Pastor Protection Bill derail

[Leonhard]

Can you please explain what makes your set criteria of x time in the womb makes it wrong to murder your own child? Why set it at that time and not another time?

"Its a grey zone, we have to set it somewhere... blah blah blah... practical considerations... blah blah blah... most women have it in the first trimester anyway... blah blah blah... late-term abortion are rare..."

Something like that would have been my answer a few years ago.

[Leonhard]

I really need to sleep now. For real.

[lilpixieofterror]

"Its a grey zone, we have to set it somewhere... blah blah blah... practical considerations... blah blah blah... most women have it in the first trimester anyway... blah blah blah... late-term abortion are rare..."

Something like that would have been my answer a few years ago.

Glad to hear you changed. The whole thought process behind that logic though is as convoluted as you can get anyway. It pretty much assigns your worthiness of life, based upon your developmental stage as well as your health. If you really think about it; if consistently followed it would logically lead to some people are worth more than others. Quite messed up, if you really think about it.

[Starlight]

Typical non-answer. Since you can't say when the potential-human actually becomes a for really human, how do you know you're not killing a for really human?

As I said, my criteria of interest is the level of cognition of the fetus/infant, and a useful comparison is how it compares to animals. If it's less-aware than the animals that we kill on a regular basis, then I don't overly object to it's killing. But if it's more aware than even the most intelligent animal, then I would object.

While I'm not a biologist, my understanding of the basics of the situation, is that the human fetus stays mentally under-developed compared to most animals right up until birth. This is because humans walk upright rather than on all fours which causes the human birth canal to be a lot narrower than in most animals. A lot of animals are born pretty much fully-functioning, as their brains develop extensively in the womb. However the human baby's brain gets squeezed a lot as it travels through the much narrower birth canal, which would cause substantial brain-damage if there brain were already developed, so instead the brain undergoes very little development in the womb and develops almost entirely post-birth, with the result that human babies are utterly unable to fend for themselves when first born, unlike many animal babies. As a result, human babies are born with a cognitive level far lower than most animals. Extensive brain development then occurs in the age range 1-4 years old. Almost nobody has even a single memory from when they were younger than about the age of 3. During this period of rapid cognitive development, the baby increasingly gains cognitive capability bringing it on par with various animals, and then beyond them.

So if I had to give a clear answer I'd say age range 1-4. As such, I've got no inherent objection to post-birth-abortion / infanticide / call it whatever you will in the first couple of months after birth if there is some sort of good reason for it. If I was writing a law, I would probably want to draw the line in the sand at 3 months post-birth, as beyond that there's probably enough cognitive development beginning to occur that we're headed into gray areas, and there doesn't seem likely to be any medical motivations to want to explore those gray areas further.

[lilpixieofterror]

As I said, my criteria of interest is the level of cognition of the fetus/infant, and a useful comparison is how it compares to animals. If it's less-aware than the animals that we kill on a regular basis, then I don't overly object to it's killing. But if it's more aware than even the most intelligent animal, then I would object.

While I'm not a biologist, my understanding of the basics of the situation, is that the human fetus stays mentally under-developed compared to most animals right up until birth. This is because humans walk upright rather than on all fours which causes the human birth canal to be a lot narrower than in most animals. A lot of animals are born pretty much fully-functioning, as their brains develop extensively in the womb. However the human baby's brain gets squeezed a lot as it travels through the much narrower birth canal, which would cause substantial brain-damage if there brain were already developed, so instead the brain undergoes very little development in the womb and develops almost entirely post-birth, with the result that human babies are utterly unable to fend for themselves when first born, unlike many animal babies. As a result, human babies are born with a cognitive level far lower than most animals. Extensive brain development then occurs in the age range 1-4 years old. Almost nobody has even a single memory from when they were younger than about the age of 3. During this period of rapid cognitive development, the baby increasingly gains cognitive capability bringing it on par with various animals, and then beyond them.

So if I had to give a clear answer I'd say age range 1-4. As such, I've got no inherent objection to post-birth-abortion / infanticide / call it whatever you will in the first couple of months after birth if there is some sort of good reason for it. If I was writing a law, I would probably want to draw the line in the sand at 3 months post-birth, as beyond that there's probably enough cognitive development beginning to occur that we're headed into gray areas, and there doesn't seem likely to be any medical motivations to want to explore those gray areas further.

And you reveal your disgusting ideology for the true lack of morality you really have. The fact your view my 3 year old as somebody less worthy of life than yourself should tell me all I need to know about you. Thanks for proving that you earn every bit of scorn and ridicule you get (and than some).

[Leonhard]

I've got no inherent objection to post-birth-abortion / infanticide / call it whatever you will in the first couple of months after birth if there is some sort of good reason for it.

And we fear, among other things, that this will come. Not without reason. People already don't know how to defend against the legitimacy of this, people like you tacidly admit that 'its not really wrong given what we believe', and others are advocating it.

We fear that eventually arguments such as economic neccesity (poverty is always big with social justice stuff... us Christians are trying to keep poor people down and stay poor) freeing up women who might go to college... of course the first to suffer would likely be children with handicaps.

Thankfully this might not be something I'll get to witness.

[JonathanL]

And you reveal your disgusting ideology for the true lack of morality you really have. The fact your view my 3 year old as somebody you can kill willy nilly should tell me that you should never be allowed around young children since your view their lives as disposable. Thanks for proving that you earn every bit of scorn and ridicule you get (and than some).

I think Starlight's reasoning appalling as well, but to be fair to him he did draw the line at three months, not three years. Not that that makes it any better.

[lilpixieofterror]

And we fear, among other things, that this will come. Not without reason.

