A Request Directed to Sciforums' "Atheists"

[Trippy]

At present, it seems a brain-dead patient has more rights than a healthy fetus... odd since one is likely never going to recover while the other has magnitudes of potential... but perhaps this brings an interesting point up - how do we wish to define physical pain?

To the best of my understanding, someone who is brain dead is legally dead. Dead men have no rights, the only rights that are accorded are accorded to family members.

As for defining pain - that's precisely the question I asked here, here, and was implied here.

So far no-one has even tried to answer it.

 

[Kittamaru]

To the best of my understanding, someone who is brain dead is legally dead. Dead men have no rights, the only rights that are accorded are accorded to family members.

As for defining pain - that's precisely the question I asked here, here, and was implied here.

So far no-one has even tried to answer it.

I apologize for not noticing and responding to those earlier - I have been, as I'm sure you can understand, a little bit preoccupied with the current drama going on.

I guess it comes down to "what is pain". Is it a feeling, an emotion, a reaction, or a sensation.

Pain is an unpleasant feeling often caused by intense or damaging stimuli, such as stubbing a toe, burning a finger, putting alcohol on a cut, and bumping the "funny bone".[1] The International Association for the Study of Pain's widely used definition states: "Pain is an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage."[2]

Pain motivates the individual to withdraw from damaging situations, to protect a damaged body part while it heals, and to avoid similar experiences in the future.[3] Most pain resolves promptly once the painful stimulus is removed and the body has healed, but sometimes pain persists despite removal of the stimulus and apparent healing of the body; and sometimes pain arises in the absence of any detectable stimulus, damage or disease.[4]

This doesn't seem to help much, as it describes it as both a sensation and an emotive response. It does, however, go on to say:

The presence of pain in an animal cannot be known for certain, but it can be inferred through physical and behavioral reactions.[114] Specialists currently believe that all vertebrates can feel pain, and that certain invertebrates, like the octopus, might too.[111][115][116] As for other animals, plants, or other entities, their ability to feel physical pain is at present a question beyond scientific reach, since no mechanism is known by which they could have such a feeling. In particular, there are no known nociceptors in groups such as plants, fungi, and most insects,[117] except for instance in fruit flies.[118]

In vertebrates, endogenous opioids are neurochemicals that moderate pain by interacting with opiate receptors. Opioids and opiate receptors occur naturally in crustaceans and, although at present no certain conclusion can be drawn,[119] their presence indicates that lobsters may be able to experience pain.[119][120] Opioids may mediate their pain in the same way as in vertebrates.[120] Veterinary medicine uses, for actual or potential animal pain, the same analgesics and anesthetics as used in humans.[121]

Now, I don't know if lobsters have emotions... but apparently this has actually caused controversy:

Welfare[edit]
Further information: Pain in crustaceans
The most common way of killing a lobster is by placing it live in boiling water, sometimes after having been placed in a freezer for a period of time. Another method is to split the lobster or sever the body in half lengthwise. Lobsters may also be killed or rendered insensate immediately before boiling by a stab into the brain (pithing), in the belief that this will stop suffering. However, a lobster's brain operates from not one but several ganglia and disabling only the frontal ganglion does not usually result in death or unconsciousness.[13] The boiling method is illegal in some places, such as in Reggio Emilia, Italy, where offenders face fines of up to €495.[29]

A device called the "CrustaStun" has been invented to electrocute shellfish such as lobsters, crabs, and crayfish before cooking. The device works by applying a 110 volt, 2–5 amp electrical charge to the animal. It is reported the CrustaStun renders the shellfish unconscious in 0.3 seconds and kills the animal in 5 to 10 seconds, compared to 3 minutes to kill a lobster by boiling.[30][31]

 

[GeoffP]

Hidden meaning, leaping logic

Bit of a loaded one. But, given those choices, I'd have to say Geoff...

It's always Geoff.

Predictable:

It's true, though, that I can imagine setting an abstract limit at viability, but that outcome is truly monstrous, escalating infant mortality exponentially and trading abortion for major invasive surgery. Those anti-abortion advocates who balked at the last compromise offer would rightly pitch a fit about this alternative; and so would abortion access advocates.​

Yeah, I saw that one coming, Geoff.

