suppose we were fighting a war, and you, of your own accord, launch an artillery attack on the enemy without coordination with the rest of the force. While I can respect and support your sincere desire to defeat the enemy, you do more harm than good by revealing our position.

My beliefs that a fetus is a child are not invalid, and they are irrelevant to the issue.

Not only is your belief utterly invalid, it is the entire basis of the issue. If nobody alleged that a fetus was a person, then there would be no debate.

They are my beliefs, and I am entitled to them. It is not anyone's place to change them.

Of COURSE you are entitled to your beliefs; that does not put them on equal footing with other ideas!

Anyways, aside from torture and brainwashing (if that's even possible), nobody can forcibly change your beliefs, merely threaten you into claiming unbelief.

Goddamn that whole section; it's so far off topic.

I do not need to be educated, I do not need to be corrected. These are my beliefs, and I'm not changing them for anyone.

Ok. Now I WILL make a personal attack:

FUCK YOU ASSHOLE!

You have repeatedly attacked Honor, or more generally, "the other side," for refusing to budge, while now you foam at the mouth over your right and freedom to never have to change your mind, and how you plan to use it by REFUSING TO BUDGE.

Not only am I completely disinclined to discuss an issue with someone who claims that under no circumstance will he change his ideas, I am disgusted by your hypocrasy.

If your position is so weak that you can only defend it by trying to prove that my beliefs are invalid, your position is flawed.

Not. My position is so strong that not only has it been well defended and completely proven, but your belief (which it is) is so weak that it has already been invalidted.

I think it is you who needs a schooling in logic.

As I've shown, I support your position, even though my beliefs are different from yours.

And I support free speech because Porticus, the Cosmic Poodle Dick told me that I should.

But as soon as I stated my beliefs, they were attacked. My opinion was devalued because of those beliefs. [/quote

That's precisely correct. When someone demonstrates at best an ignorance of science, or at worst a Chewbacca defense, it's generally their perogative to regard your opinion with suspicion.

I've had to defend my right to make a choice, to be taken seriously by people who argue for people's right to choose. Do you see anything wrong with that?

I don't even understand what you mean. Are you alleging that I've said you don't deserve the right to think for yourself? Something like that?

[Honor]

Before, you just said something along the lines of "I have neither the time, nor the inclination to show you what I'm talking about, so you'll just have to believe me."

As best I can tell, this is an intentional lie.

I've said, quite clearly, that I have neither the time nor the inclination to complete your education. I've also said quite clearly that I don't expect you to "just believe me" because I said so.

I've exposed you to the information. I've pointed out the facts. If you want to verify them - which I strongly suggest... It's my habit to verify any "fact" before I accept it as true, and the world would be a better place if everyone had a similar standard - then you have all the tools needed to do so. You live in an informationally advanced society, full of internets and libraries and universities.

But it's not my fucking job to 'prove' it to you. I don't personally care if you 'believe' me.

And yet, if you choose not to find the facts, and if you continue to say things that are demonstrably false, I will probably continue for quite some time to call you on it.


Further, you're welcome to some kind of bullshit, pie-in-the-sky, can't-we-all-just-get-along idea that this is really about people being unwilling to agree or admit the possibility of mutual rightness or wrongness or whatever...

You're welcome to the delusion that I'm flawed in some fundamental way because I'm prone to calling bullshit when people are slinging bullshit...

But the fact remains, and will remain, that it's simply in my nature to stand up and say something when absolute shit falls out of someones mouth and they enshrine it as "truth", "possible truth", or an "equally valid opinion".

My beliefs that a fetus is a child are not invalid, and they are irrelevant to the issue. They are my beliefs, and I am entitled to them. It is not anyone's place to change them. I do not need to be educated, I do not need to be corrected. These are my beliefs, and I'm not changing them for anyone.

This is a common misconception in our "touchy feely everyone is validated" social climate. Just because someone holds a belief doesn't make that belief valid. I have just as much "right" to point out that you are obviously and demonstrably wrong as you have to be wrong in the first place... And I have absolutely no responsibility to accept your demonstrably wrong ideas as "valid" just because you're enamored of them.

Your onions on this issue are invalid, not because mine are right, but because yours are demonstrably wrong.

If your position is so weak that you can only defend it by trying to prove that my beliefs are invalid, your position is flawed. As I've shown, I support your position, even though my beliefs are different from yours.

Evidently, your grasp of logic is as deeply flawed as your memory. If two views are mutually exclusive, then both proving one's own point, and invalidating the mutually exclusive opposing point hold equal validity.

