thenexttodie's mind-reading

[australopithecus]

Autist detected. He's not saying that we want mandated abortions by the state, but rather have the choice to do so. An absolute strawman.

Autism isn't a pejorative. Don't.

 

[thenexttodie]

For the latter 'exceptional circumstances', I will simply return the idea back to you to consider. A woman who wants to have her baby develops a serious medical condition which means that if she continues with her pregnancy not only will she die, but obviously the foetus will die with her. In such circumstances, one life (that of a partly developed foetus) cannot ethically supersede the life of the human adult who is a full member of society, and who has parents, siblings, a spouse, co-workers etc, especially when inaction (denial of termination) will lead to them both dying anyway.

So thenexttodie.... do you lack the balls, or the brains to engage in honest discussion?

You clearly read this as you replied to the following sentence.

But oh look - you skipped over the hard ethical conundrums where you have to actually engage in the topic matter.

So is it because you are too stupid to understand these matters, or is it because you understand them well enough that you realize you're going to have to critically contradict your own position if you answer honestly?

If you're hoping to stick to abstract make-believe, you're going to find this thread is a difficult place for you to be. I promise you that.

You are trying to pretend that you only support legalized abortion when the mother is in danger of dying. Right?

Or do you really belive abortion should be a crime in most circumstances? If a woman has an abortion and her life is not in danger, do you think that should be a crime? Yes or no?

 

[Sparhafoc]

You are trying to pretend that you only support legalized abortion when the mother is in danger of dying. Right?

Do you imagine I am going to keep ignoring the numerous questions and points you need to address, and just keep answering your latest attempts to convince me that you know what I am saying better than me?

If you want to run away, thenexttodie - then not posting would be the way to do it: posting and ignoring all the difficult stuff you don't want to address does not a conversation make, but it certainly makes it appear that your position is self-defeating and that you know it, so you're evading answering.

Of course, I am not trying to pretend that I only support legalized abortion when the mother is in danger of dying. I haven't said anything of the sort.

But hey, you're the absolutist here - so how about you engage honestly and address this ethical dilemma and show you're capable of it?

Remember?

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=187900#p187900

For the latter 'exceptional circumstances', I will simply return the idea back to you to consider. A woman who wants to have her baby develops a serious medical condition which means that if she continues with her pregnancy not only will she die, but obviously the foetus will die with her. In such circumstances, one life (that of a partly developed foetus) cannot ethically supersede the life of the human adult who is a full member of society, and who has parents, siblings, a spouse, co-workers etc, especially when inaction (denial of termination) will lead to them both dying anyway.

Not in the slightest bit ironically, this is exactly the circumstances (with numerous cases of women dying) which lead to Ireland overturning their previous anti-abortion stance.

So how about you engage honestly with this and forward some reasoning whereby you either argue the woman should be left to die along with the "unborn baby", or you explicitly acknowledge that there are valid circumstances in which termination of a foetus is ethically justified.

Everyone knows you read this, thenexttodie, because you elided the first and last paragraph and called the middle one a lie.

Avoiding it might seem the easiest path for you. But not one person here will fail to notice that evasion.

Or do you really belive abortion should be a crime in most circumstances? If a woman has an abortion and her life is not in danger, do you think that should be a crime? Yes or no?

You can't ask 'or' questions when you supposedly know my mind better than I do.

Before answering your latest question, I think you'll find a number have been posed to you. Play ball.

 

[Sparhafoc]

You are <attempted mind-reading> Right?

Or do you really belive <question predicated on a failure of mind-reading>? Yes or no?

So which is it, thenexttodie?

If, as you claim, you know my position independently of inquiring about it,...

I know what you think, Spahafoc.

... then it would seem a little disingenuous of you asking questions with multiple contradictory choices. Why don't you tell me what I think?

Or are you finally acknowledging that you don't know my mind as well as me, let alone better than I do?

Feel free to back the fuck down and engage with a little humility. It certainly won't cost you anything, and you will find it's the only route out of this particular hole you've dug for yourself.

 

[Sparhafoc]

You are trying to pretend that you only support legalized abortion when the mother is in danger of dying. Right?

Far from being able to read my mind, you don't even appear to be able to read the words I write telling you what I think:

http://leagueofreason.org.uk/viewtopic.php?p=187909#p187909

I have already explained part of this to you, but you keep running away whenever it gets too complicated for you.

First trimester: embryo
2nd & 3rd trimester: foetus

I don't support terminating foetuses except for medical and other special circumstances. I recognize the right to life, the ethical quantity there which compels us to treat the stage of development as being something essentially human, and therefore worthy of the same protections as other 'people'.

But a sperm is not a person, an egg is not a person, a zygote (when the sperm & egg combine to form a single cell) is not a person, and therefore the ethical dilemma of personhood and the rights ascribed to people are not relevant to these objects. A single cell cannot be reasonably deemed equal to a human and cannot be treated as a person. In all rational people, the process of embryonic development is a gradient towards personhood, and we can discuss the points where it's reasonable to start talking about personhood, but as far as the medical world understands it, as far as the laws of a large number of modern states understands it... an embryo is no more a person than a bunch of cells from your finger is a person, and just as we can't make a serious law that forbids you chewing your nails on grounds of 'murder' so we can't forbid women from terminating the collection of cells in their wombs on those grounds until that package of cells attains sufficient development to be granted the rights of personhood.