So why didn't you do anything about it? You had nineteen months to formulate something better than your response below. Let's explore that and the question you didn't take up as I watch bikini women being raced around fast cars in a corner window of the screen.

Actually, you have it backwards. The dryfoot standard is recognition of an objective, observable existential change.

As to whether or not you can "conversely assert that the mother is asserting rights over the fetus"? Well, see, that's the thing; the fetus exists inside her body.

Ding. I called this one last night. I even wrote it down; you know, in that post you didn't absorb. It goes thusly: Tiassa sticks to his definition, and doesn't bother reformulating his argument.

I'm sorry. I guess this one is on me. I guess it's just difficult to envision how much less evidence would be required to overcome the arbitrary ethos of a supposedly objective concept based entirely on whut we kin see. That's the kind of modern, 18th century thinking that your argument devolves to: whether or not the fetus can be taken out and assigned independent life, because we can't see it in front of us it can't be considered a person. Any signs of awareness in the womb are just, well, posturing, aren't they? What duplicitous non-organisms those sneaky crotch-weights are.

So you've decided to grip this blind-side argument about independence with both hands: the mother is a person in your view because she's independent. The fetus isn't because it's absolutely not until it's out of her; never mind that whole dependence of later care and feeding. That's just guilt-induced semantics.

But of course, the fetus certainly can be independent at the stages we're talking about. So what you're now effectively pushing is a mortal punishment for trespassing: the fetus is encroaching on the mother's rights, and so extreme measures are justified. I thought you didn't like all that 'stand your ground' stuff, Tiassa? I guess the only element is which 'ground' you stand on. The Florida Finality Finagle, we'll call it: FFF. I know you like your acronyms. Maybe to satisfy the underlying elements of your Extreme Non-Makeover gripe, we could find a way for the abortion-curious mother to fire a warning shot at the fetus, scare it into going away or smartening up. I'm all on tenterhooks to learn whether or not you have any ideas about that.

You really thought this was a "bright line"? I'm just floored as to how a thinking person takes up with such a trite definition. I mean, I think it's a fated conclusion based on your politics - because it's impossible to arrive at as a real guideline unless you're terribly myopic - but still, it's surprising. I assume Bells is on the same wavelength? Wow.

This is something I've been over before: Your converse assertion depends on an ontological presupposition of recent vintage. As I noted nineteen months ago, rather than the ontological shaping the legal, LACP is a case of the legal asserting the ontological.

Rhetorically, LACP is an extraordinary assertion, for which we cannot even begin considering extraordinary proof, as we have yet to get to any mundane proof.

Now, I'd never even heard of LACP. Immediately I thought: Ohhhh, Myuu, is this another one of the pointless acronyms that Tiassa likes to invent? And what the hell shall this one be? I know he's big into FAPing, for instance.

So one of the things about even semi-formal argument is that you're kind of obligated to define your acronyms. It's just a standard that people employ. I'm going to just presume here since it doesn't really matter but will guess as to it's meaning. Let me see: is it 'Life At Conception...' something-or-other? 'Proposition'?

Op! Ding ding ding! We have a winner, folks, and it was me. Gotta love that. Aw, Personhood. Well, I guess I should have guessed that. Anyway, now that we can see your defenseless intellectual fetus, let's abort it.

This is really your choice? Well, I'm not arguing for life at conception, so your counter is kind of, er, LACking, if you'll pardon the pun. I mean, I could screed on endlessly about the amazing amount of ontological and epistemological differences in constructing arguments based on personhood at conception and that at a late developmental period with appropriate neurobiological markers, but based on what you just tried, would you grasp it? Or would you just trot out another dodge. C'mon, fair play effort required here. Show me the money. I suspect you'll now try something wherein personhood at a later date then is in some obscure legal-sounding way predicated by the act of fertilisation, right? Look, seriously, don't bother: any such connection would be the work of an idiot mystic and couldn't really be believable. Enough. I get that you imagine this childish intellectual games - I'll hide my acronym and see if he can find it - satisfy the empty spot in your ego, but you're wasting my time with this crap.

