An update on the OFCOM situation: As you know, censorship around the world has been ramping up at an alarming pace. OFCOM, the UK’s communications regulator, has singled out our community, demanding compliance with their Online Safety Act despite our minimal UK presence. This is a blatant overreach, and they have been sending letters pressuring us to comply with their censorship agenda.
Our platform is already blocked by many UK ISPs, yet they continue their attempts to stifle free speech. Standing up to this kind of regulatory overreach requires lots of resources to maintain our infrastructure and fight back against these unjust demands. If you value our community and want to support us during this time, we would greatly appreciate any and all donations.
It means everything. The law is based on proving things "beyond a shadow of a doubt" precisely because no knowledge is 100% knowable. Abortion is a right unless you can offer a shadow of doubt that a zygote can be conscious, biologically. And a shadow of a doubt doesn't just mean "not 100%".
No, it's just that it's waste of time to keep going on when I have already made my points. We have a difference of opinion. Saying silly things doesn't mean your point of view is right and mine is wrong. I am sure that you cannot know whether there is some level of consciousness for a zygote- you can believe you know, just like some people are sure their religion is correct and another's is not.
It's just a little silly humor because we both made our points and there was no sense in keeping going around and around, so I just decided to use a little silly humor instead to try to put an end to this- I was just showing that I just wasn't taking this seriously any more because we both said all that we had to say.
It's just a little silly humor because we both made out points and there was no sense in keeping going around and around, so I just decided to use a little silly humor instead to try to put an end to this- I was just showing that I just wasn't taking this seriously any more because we both said all that we had to say.
Ah, okay. Was afraid you were a New Age cultist transhumanist at first.
Fun fact: In transhumanist circles, it is believed that when the Singularity (Rapture) arrives, all humans who have ever lived will be resurrected with biotechnology. Quite bonkers, innit?
Fun fact: In transhumanist circles, it is believed that when the Singularity (Rapture) arrives, all humans who have ever lived will be resurrected with biotechnology. Quite bonkers, innit?
I am sure that you cannot know whether there is some level of consciousness for a zygote- you can believe you know, just like some people are sure their religion is correct and another's is not.
That's not what I said. I agree we can't know anything for certain. I do believe it is clear, beyond a reasonable doubt, that zygotes fundamentally cannot be conscious. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mean 100% certain. It means certain enough for law. It's the same standard of proof required to show abortion is murder, you know. You can't even prove abortion is murder without proving consciousness was there and then gone. Your argument that consciousness is there is that we don't know it's not there, and your argument that it's gone after abortion is that we don't know it's there. Hypocrisy at it's finest.
Lastly I want to remind you I asked for even a shadow of a doubt to believe a zygote has the capacity for consciousness. You haven't given any, all you've said is that no knowledge is 100% certain. Unfortunately, that argument doesn't have any merit in court. Because we don't need to make rules based on absolute truths, we make rules based on levels of certainty.
Last edited:
Reactions:
ConstantPain, RainAndSadness and odradek
You don't have to prove consciousness to prove murder- the zygote grows rapidly and is living- if you kill it and it is living this is murder. Also, beyond a reasonable doubt- that is just speculation, no one knows.
That's not what I said. I agree we can't know anything for certain. I do believe it is clear, beyond a reasonable doubt, that zygotes fundamentally cannot be conscious. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mean 100% certain. It means certain enough for law. It's the same standard of proof required to show abortion is murder, you know. You can't even prove abortion is murder without proving consciousness was there and then gone. Your argument that consciousness is there is that we don't know it's not there, and your argument that it's gone after abortion is that we don't know it's there. Hypocrisy at it's finest.
Lastly I want to remind you I asked for even a shadow of a doubt to believe a zygote has the capacity for consciousness. You haven't given any, all you've said is that no knowledge is 100% certain. Unfortunately, that argument doesn't have any merit in court. Because we don't need to make rules based on absolute truths, we make rules based on levels of certainty.
Alos, it's pretty clear that you agree with me on everything and that you're just playing Devil's advocate- you're not fooling me, I know you agree with me one million percent on everything!