And I've done both here.

But as soon as I stated my beliefs, they were attacked. My opinion was devalued because of those beliefs. I've had to defend my right to make a choice, to be taken seriously by people who argue for people's right to choose. Do you see anything wrong with that?

The only beliefs attacked was the ones that were demonstrably wrong.


And, on the subject of "beliefs", you keep trying to validate your "beliefs" by calling the position I present as my "beliefs". In most issues, including this one, in that sense of the word - something held as true, without proof - I simply don't have "beliefs".

When I do have a "belief", I am careful to present it as such... Because I adamantly favor the strict segregation of opinion from fact.

[Lesotheron]

To Swordsman3003:

I'm not going to quote your post because you know what you said and I know what you said. Anyone else interested in reading what you said can just look two posts above this and see it.

I said that I'm willing to fight to the death to prove my point, not that I have any intention of dying to prove it. I'm not the one who thinks that we can't both be right. If someone were to tell me that we can't both be right, and that one of us has to die because of it, I'll fight to make sure that I'm not the one who dies.

I never said I was enemies with anyone on this board. I said I'm working against the belief that is running rampant in the world that those who believe differently HAVE to be enemies. That's what all of those suicide bombers you mentioned are about. If you believe differently, I have to blow you up, because my side is right and yours is wrong.

Intolerance isn't just a religious thing. Anytime someone stops accepting that they could be wrong, they stop allowing other people to hold different beliefs. Religion is the subject that has caused the most violence over it, but that doesn't mean that it's only Religions that do this.

All of the arguing after I stated my beliefs, and was attacked for having them, was to prove that my different beliefs, in no way, invalidated anyone else’s beliefs. You're allowed to hold your beliefs; I just don't have to accept them.

If you'll look back through the posts, you'll see that I believe that a fetus is a child, not a person. I've agreed that a child, after it is born, is not a person until it reaches a certain stage of development, but that doesn't make it any less of a child, does it?

As to providing support to the opposing side: I haven't done anything but use the same ammunition that they're using, I'm still using it on our side. If they're using it against our side, defend yourself from it. If I'm using the same ammunition to shoot back, doesn't that strengthen our position? Anyone who gets blown up by a grenade was either to slow or stupid to try to throw it back.

Trying to convince me of your ideas is one thing, attacking my beliefs because you can't accept them is something different. That's why there's discussion and argument. Discussion can make the world a better place. Argument just leads to worse arguments.

Remember, I've never said that anything posed against me couldn't be right, I only said that it doesn't mean that I have to change my beliefs. Have I told you that your beliefs are stupid? Have I said that your beliefs are so wrong that you must be an idiot for having them? That's the impression I've been getting from here. I don't believe the same way because I couldn't possibly understand what's being talked about (and that's not specifically to you, just in general). As I've said, I understand it; I just don't feel that I'm wrong because of it.

About your personal attack: I might be able to care, but I don't. It doesn't bother me at all. If I got bothered everyone told me "Fuck You Asshole!", I'd be a quivering wreck of a person. I do appreciate that you referred to me using a non-specific derogatory. Like I said, I can't and won't even try to stop you from using "bitch", but I'd prefer it if you didn't use it to refer to me.

[Lesotheron]

To Honor:

As I've pointed out, your reasoning is flawed. You say that a fetus cannot be a child because it does not have "personhood". You then admit that once it is born, it is a child that does not have "personhood" until it reaches a certain stage of development. If it can be a child and still not have "personhood", then why can't it be a child just because it hasn't been born yet?

You have not proven me to be demonstrably wrong, you just refuse to accept that my beliefs are just as accurate as yours.

Before you begin, I know your feelings on the matter. You don't feel a child should be legally protected until it can have "personhood". You feel that way and that is your right, but that's not the argument. A child is a child, whether or not it has "personhood". A fetus is a child that hasn't been born yet. That's why the word fetus was created, to refer to a child before it is born.

A fetus is not a separate being from a child, it is the same being earlier in its development. Just as a child is an earlier stage of development to a person who then grows into a fully mature adult. They're all human, they're all life, they all exist. It's just a matter of degrees.

Either the muddy water has clouded your perception, or you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. If it's the former, hopefully this has cleared your perception. If it is the latter, I heartily await the next round.

[Swordsman3003]

I'm done this thread. I will not be back to read anything more.