Which brings us back to one of your silly complaints:

Because creating a false address of a side-issue is easier than actually forming a counter-argument? Oh, no, I'm sorry: this is actually a transparent plea for dismissal. I'm sorry, I mistook you there. So, why do you think that'll work.

Because it's the thread you're trying to revive; the thread from which this branch of this thread stems. In other words, it is the context from which you fashion your poseur moral outrage.

Aws; is I? Is I really? That thread I didn't really ever investigate and couldn't care less about? Which I told you about already, above. But instead of just being an honest debater for once, you have just dodged that and asserted the same crap that you did several posts ago. Meanwhile, I went to the trouble of actually breaking down the logical basis of your argument. So, you pull the kind of crap that not even a sophomore ethics student would dare to try, and then you claim this?:

Try a rational argument, Geoff.

Wow. Like dodging the argument? Serpentine! That'll work.

I've had some fun satirizing you as an 'elder statesman of SF', but the really funny part about it is that you actually fucking believe that shit, don't you? That is too damn funny.

But one thing I have learned from this business is that my appreciation for blondes and redheads is not an absolute. And women named Jenna are surely interesting people.

Wow, she was going awfully fast.

Hope she wasn't, er carrying, if you know what I mean.

Out.

 

[GeoffP]

Jesus Christ, will you guys just quit already? It's obvious neither of you have any business representing us as site leaders or, god forbid, moderators, so for once, do the respectable thing and resign.

I'm sick of the moderators being the worst-behaved people on this forum. Enough already.

... seconded. Again. When is enough enough?

 

[Kittamaru]

... seconded. Again. When is enough enough?

When the truth prevails

 

[GeoffP]

Quite so. I hear you've been getting flack in the mod forum; from what I can tell, it was a simple error. But of course that's the one fucking thing SF does not tolerate?

Pages of blatant misrepresentation, even after correction? Okay.

Blatant straw man arguments? Sure.

Deliberate polarising and false attribution? Meh.

But screw up a link and well, that's just too much. Give me a bloody break. Maybe I should write some people in the organisation. No one can give you crap for this. It's a ruse, a nonsense.

 

[Kittamaru]

Quite so. I hear you've been getting flack in the mod forum; from what I can tell, it was a simple error. But of course that's the one fucking thing SF does not tolerate?

Pages of blatant misrepresentation, even after correction? Okay.

Blatant straw man arguments? Sure.

Deliberate polarising and false attribution? Meh.

But screw up a link and well, that's just too much. Give me a bloody break. Maybe I should write some people in the organisation. No one can give you crap for this. It's a ruse, a nonsense.

Nah, I'm content to ride out the storm... just kind of amusing to me at this point. Here I had thought Syne was bad... at least he was obvious in his misrepresentation and doubletalk. This... well, even I was fooled for a while... now I know the truth of the matter, and that's what counts in the end.

 

[Gremmie]

Nah, I'm content to ride out the storm... just kind of amusing to me at this point. Here I had thought Syne was bad... at least he was obvious in his misrepresentation and doubletalk. This... well, even I was fooled for a while... now I know the truth of the matter, and that's what counts in the end.

If it means anything to you...

You have my vote of confidence... Stick around brother.

I find you to be straight... I may not always agree with what ya say, but, I'll always defend your right to say it.

Just have to add this, because I'm in a mood...
Opinions are like assholes... Everyone has one.

You're OK, Kit... Don't take shit from anyone... Stand tall bro.

 

[PhysBang]

So you've decided to grip this blind-side argument about independence with both hands: the mother is a person in your view because she's independent. The fetus isn't because it's absolutely not until it's out of her; never mind that whole dependence of later care and feeding. That's just guilt-induced semantics.

But here we get to the misogyny of the anti-choice position: a woman is not a person because she has a fetus.

It's not right to force men to give up the use of their organs to another man. We do not force people to give blood. We do not force people to hook their arteries and veins up to others in order to act as dialysis machines. So too it should be wrong to force women to have their body providing resources and risk for another being or another human.