Yep and thus the reason we should fight his disgusting ideology and expose it for the true moral wasteland it really is. It assigns worthiness of life, based upon how useful you are, so if you are not as useful as others, your life should be worth less. He talks about 'helping the poor', but than says things like this that exposes the opposite.

[lilpixieofterror]

I think Starlight's reasoning appalling as well, but to be fair to him he did draw the line at three months, not three years. Not that that makes it any better.

It really doesn't because his logic would say precisely that my 3 year old is less worthy of life than adults are. He is assigning life worthiness based upon mental capacity and since children don't have the mental capacity of adults, they are less worthy of life. This is why he should never be allowed around children and why his disgusting ideology should be exposed for the moral bankruptcy it truly is. I work with children, at church, all the time. From infants (you know, the ones that Starlight sees as being disposable) to teens. The fact he has no issue with killing some of them should give us pause and should make sure we always fight against this disgusting ideology and expose it for the moral bankruptcy it truly is.

[Leonhard]

Yep and thus the reason we should fight his disgusting ideology and expose it for the true moral wasteland it really is. It assigns worthiness of life, based upon how useful you are, so if you are not as useful as others, your life should be worth less. He talks about 'helping the poor', but than says things like this that exposes the opposite.

All of this was predicted by St. Pope Pius VI, when it was discussed whether Catholics who supported abortions could be admitted to holy communion. Everyone thought that in the name of mercy he would allow it to happen... except he comes out with the document Humane Vitae, excommunicating anyone who had an abortion, or helped someone have an abortion, or supported abortion politically. And he predicted that that a growth in both contraception and abortion, would eventually lead to the downfall of the institution of marriage, and a lessening of the dignity of human life in the world. Everything he predicted, especially his concerns about the dignity of life, is coming to pass.

There's a clear line between the kind of thinking that supporits abortion, and the kind of thinking that supports euthanasia. I wonder how soon euthanasia will be assumed to be warranted at the discretion of doctors and you have to sign a document before hand that they aren't allowed to make that decision.

[Darth Executor]

And I got modded for "implying moral turpitude".

[lilpixieofterror]

All of this was predicted by St. Pope Pius VI, when it was discussed whether Catholics who supported abortions could be admitted to holy communion. Everyone thought that in the name of mercy he would allow it to happen... except he comes out with the document Humane Vitae, excommunicating anyone who had an abortion, or helped someone have an abortion, or supported abortion politically. And he predicted that that a growth in both contraception and abortion, would eventually lead to the downfall of the institution of marriage, and a lessening of the dignity of human life in the world. Everything he predicted, especially his concerns about the dignity of life, is coming to pass.

There's a clear line between the kind of thinking that supporits abortion, and the kind of thinking that supports euthanasia. I wonder how soon euthanasia will be assumed to be warranted at the discretion of doctors and you have to sign a document before hand that they aren't allowed to make that decision.

And who says slippery slopes don't' exist? I find abortion as pretty bad myself because it is the killing of life for convenience. Assigning your worthiness of living, based upon your 'usefulness' is as immoral as somebody can get and should be exposed for the true moral bankruptcy it is.

[Leonhard]

And who says slippery slopes don't' exist? I find abortion as pretty bad myself because it is the killing of life for convenience. Assigning your worthiness of living, based upon your 'usefulness' is as immoral as somebody can get and should be exposed for the true moral bankruptcy it is.

Actually its only a slippery slope fallacy if its presumed that further things will happen without reason. Once justification is given for why these further developments would occur, given the first step, its no longer fallacious.

[pancreasman]

"Its a grey zone, we have to set it somewhere... blah blah blah... practical considerations... blah blah blah... most women have it in the first trimester anyway... blah blah blah... late-term abortion are rare..."

Something like that would have been my answer a few years ago.

My answer, as I thought I explained in my post, is the development of the nervous system such that the foetus can experience pain and suffering. Now admittedly this is a tough area to pinpoint but it is certainly past the cluster of cells stage and before about 12 weeks. That's a criteria. I understand if you don't accept it, but it's my criteria none the less.

[Zymologist]

As I said, my criteria of interest is the level of cognition of the fetus/infant, and a useful comparison is how it compares to animals. If it's less-aware than the animals that we kill on a regular basis, then I don't overly object to it's killing. But if it's more aware than even the most intelligent animal, then I would object.

While I'm not a biologist, my understanding of the basics of the situation, is that the human fetus stays mentally under-developed compared to most animals right up until birth. This is because humans walk upright rather than on all fours which causes the human birth canal to be a lot narrower than in most animals. A lot of animals are born pretty much fully-functioning, as their brains develop extensively in the womb. However the human baby's brain gets squeezed a lot as it travels through the much narrower birth canal, which would cause substantial brain-damage if there brain were already developed, so instead the brain undergoes very little development in the womb and develops almost entirely post-birth, with the result that human babies are utterly unable to fend for themselves when first born, unlike many animal babies. As a result, human babies are born with a cognitive level far lower than most animals. Extensive brain development then occurs in the age range 1-4 years old. Almost nobody has even a single memory from when they were younger than about the age of 3. During this period of rapid cognitive development, the baby increasingly gains cognitive capability bringing it on par with various animals, and then beyond them.

So if I had to give a clear answer I'd say age range 1-4. As such, I've got no inherent objection to post-birth-abortion / infanticide / call it whatever you will in the first couple of months after birth if there is some sort of good reason for it. If I was writing a law, I would probably want to draw the line in the sand at 3 months post-birth, as beyond that there's probably enough cognitive development beginning to occur that we're headed into gray areas, and there doesn't seem likely to be any medical motivations to want to explore those gray areas further.

You literally just admitted to having no objection to killing babies.