Ah, okay. Was afraid you were a New Age cultist transhumanist at first.
Fun fact: In transhumanist circles, it is believed that when the Singularity (Rapture) arrives, all humans who have ever lived will be resurrected with biotechnology. Quite bonkers, innit?
An experienced doctor knows to slit the throat of the baby before beginning the procedure of chopping it apart inside the mom. Allowing the woman to hear the screams of her dying child is a rookie mistake. The cries can sometimes cause an immediate bound between mother and child.
Playing rain sounds, with the occasional animal walking through the forest… snapping twigs with their hooves work best. Then the mom can't tell the difference between the twigs snapping and bones breaking… or the rain drops versus the gurgling sounds of their crying baby with a slit throat.
@Meretlein@Symbiote I am ... endlessly curious about HOW, exactly, it was dealt with, that there's still an active user here (@Feeding Pigeons ) who said:
I agree we can't know anything for certain. I do believe it is clear, beyond a reasonable doubt, that zygotes fundamentally cannot be conscious. "Beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mean 100% certain. It means certain enough for law.
I actually just consulted with several zygotes and they told be that they are conscious and that they love life and that they are lookiing forward to being born. but even in the womb they are enjoying their lives very much- they also told me that they really like it when mom eats pizza. Several zygotes have also made it clear that they have dreams and aspirations like everyone else.
Lastly I want to remind you I asked for even a shadow of a doubt to believe a zygote has the capacity for consciousness. You haven't given any, all you've said is that no knowledge is 100% certain. Unfortunately, that argument doesn't have any merit in court. Because we don't need to make rules based on absolute truths, we make rules based on levels of certainty.
I know several zygotes who enjoying swimming and classical music and they love watching Jeopardy (through remote viewing) and they insist they that are very conscious and they are disappointed in your perspective that they are not conscious.
I also know of zygotes who can speak up to seven languages(including Mandarin, a very difficult language), and you have to be conscious to be able to do that.
Abortion ...... always a hot button issue and the democrats are certainly going to try and leverage it to improve midterm election results. One thing has always puzzled me about the most extreme right's (versus middle or left's) position regarding life/spirit/soul beginning at conception ..... they never protest outside fertility clinics where thousands of fertilized embryos are thrown out, shipped off for scientific purposes, and meet other fates. Some claim to have data showing the numbers dwarf abortion clinics ...... so, where are the protesters at fertility clinics? Not poking the bear, I really honestly don't get it ...... regardless, this debate will never end and I do very much feel for women and their very personal decisions regarding pregnancies.
Why are you comparing extreme right to middle and left? How about some real world examples? Extreme right is totally irrelevant because most people are either center right or center left. Red states are passing heartbeat bills and left wing states are passing bills for "post birth abortion". Which bill sounds more reasonable?
I don't understand why you guys just don't have Civil War 2 already. You know you wanna kill each other so bad you can taste it & the rest of us really, really wanna watch it.
I understand what you mean. But when I had my abortion, the thing didn't even have a heart. No brain. If it has no heart and no brain, is it even a baby? Is it even a human? It's nothing. How can I kill something that doesn't exist yet?
Well it did exist and it was alive, it had human DNA. But I'm glad you did your abortion early. I am sorry if I made you feel bad. I really don't know when a fetus becomes conscious or if that should be the measure (as others have suggested) for whether an abortion should be allowed or not. Probably not because it's unprovable. We can prove when a baby has a heartbeat though. So I like the heartbeat bills that are being passed. I really just came on this feed to say that the RVW overturn won't change anything so it's pointless to be fighting about it. And I think the focus should be on preventing unwanted pregnancies. I am not in favor of an outright ban on anything.
View attachment 92216 @Meretlein@Symbiote I am ... endlessly curious about HOW, exactly, it was dealt with, that there's still an active user here (@Feeding Pigeons ) who said: View attachment 92220
This is accurate - there's nothing more helpful than increased civil unrest to help an autocracy enact even more laws to restrict personal freedoms. Ohhhhh USA ...... you are one little screwed country going forward for sure .......