 

[Trooper]

Pro-choice is rational? Great. Too bad I can't say the same about pro-choicers.

As an atheist, I detest religious interference in Government policy simply because it results in policies that are too restrictive and in many instances, infringes upon the bodily rights of women. However, I have always found that people who use it as a vague talking point with little knowledge or understanding of the history behind said talking points do so in such a way as to make situations even worse, because instead of trying to find a middle ground, a level of understanding of the needs and desires of both parties to the table, it becomes a talking point and the other side goes on the defensive and things get worse.

Did you know that in countries where abortion is illegal women are serving thirty year long prison sentences? Imagine this, in a country that also stigmatizes the use of contraception as a sin against God.

World Abortion Laws 2014

Did you know that nearly every expert agrees that fetuses don't feel pain until later in pregnancy, sometime between the 24th the 27th week, when their brains are more developed?

"The cortex does not become functional until at least the 26th week of a fetus' development, long after most abortions are performed. This finding was endorsed in 2012 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which stated that that there is "no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain."

Do pro-choice activists want a dry foot policy, an abortion on demand until the moment of birth? Fuck no. They are working hard to protect the Roe v. Wade standard, which allows states to ban elective third-trimester abortions. The debate over late-term and partial-birth abortions has to do with abortions performed for emergency medical reasons, not elective abortions.

I would like to think pro-choicers are all they claim to be, but they're not, and that would be okay except they are apparently incapable of recognizing their limitations. And, yes, that makes them as dangerous as the religious megalomaniacs. Those militant pro-choicers need to stop making things worse.

Then again, it could be something as simple as ego defense; given the reality that if you let people keep talking they will eventually tell you the truth. I believe much of that distortion and bias is socially relevant in terms of how we would like to be seen by others.

And, well, sorry, I have no respect whatsoever for that kind of behavior.

Idiot compassion, definitely my second favorite sin…bwahaha! :mufc:

Happy Mother's Day!

Toodle-oo.

 

[PhysBang]

At least one person doubted that women could wait until the third trimester in order to abort. While it is sad that women cannot be trusted to make a decision, here are some examples of why there might be delays.

1. Legislation that introduces delays

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2014/01/weekends-and-holidays-are-not-days/

2. Medical staff do not assist women in getting the medical aid they need to preserve their bodily integrity.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2014/03/abandoned-by-all-medical-staff/

3. Financial difficulties placed in the way of women require that they save enough money to afford medical care

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterf...he-did-not-have-enough-money-to-travel-north/

 

[Kittamaru]

But here we get to the misogyny of the anti-choice position: a woman is not a person because she has a fetus.

It's not right to force men to give up the use of their organs to another man. We do not force people to give blood. We do not force people to hook their arteries and veins up to others in order to act as dialysis machines. So too it should be wrong to force women to have their body providing resources and risk for another being or another human.

Who is trying to claim a woman is not a person? The only one I see saying that here is you... the rest of us are merely trying to point out that, hey, ya know, that little baby inside the woman? After a certain point, guess what, it's a person too. Since it cannot defend itself, it comes down to some of us to o that for em.

Pro-choice is rational? Great. Too bad I can't say the same about pro-choicers.

As an atheist, I detest religious interference in Government policy simply because it results in policies that are too restrictive and in many instances, infringes upon the bodily rights of women. However, I have always found that people who use it as a vague talking point with little knowledge or understanding of the history behind said talking points do so in such a way as to make situations even worse, because instead of trying to find a middle ground, a level of understanding of the needs and desires of both parties to the table, it becomes a talking point and the other side goes on the defensive and things get worse.

Did you know that in countries where abortion is illegal women are serving thirty year long prison sentences? Imagine this, in a country that also stigmatizes the use of contraception as a sin against God.

World Abortion Laws 2014

Did you know that nearly every expert agrees that fetuses don't feel pain until later in pregnancy, sometime between the 24th the 27th week, when their brains are more developed?