How do you arrive at your formulation if you've actually read what I wrote?

Clearly, the above already shows your formulation is nonsense. I support the right for women to have an abortion in the first trimester.

As I have explained before, technology may well eventually change the period of viability outside of the womb, in which case I think there'd be a new ethical challenge to contend with.

For now, though, a 1 week old embryo, for example, is not a person, and cannot be granted the rights of a person any more than a sperm or egg is a person and should be granted equal rights with fully developed, post-natal humans.

 

[thenexttodie]

Ok Sparhafoc.

Because óf your rebelion against god, I know that you will support laws that allow us to kill unborn babies. To make yourself look nice, you of course might try to pretend that you only support it in rare instances. But when I ask you directly, if you think abortion should be a crime unless life of the mother is at risk, you wont answer.

Wow. What does that tell me..hmmm.

 

[Gendou_Augustus]

Because óf your rebelion against god

Prove that your god exists first. Otherwise, you're implying that God is self evident, which is a bald faced assertion.

I know that you will support laws that allow us to kill unborn babies

This is a goddamn strawman. He implicitly said otherwise.

I don't support terminating foetuses except for medical and other special circumstances.

This is implying that Sparhafoc does not support the killing of healthy foetuses, you fucking idiot. Or rather dishonest, as have clearly glossed over his previous points and decided to write this in response.

But when I ask you directly, if you think abortion should be a crime unless life of the mother is at risk, you wont answer.

He. Just. Fucking. Did.

I don't support terminating foetuses except for medical and other special circumstances.

Do I need rewrite the answer so that you will get it? If so, then you clearly don't have very good english compersion. That or you're making stawmen.

I don't support terminating foetuses except for medical and other special circumstances. Otherwise, it's a crime, equal to that of murder.

Do you get it now?

 

[Gnug215]

Ok Sparhafoc.

Because óf your rebelion against god, [...]

You really are a dense boinkhead.

Get your fucking act together, or get perma-banned.

 

[Gendou_Augustus]

Ok Sparhafoc.

Because óf your rebelion against god, [...]

You really are a dense boinkhead.

Get your fucking act together, or get perma-banned.

Ban him. He's being willfully ignorant and deliberately dishonest; ignoraning key points of Sparhafoc's posts and making irrelevant, false cause, composition-division and slippery slope fallacies. His words are useless and utterly vapid.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Ok Sparhafoc.

Because óf your rebelion against god, I know that you will support laws that allow us to kill unborn babies. To make yourself look nice, you of course might try to pretend that you only support it in rare instances. But when I ask you directly, if you think abortion should be a crime unless life of the mother is at risk, you wont answer.

Wow. What does that tell me..hmmm.

So basically, you failed at every level.

You failed to predict anything about my position.

You failed to establish you know my thoughts, let alone other people's.

You failed even to read what I wrote.

You failed to exhibit even a modicum of ethical reasoning.

You failed even at expressing an elementary level of humanity.


You ASKED for this conversation, thenexttodie.... yet you are so unwilling to have it you start tossing out these vapid distractions in place of honest discourse. Is this how you protect your puerile beliefs?

What it tells you is that you are running solely on ignorant prejudice, and that you should stop flailing and start engaging.

 

[Gendou_Augustus]

Ok Sparhafoc.

Because óf your rebelion against god, I know that you will support laws that allow us to kill unborn babies. To make yourself look nice, you of course might try to pretend that you only support it in rare instances. But when I ask you directly, if you think abortion should be a crime unless life of the mother is at risk, you wont answer.

Wow. What does that tell me..hmmm.

So basically, you failed at every level.

You failed to predict anything about my position.

You failed to establish you know my thoughts, let alone other people's.

You failed to exhibit even a modicum of ethical reasoning.

You failed at humanity.

He failed utterly at trying represent your position hoesntly. He, instead made it seem as if you supported unborn baby murder. This is character assassination, combined with strawmen. He must know damn well that is not your position at all.

You ASKED for this conversation, thenexttodie.... yet you are so unwilling to have it you start tossing out these vapid distractions in place of honest discourse. Is this how you protect your puerile beliefs?

Seemingly all conversations with people like him, end this way; being completely dishonest about the opponent's position. These are not practices of honest men, but those of wanna believers trying to convince themselves. They just want to believe, what to believe, and if that does not turn out to be true, then they do not want to know what is truth. This a delusion, after all.

 

[Sparhafoc]

You really are a dense boinkhead.

Get your fucking act together, or get perma-banned.

Ban him. He's being willfully ignorant and deliberately dishonest; ignoraning key points of Sparhafoc's posts and making irrelevant, false cause, composition-division and slippery slope fallacies. His words are useless and utterly vapid.

Vote from me not to ban him.