Meh. Those bills that you like describe electrical activity in rudimentary cardiac cells. This is very much NOT an actual beating heart (and therefore isn't a heartbeat). The actual technical term is "fetal pole cardiac activity." Those bills are written so they can put a bunch of their ideological verbiage into the law (some of which is patently untrue) and the real intent is to limit people's ability to get abortions.
I'm not sure why you think this. There are 13 states with trigger laws that will go into effect. In some of those states, there are no exceptions for rape or incest. In one, it appears there isn't even an exception for saving the life of the mother.
1. no, a fetus is 100% dependant on the body of the pregnant woman. You can compare it to a parasite that's growing and leeching in your body, especially if it's an unwanted fetus - you have every right to remove it, even more so if it's going to impact your life in a very negative way. As I said in my previous post, a fetus doesn't experience pain and isn't conscious when most abortions happen. The US doesn't even have proper childcare, maybe we should have a conversation about the well-being of already born children before we start going after humans who decide bringing a child into this life is the wrong decision. And as I've already pointed out in the past: anti-natalism brings forward many excellent arguments that support the decision to have an abortion.[1]
2. every definition of a baby refers to a born human.[1][2][3][4]
3. you can use emotionally charged language all you want, it remains a false talking point. Abortion isn't murder because murder describes the unlawful killing of another human without any justification or valid excuse.[1] There are plenty of very coherent reasons why a woman would want to abort a fetus. I don't know why you think it's a good idea to use anti-choice language in this forum. The pro-lifers call us murderers because we advocate for the right to die for consenting and autonomous adults and you're doing exactly the same thing to women who want to have a choice when it comes to questions concering their own bodily autonomy. If you're unable to have a civil conversation, maybe you shouldn't engage in this thread.
At what month people like you would say abortion is starting to creep into murder? 6 months? Or as long as it's inside another person the protohuman is devoid of rights?
That's not what I'm saying at all, I agree with you that this is what should be done. What I'm saying is that there is a lot more demand for baboes from people who want to adopt than there is for older children.
There is lots of demand for white babies. There are lots and lots of black and poc babies that don't get adopted. Or children with disabilities. Then there's the white appropriation of poc children without teaching them their heritage.
1. no, a fetus is 100% dependant on the body of the pregnant woman. You can compare it to a parasite that's growing and leeching in your body, especially if it's an unwanted fetus - you have every right to remove it, even more so if it's going to impact your life in a very negative way. As I said in my previous post, a fetus doesn't experience pain and isn't conscious when most abortions happen. The US doesn't even have proper childcare, maybe we should have a conversation about the well-being of already born children before we start going after humans who decide bringing a child into this life is the wrong decision. And as I've already pointed out in the past: anti-natalism brings forward many excellent arguments that support the decision to have an abortion.[1]
2. every definition of a baby refers to a born human.[1][2][3][4]
3. you can use emotionally charged language all you want, it remains a false talking point. Abortion isn't murder because murder describes the unlawful killing of another human without any justification or valid excuse.[1] There are plenty of very coherent reasons why a woman would want to abort a fetus. I don't know why you think it's a good idea to use anti-choice language in this forum. The pro-lifers call us murderers because we advocate for the right to die for consenting and autonomous adults and you're doing exactly the same thing to women who want to have a choice when it comes to questions concering their own bodily autonomy. If you're unable to have a civil conversation, maybe you shouldn't engage in this thread.
There was another option that would have been better for the baby, which was to give the baby up for adoption- some women do this and more women should. There are many good, stable homes who would love to have a baby, and if carried to term the baby could have gone to a home like this. Many mothers who hear their baby cry during the abortion process regret it deeply- if they don't hear the baby cry the fact is that the baby would have cried if it have the chance.
As someone who has 1) placed a baby for adoption, 2) had her own children and 3) had an abortion, #3 was the less stressful and traumatic. Adoption was a horrible option.
There are lots and lots of black and poc babies that don't get adopted. Or children with disabilities. Then there's the white appropriation of poc children without teaching them their heritage.