"The cortex does not become functional until at least the 26th week of a fetus' development, long after most abortions are performed. This finding was endorsed in 2012 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which stated that that there is "no legitimate scientific information that supports the statement that a fetus experiences pain."

Do pro-choice activists want a dry foot policy, an abortion on demand until the moment of birth? Fuck no. They are working hard to protect the Roe v. Wade standard, which allows states to ban elective third-trimester abortions. The debate over late-term and partial-birth abortions has to do with abortions performed for emergency medical reasons, not elective abortions.

I would like to think pro-choicers are all they claim to be, but they're not, and that would be okay except they are apparently incapable of recognizing their limitations. And, yes, that makes them as dangerous as the religious megalomaniacs. Those militant pro-choicers need to stop making things worse.

Then again, it could be something as simple as ego defense; given the reality that if you let people keep talking they will eventually tell you the truth. I believe much of that distortion and bias is socially relevant in terms of how we would like to be seen by others.

And, well, sorry, I have no respect whatsoever for that kind of behavior.

Idiot compassion, definitely my second favorite sin…bwahaha! :mufc:

Happy Mother's Day!

Toodle-oo.

Indeed - there are people on both sides that complicate the issue.

At least one person doubted that women could wait until the third trimester in order to abort. While it is sad that women cannot be trusted to make a decision, here are some examples of why there might be delays.

1. Legislation that introduces delays

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2014/01/weekends-and-holidays-are-not-days/

Such legislation should be removed, remanded, or otherwise changed so that it doesn't delay a person in their medical choices then. Seems simple enough to me.

2. Medical staff do not assist women in getting the medical aid they need to preserve their bodily integrity.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterfliesandwheels/2014/03/abandoned-by-all-medical-staff/

Then they should be fired, plain and simple. A doctor is there to perform a service to the best of his or her abilities... not to the extent that their religious or moral beliefs allow. If they are unable to carry out the procedure due to some moral high ground, then they should direct the patient to someone who can.

3. Financial difficulties placed in the way of women require that they save enough money to afford medical care

http://freethoughtblogs.com/butterf...he-did-not-have-enough-money-to-travel-north/

This is not an issue with late-term abortion... this is a fundamental issue with the country and society in general. The costs of proper medical care are outrageous to start; if you are unable to afford them, then the procedure should be done ANYWAY and you can pay it off over time. This concept that we need to pay tens of thousands of dollars or more for health care procedures is absolutely insane.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

The woman's right to say what happens with her own body.
Not a good argument.
Your house is your own, but you couldn't kill someone for squatting in it.

 

[PhysBang]

Who is trying to claim a woman is not a person? The only one I see saying that here is you... the rest of us are merely trying to point out that, hey, ya know, that little baby inside the woman? After a certain point, guess what, it's a person too. Since it cannot defend itself, it comes down to some of us to o that for em.

No, you are overlooking that you don't wish to grant women all the rights that you would grant to men, specifically the right to control one's own body. The status of the "person" inside a woman is irrelevant to whether or not the woman has the right to allow the "person" to be there.

Such legislation should be removed, remanded, or otherwise changed so that it doesn't delay a person in their medical choices then. Seems simple enough to me.

So you would agree, then, that if there is some sort of bureaucratic delay, that a woman has a right to abort after that delay, regardless of the state of the pregnancy.

Then they should be fired, plain and simple. A doctor is there to perform a service to the best of his or her abilities... not to the extent that their religious or moral beliefs allow. If they are unable to carry out the procedure due to some moral high ground, then they should direct the patient to someone who can.

So you agree, then, that if there is some sort of unprofessional delay, that a woman has a right to abort after that delay, regardless of the state of the pregnancy.

This is not an issue with late-term abortion... this is a fundamental issue with the country and society in general. The costs of proper medical care are outrageous to start; if you are unable to afford them, then the procedure should be done ANYWAY and you can pay it off over time. This concept that we need to pay tens of thousands of dollars or more for health care procedures is absolutely insane.

So you agree, then, that if there is some sort of financial delay, that a woman has a right to abort after that delay, regardless of the state of the pregnancy.

