I'll try to explain the situation in terms you can understand....Please try to keep up.cactuar tamer
Fetal Pain has no bearing on legal abortion as it is not felt until the second trimester. I don't believe the fetus is NEVER a sentient lifeform deserving of protection, but it is ludicrous to assert that a fertilized ovum is on the same level as a Human Being.
Scientific Fact!
Pain in an adult, child, newborn or late-term fetus originates as an electrical signal in some of the body's pain receptors. This signal is sent via nerve pathways to the spinal column, then to the thalamus - an egg-shaped structure within the brain. Finally the signal is transferred to the cerebral cortex where it is sensed as pain. In a fetus, the pain receptors develop around 7 weeks after conception; the spino-thalamic system at about 13 weeks. Finally, the connections to the cortex are established about 26 weeks into pregnancy.
Furthermore, even if the fetus could feel pain it would be entirely moot. Feeling pain or moving or being alive does not make you a person, obviously. Most animals can do all those things. Humanity is something beyond mere biological existance.
Here, I have stated the following:
(1) Legally abortable fetuses cannot feel pain, because pain originates in an electrical signal from the nerves which is interpreted by the brain. The fetus lacks the proper system to feel pain. In order to offer a rebuttal to this, you put forth the following: you
Okay, so now if you want to derive pain as nothing more than electric signal which is based merely off humanity, how do you explain what you said in the other thread that humanity isn't just a biological existence?
I'd really like to know.
This statement is at the very least quite odd for several reasons.
(1) Nowhere have I ever said that pain was "based merely off humanity." Quite to the contrary, I have clearly sorted pain into the category of a "biological incidence" which I have plainly demonstrated that I believe to be INDEPENDANT to the quality of humanity. This is immediately evident when we observe the "other thread" you refered to.
other thread
Humanity is not defined by mere biological existence.
Things can be alive and not be human.
Things can have human DNA and not be human.
Things can move and not be human.
Things can feel pain and not be humanThings can have heartbeats and not be human.
Humanity is all of those things, plus something more. Humanity is not A.
A must have B. B must have A. A and B must have at one time been present together.
I have highlighted the section we should focus on in this review. Please note, that rather than associeating humanity with the trappings of biological existance, the entire argument here centers around the fact that these "biological workings" are seperate from the quality that makes us human.
Basically, combining the statements from the two threads to form a picture of my viewpoint, I have made two basic statements:Pain = Fact of biological Existance
Fact of biological Existance =/= HumanityThen we have this,
rebuttal
Okay, so now if you want to derive pain as nothing more than electric signal which is based merely off humanity, how do you explain what you said in the other thread that humanity isn't just a biological existence?
Your rebuttal Insinutates the following
(1) I have said pain is based off of the quality humanity
(2) that I have said the fetus is not human *because* it cannot feel pain
(3) that I have somehow contradicted myself because of erroneous assumptions 1 and 2
Even a cursory examination of my arguments is sufficient enough to understand that this rebuttal clearly has nothing at all to do with the arguments I have made.
The rebuttal you made is, therefore, "out of the blue," and based of a gross misunderstanding or unwillingness to understand what I've written.
How can you fault me for assuming that you either deliberately miscontrued my words in order to either sidetrack the discussion or frustrate me, or if it was not deliberate, that you somehow lack the reading comprehension understand in the first place?
So, now we get to the latest in a series of slightly infuriating, willfully blind, and egocentric arguments from your side of the table:
FreeArsenal
cactuar tamer
I'm not going to answer this as it is quite frankly consumately idiotic.
You are either very slow, or just jerking me around, and I don't appreciate it either way.
Take the debate seriously, or don't debate. If you want to have fun goading someone,
do it to a n00b in ED. I'm getting sick of it.
You're basic argument is, because I don't agree with you, I'm wrong. It doesn't matter what I say or what I do, I'm not a person because I don't advocate your beliefs....
Persecution complex. Please see above, and reflect on your technique.
Quote:
Bold statement: The Either/Or Fallacy, you fail to realize the difference of opinion and views in an argument, I don't call you dumb or evil for disagreeing.
Do not speak to me of fallacy, Mr. the-existance-of-homosexual-extramarital-affairs-invalidate-marriage-as-a-sexual-relationship.
I really don't think you're dumb, Free. But you are obviously either not making the effort, or you are providing irrelevant answers on purpose. If the shoe fits...
Quote:
Italic Statement: Based off the assumption I'm not taking it seriously.
Using the empirical evidence available, it's hard to assume otherwise.
Quote:
Underline Statement: I assume you're talking about all your friends in the Central ED abortion thread right? Unfortunately your arguments are basically the same.
No, I'm talking about the people who are too dumb to read between the lines, and realize what you're doing. I'm sure my friends are just as frustrated as I am. Someone would have called you out sooner or later, I'm just making sure it gets done right.
If you aren't either dumb or doing this on purpose, then please explain yourself; and remember, this instance is only one example of the many times you've done this.