There are aloso a lot of whit ecouiple who adopt black children and who do an excellent job of raising them- this has become much more common. And there are people who adopt children with disabilities. As far as teaching them tehir heritage, I'm not sure exactly what you would want people to do. I am part German, part Polish, part Austrian, and part Bohemian- nobody ever taught me anythinmg about these ethnicities. Black and white and hispanic and asian and many other races have contributed to the american culture, and certainly there are things to be taught from all cultures. YOu can always find fault, but I haqve seen in my circles of friends and family some white couples adopt some black children and these children are treated very well and are very happy- the parneting they are getting is 10,00 times better than I got from my white parents- I sometimes say my parents were monters, but this is an insult to monsters- no exaggeration- they deserve to rot in hell for thousands of years for how they treated me. If parents are caring to their children that's what matters most.
That's because some people have the point of view that this is a living thing that is in the process of growing into a completely developed baby, so it is wrong to stop this. You have a different point of view than this. People almost never change their mind on this issue, so once people have presented their point of view it's better to just realize they have their point of view and you have yours, rather than to get mad that you can't change their mind- it's a one in a million shot to change someone's mind on this issue.
You don't have to prove consciousness to prove murder- the zygote grows rapidly and is living- if you kill it and it is living this is murder. Also, beyond a reasonable doubt- that is just speculation, no one knows.
Killing is not the same as murder. Killing is just ending life. Plucking a flower is "killing" but not a criminal offense. Murder is killing a human person. A requirement for personhood is the capacity for consciousness. So you do need to prove capacity for consciousness to prove murder. A zygote is not a person because it has no capacity for consciousness. Abortion might be "killing" a zygote, but only in the same sense that plucking a flower "kills" a flower. "Killing" is just a scientific term, murder is a legal offense we actually care about.
Killing is not the same as murder. Killing is just ending life. Plucking a flower is "killing" but not a criminal offense. Murder is killing a human person. A requirement for personhood is the capacity for consciousness. So you do need to prove capacity for consciousness to prove murder. A zygote is not a person because it has no capacity for consciousness. Abortion might be "killing" a zygote, but only in the same sense that plucking a flower "kills" a flower. "Killing" is just a scientific term, murder is a legal offense we actually care about.
That's the definition. "Killing" isn't necessarily a criminal offense. For instance you can kill your own plants. "Murder" is a criminal offense. You can't kill your own child, that is murder. We are not discussing whether abortion is killing or not; it is. We are discussing whether killing a zygote is murder; it isn't.
That's the definition. "Killing" isn't necessarily a criminal offense. For instance you can kill your own plants. "Murder" is a criminal offense. You can't kill your own child, that is murder. We are not discussing whether abortion is killing or not; it is. We are discussing whether killing a zygote is murder; it isn't.
Plants don't feel just like boards don't hit back. Yet a living person does. Killing attributed to non-living beings doesn't normalise murder if it (killing) is "just" killing but MURDER is serious. Sorry, any part of a human or a would-be human is better preserved. I support abortion although not universally.
Where it has leaked before, it will leak again. So is murder going to be all more violent and negotiable if we accept killing is no big deal, even if its just semantics and not necessarily related to abortion.
Plants don't feel just like boards don't hit back. Yet a living person does. Killing attributed to non-living beings doesn't normalise murder if it (killing) is "just" killing but MURDER is serious. Sorry, any part of a human or a would-be human is better preserved. I support abortion although not universally.
This doesn't make any sense. You can't kill something that's not alive. You can't kill a board, but you can kill a plant. The difference between plants and boards is that plants are alive. This is a scientific fact, but I'm happy to entertain your symantic disagreement as long as you also concede that under this definition of "alive", zygotes would not be alive either.
Zygotes are alive just like plants and animals are. But saying a zygote is alive is not sufficient to argue that its killing is murder. Just like proving a plant is alive is not sufficient to argue that its killing is murder.
You can kill any living thing, but it's only murder when you kill a living person. A zygote is not a person, because it has no capacity for consciousness. So killing a zygote is not murder.
Where it has leaked before, it will leak again. So is murder going to be all more violent and negotiable if we accept killing is no big deal, even if its just semantics and not necessarily related to abortion.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.