To do otherwise is to force a woman do do something against her will because of bureaucracy, the failure of professionalism of others, or financial pressure.

Of course there are other reasons why there might be a delay (e.g., more information about the pregnancy that were not available until late), so it seems that there is no reason to ban "late-term" pregnancies other than to make a blanket statement that women are not to be trusted in making their own decisions.

 

[Kittamaru]

No, you are overlooking that you don't wish to grant women all the rights that you would grant to men, specifically the right to control one's own body. The status of the "person" inside a woman is irrelevant to whether or not the woman has the right to allow the "person" to be there.

As soon as a man has the ability to bear a child, he will have the same restrictions placed upon him.

So you would agree, then, that if there is some sort of bureaucratic delay, that a woman has a right to abort after that delay, regardless of the state of the pregnancy.
So you agree, then, that if there is some sort of unprofessional delay, that a woman has a right to abort after that delay, regardless of the state of the pregnancy.
So you agree, then, that if there is some sort of financial delay, that a woman has a right to abort after that delay, regardless of the state of the pregnancy.

Thought that was pretty self explanatory - yes, that would be one of those things that falls under "extenuating circumstance"... not to mention something that should be examined to ensure it doesn't happen again.

To do otherwise is to force a woman do do something against her will because of bureaucracy, the failure of professionalism of others, or financial pressure.
Of course there are other reasons why there might be a delay (e.g., more information about the pregnancy that were not available until late), so it seems that there is no reason to ban "late-term" pregnancies other than to make a blanket statement that women are not to be trusted in making their own decisions.

What kind of information would come available later that isn't available early on? Something medical? As already provisioned - in the event of some sort of medical reason, the abortion would be permissible.

It is ONLY the abortions running along the lines of "oh, i don't want this baby anymore" that worries me... and if some peoples statistics are to be believed, apparently that is a non-issue... so whats the problem?

 

[PhysBang]

As soon as a man has the ability to bear a child, he will have the same restrictions placed upon him.

Do you deny that men can give blood? Do you deny that men can donate organs? Do you deny that this blood and these organs can save lives?

Do you think that men should be forced to give blood and donate organs?

These are simple questions.

It is ONLY the abortions running along the lines of "oh, i don't want this baby anymore" that worries me... and if some peoples statistics are to be believed, apparently that is a non-issue... so whats the problem?

The problem is that you and others are declaring a priori that women are not to be trusted about what they can do with their body.

 

[Motor Daddy]

The problem is that you and others are declaring a priori that women are not to be trusted about what they can do with their body.

...and all being fair and equal...men should be trusted too with what they do with their body. After all, it's their body, they can do with it as they see fit, right? Is that what you're implying, that all people have an individual right to do with their body as they see fit?

 

[Kittamaru]

Do you deny that men can give blood? Do you deny that men can donate organs? Do you deny that this blood and these organs can save lives?

Do you think that men should be forced to give blood and donate organs?

These are simple questions.

Indeed, and they are totally unrelated to the problem at hand. You are comparing the voluntary donation of blood/organs to the voluntary termination of life... one of these things is not like the other, one of these things KILLS.

The problem is that you and others are declaring a priori that women are not to be trusted about what they can do with their body.

Not at all - I am declaring that the Fetus deserves some form of protection from meandering neanderthals who care nothing for its lifes value...

 

[PhysBang]

Indeed, and they are totally unrelated to the problem at hand. You are comparing the voluntary donation of blood/organs to the voluntary termination of life... one of these things is not like the other, one of these things KILLS.

So you are denying that organ donation saves lives?

Not at all - I am declaring that the Fetus deserves some form of protection from meandering neanderthals who care nothing for its lifes value...

...and women do not deserve the protection of their rights. Yeah, I get it.

 

[Kittamaru]

So you are denying that organ donation saves lives?

Interesting... so my act of NOT donating my organs (which I am still using, thank you very much) is somehow equatable to intentionally snuffing out a life?
Does this mean that by not donating my organs, I am guilty of murder?
Interesting leap of illogic there.

...and women do not deserve the protection of their rights. Yeah, I get it.

Indeed they do - however, so does the fetus.