[Honor]

::echo::

Since you seem locked in a vacillation between arguing against things I didn't say, and characterizing fact as opinion and opinion as fact, I can only assume that the echoing sound of your own voice has apparently drown out any capability for you to actually hear what I'm saying...

[Lesotheron]

I'm hearing what you're saying, I just have yet to hear how it invalidates my beliefs. I have yet to hear why my beliefs have to be invalid at all. I haven't heard anything but "You have to be wrong, because I'm right. You just don't understand what I'm talking about."

All the evidence you've "pointed out" says that newborns and infants have no more self-awareness than a fetus, yet they are children and a fetus is not.

Guess what, whether you like it or not, children are human beings. They may not be self-aware, but even medical science says that they are. Medical science also says that fetuses are children.

A child is a stage in the development of a human being. A fetus is a stage in the development of a child.

You argue psychology. Psychology knows that fetuses aren't children. Psychology knows that children aren't self aware. That's great, a couple hundred years ago, Medicine knew that leeches and bloodletting were the cures for whatever ailed you.

The difference? Medicine knows better now. Psychology may be right, it may be wrong. But at this point, there's not enough evidence for me to say that Psychology trumps Medicine. Medicine has been working at it a lot longer.

You're repeating yourself, I'm repeating myself. The difference is, my repeating myself doesn't invalidate your beliefs, because your beliefs don't have to be invalid for mine to be equally valid.

We can go back and forth like this forever. I will if I have to, but you still haven't pointed out why you feel that my beliefs have to be invalid. My beliefs are mine, your beliefs are yours. I have no problem with your beliefs, why are mine such a threat to you?

[Honor]

I haven't heard anything but "You have to be wrong, because I'm right..."

::nods::

As I said. Simply not hearing me, and arguing against things I never said.

All the evidence you've "pointed out" says that newborns and infants have no more self-awareness than a fetus, yet they are children and a fetus is not.

Whatever. You're dancing around meaningless terminology. Terminology rendered meaningless by sloppy use and centuries of supersition. It's a child, it's a baby, it's a carbine, it's a footlong hotdog... What. Ever.

A fetus is not a people. It's not a person. It's not a sentient, self-aware being. It's not a going concern. It's an it. It's a growth. It's a collection of cells with a potential future.

Guess what, whether you like it or not, children are human beings.

I don't. fucking. care. I don't 'like' it, I don't 'dislike' it. I don't have any "desire" or "wish" one way or the other. I don't have a dog in this fight.

I'm just following the facts.

They may not be self-aware, but even medical science says that they are.

Medical science is not agreed. The vast majority subscribes to the polite fiction, as I've addressed, for the reasons I've addressed. The specialists in the field know (but don't hold forth on the fact) that they're not "people" in the meaningful sense of the word... They, in polite company, also usually stick to the polite fiction I've mentioned, for the reasons I've mentioned.

...Medical science also says that fetuses are children.

A significant minority of well indoctrinated wack-jobs do not constitute "medical science".

A child is a stage in the development of a human being. A fetus is a stage in the development of a child.

An acorn is a stage in the development of an oak tree. An ice crystal is a stage in the development of an avalanche. I don't know why you're incapable of following this obvious fact to it's equally obvious conclusion.

That's great, a couple hundred years ago, Medicine knew that leeches and bloodletting were the cures for whatever ailed you.

Oh, excellent argument. Hardly original, but excellent none the less. Because mistakes were made when we had almost no scientific knowledge, we must be equally likely to make mistakes on the same scale now that we have literally orders of magnitude more information to work with.

Psychology may be right, it may be wrong. But at this point, there's not enough evidence for me to say that Psychology trumps Medicine. Medicine has been working at it a lot longer.

I don't care whether you think psychology trumps medicine. At this point, I don't even care that you're mistakenly thinking that medicine agrees with you.

And, no... Psychology has been working at it a lot longer. The term was formalized quite a bit later, but we've been studying concepts that fit into the area of psychology a lot longer than we've been studying concepts that fit into the field of medicine.

The difference is, my repeating myself doesn't invalidate your beliefs, because your beliefs don't have to be invalid for mine to be equally valid.

You don't fucking know anything about my beliefs. I haven't mentioned any of them.

...but you still haven't pointed out why you feel that my beliefs have to be invalid.

Bullshit.

I have no problem with your beliefs, why are mine such a threat to you?

Asked and answered. Your beliefs aren't a threat to me. Large numbers of people cleaving to your beliefs are a threat to women in general.