The public record is right there, and everyone can read and see the merit, or lackthereof, of his position and his argument. He doesn't need to be punished further; he's taking punishment enough.

His unwillingness to engage honestly in what's been written is already embarrassing enough for him - he's had to trot out the same inane bullshit that started this thread, but he can't show it to be true; rather, he can only insist on repeating errors he's already made and which have been shown wrong in this thread. The subtext is that he holds his position for poor reasons and can't muster the personal honesty to engage seriously.

I don't agree with banning on principle. Only the most recidivist trolls should lose their ability to show themselves wrong, otherwise, people like this are a gift considering how easy it is to publicly spank their bullshit.

 

[Sparhafoc]

He failed utterly at trying represent your position hoesntly. He, instead made it seem as if you supported unborn baby murder. This is character assassination, combined with strawmen. He must know damn well that is not your position at all.

That's alright. It's got to be closing in on a dozen times now that thenexttodie has apparently intentionally misrepresented me on the topic of abortion. It's an emotive topic, and clearly his emotion is displacing his reasoning faculties. I have ample patience both to write clearly in the first instance and to correct his misrepresentations as many times as he makes them.

But let's be clear. He's no more successful at character assassinating me than he is at forwarding a cogent position. I trust the readership here has sufficient levels of reading comprehension and sophistication to know that his evasions are transparent to all.

Thus his antics are really only reflecting on him, and by extension, to his position. Not that he has a coherent position, but it does show you why people hold bad ideas: for bad reasons.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Let's make this unavoidably easy.

Thenexttodie:

In the event of a pregnant woman developing a serious medical condition that would result in the deaths of both her and her foetus, do you consider it ethically justified to terminate the pregnancy and save her life, or do you think that the woman should be left to die on principle?

Feel free to actually answer the question this time.

Don't feel free to avoid it, or this thread's going to become an unpleasant serious of repetitions of the same question until you start engaging with some basic fucking honesty.

 

[*SD*]

Because óf your rebelion against god, I know that you will support laws that allow us to kill unborn babies

I'm having a bit of a hard time taking you seriously. You are aware that anyone visiting this thread, whether they partake in it or not, can read what people have written, yes?

As it's spar you want to talk to, I've taken the time to carefully read his posts. Have you read them at all? Let alone carefully? He's stated the exact, polar opposite of what you're claiming. If you really could read his mind, which we all know you can't, then you'd already know what his position is and there'd be no need for him to explain in writing.

The way you're trying to argue here is blatantly dishonest and everyone can see it. Either that or your ability to comprehend plain English is so lacking I'm surprised you can even read, let alone type. So, seeing as you don't appear to be quite that useless, it appears the former is the case. You're being dishonest. Spar's position is clearly stated, several times so you should either engage with that position as he's presented it, or not engage at all.

I can't imagine who you think you're fooling here.

 

[*SD*]

Let's make this unavoidably easy.

Thenexttodie:

In the event of a pregnant woman developing a serious medical condition that would result in the deaths of both her and her foetus, do you consider it ethically justified to terminate the pregnancy and save her life, or do you think that the woman should be left to die on principle?

Feel free to actually answer the question this time.

Don't feel free to avoid it, or this thread's going to become an unpleasant serious of repetitions of the same question until you start engaging with some basic fucking honesty.

Yeah but it's just cos' you hate god tho.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Yeah but it's just cos' you hate god tho.

Yep, can't stand the guy. Always borrowing my books without returning them.

 

[australopithecus]

Ok Sparhafoc.

Because óf your rebelion against god, I know that you will support laws that allow us to kill unborn babies. To make yourself look nice, you of course might try to pretend that you only support it in rare instances. But when I ask you directly, if you think abortion should be a crime unless life of the mother is at risk, you wont answer.

Wow. What does that tell me..hmmm.

I'm getting increasingly bored of having to warn you about your blatant troll bait bullshit only for you promise not to do it again only for you to piss off for a few weeks then come back and starting acting like a moron, again. We've given you excessive leeway but all you do is take the piss, but then should I really expect much from a guy who joins a forum using a disposable email address and has done nothing but troll?

You've had a 2 week ban. You've had a 2 month ban. Neither furnished you with introspection enough to learn from your mistakes so the next one will be permanent, so think very fucking hard about how you want to proceed.

 

[thenexttodie]

Let's make this unavoidably easy.

Thenexttodie:

In the event of a pregnant woman developing a serious medical condition that would result in the deaths of both her and her foetus, do you consider it ethically justified to terminate the pregnancy and save her life,

Yes. It is good for doctors to save lives.

Sadly, during a pregnancy complications can occur where the baby is delievered early and dies. As advancements in technology and science are made, these instances will pressumably become increasingly rare and we will be able to save the life of both the mother and the child.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Is that why you disappeared for 2 months, TNTD? So that when you came back, your 180° reversal from hasty absolutism to a more considered contextual relativism would be less noticeable? Or did you just undergo a revelation in that period?

Any which way, you've just destroyed every single position you've taken so far on this issue, but I knew you would.

Perhaps this should be a thread about how easy it is to read your mind.