OSC’s ALLALLT: How I defeated you so super soundly!

Today’s tongue in cheek title is based upon an earlier article by atheist Allallt, titled “xPrae: How I defeated you so soundly“, within which they outline how they bested another blogger in an earlier exchange of theirs. So, let’s read more about them, in their own words they’re an “MSc Student at the University of the West of England.” Moreover, they were born in 1989 (meaning we’re practically the same age). “I used to be a teacher” They begin by explaining, adding furthermore: “and that has impacted on how I think about blogging.” Now, when Allallt first contributed in the comments section of an article I shared on the subject of BBC bias, I had no idea they were a professional atheist (for lack of a better description), in fact, they’re seemingly a regular contributor to atheist inquiries, frequently debating believers on their own blogs, and enjoys the support of an entire network of like-minded unbelievers! So, unlike most of my previous exchanges with atheists, Allallt would certainly have many a tried and tested argument against the ideas I was sharing.

Exploring their material today I’ve enjoyed their writing on the “whining” left, in addition to the way in which they understand British culture, as they too appear to notice the corrosive, strangling sort of vitriol regularly displayed against all things perceived as “right” of the supposed middle ground politics, which leads to the rise of things like the “shy conservative” (i.e people who vote a certain way though hide it for fear of being lynched by their ever loving left-wing friends), in addition, I find we’re both watching The Big Questions on Sunday morning, albeit with very different reactions I imagine. There’s trouble in paradise however, since they’re not a believer in Jesus Christ, which means they’re employing their fine academic skills and studious nature in the service of the Evil One!

Seriously though, there’s a wealth of honest and thought-provoking disagreement to be found by flitting between the material I write and share, alongside of Allallt’s original content (which is in itself a great sacrifice of their time and effort). “If only they were expending their mind, time and efforts in the rescue of souls!” I lament to myself. Nonetheless, our exchange on BBC bias and when life begins is what follows hereafter. Will the teacher teach me a thing or two, or am I going to leave this exchange as much a rapscallion as ever before? (For the original material we’re commenting on, it’s found here).


Mr-Drew

Allallt: I’d argue that “pro-life” is the biased term. There isn’t a medical definition of life that makes a foetus a living human.

Oldschoolcontemporary: And it’s an argument that should be made, however the issue in the above is with how the BBC are informing (or perhaps misinforming) the public. It’s the British Broadcasting Service who have painted themselves into a corner by writing they refer to the pro-abortion people as “pro-choice” because it’s how they the abortionists desire to be described, the BBC explain themselves by saying they’re not going by medical definitions or pure science, rather they’re referring to a group of campaigners by the handle with which they’d like to be named. Yet they then depart from that same method when it comes to the pro-life movement by branding their sort as “anti-abortion”, something they certainly aren’t in favor of being named. The question is why are the BBC changing their “style.” Regardless, if by biased you mean to say that a term like pro-life would be in favor or cause sympathy towards the pro-life movement, that’s surely to be expected.

bbc_news_logo

Now, about your idea that the term “pro-life” is biased because there is no medical definition which makes a fetus a living human, methinks that doesn’t follow, since whether or not something is true or not wouldn’t necessarily compromise or make a person or even a term biased, wouldn’t you agree? Let me unpack that. For a term to be biased the thing would have to be unfairly prejudiced in favor of some other thing, an example might read like so: an organization might be biased in favor of animal welfare to so great an extent that they alter data they’ve gather to make it seem as though certain animals experience more pain than they actually do, or even more than humans do, so, they’ve altered the data they’ve received into something it’s not based upon their sympathy with the animal kingdom (truly biased), does that mean however that the animals who they have listed in their propaganda don’t experience more pain than humankind?

bryce

*While it’s true that you’re not at present a burger, we have ways of changing that.

Well, we’d simply not know! We’d have data which says one thing or another, and the vast majority of people would ignore said data if the animal were say…a kitten, they’d already have their minds made up that Sir Snugglesworth the Third does indeed feel everything and think everything they believe it to. Moreover that data would be at risk of being overturned by further study, so whether or not it’s in fact biased would have to be decided away from (though not excluding) whether or not the claims the person was making were true or false. It seems to me that, at least in the above scenario, whether or not the data was in fact on their side, that wouldn’t necessarily mean that their pro-animal campaign centered around their false findings were truly biased, rather it’s their behavior in altering their stats which would be rightly understood as giving rise to a biased term or campaign slogan.*

Similarly though on the flip side an idea or slogan could be accurate at the core of its claim and yet be terribly biased! For example, an activist for global warming may write a heavily biased epic poem exaggerating the impact of the rise in temperatures so that people laugh at their mini melodrama, but, does that mean things aren’t in fact getting warmer…well no it doesn’t, it’s yet an open question to be decided by the data.

With regards to the subject of medical definitions though, I’m not sure your claim is accurate, nevertheless, let’s imagine it’s alright merely for the sake of moving forward. Medically speaking whether or not something is or isn’t alive, or perhaps being both alive and “human”, would be decided based upon some criteria. Don’t you think so too? To be described as alive would mean fulfilling one or more of the following common criteria:

fetus_1396774878_540x540

*When does human life begin, the evidence appears fairly compelling when laid out point by point as many greats have already done. Could this be part of the reason why no matter what side of the spectrum you’re on, be it left or right, people simply don’t like abortion.

(1) Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature.

(2) Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life.

(3) Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.

(4) Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.

(5) Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism’s heredity, diet, and external factors.

(6) Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.

(7) Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms, “with an error rate below the sustainability threshold.”*

Now, I find that the fetus can do or has the capacity to do everything in the above, doing the vast majority as they are without need for further development, moreover, it’s only necessary for the fetus to meet 1 of the above criteria to be defined as alive! Wouldn’t you think as I do that the fetus certainly does fulfill at least 1 of the above? Which might lead people into then saying “Well, that doesn’t make it human life!” But by my reckoning that’s entering into the realms of philosophy, which would be another fantastic topic to go into.

Another criteria would be “Negative entropy”, or something that absorbs life or retains order by drawing energy from its environment, as opposed to something chaotic or unstable which is most certainly on the way out (an eighth criteria which is again fulfilled). So, is whether or not terms are biased to be decided based upon the truth value of the claims which the words make up themselves, not necessarily. Furthermore, is it fair to say the fetus is alive, there’s no strong reason to believe no, and many criteria to believe yes, yes the fetus is alive, and even human life.

ee6781d001_Smug-Arrogant-Doctors

Allallt: In 1979, the Conference of the Medical Royal Colleges, “Diagnosis of death” declared: “brain death represents the stage at which a patient becomes truly dead.” This was updated in the 1980s and 1990s to state that brainstem death, as diagnosed by UK criteria, is the point at which “all functions of the brain have permanently and irreversibly ceased.” It was further still updated in 1995 (to present) to state, “It is suggested that ‘irreversible loss of the capacity for consciousness, combined with irreversible loss of the capacity to breathe’ should be regarded as the definition of death.” This is mirrored in the U.S’s Uniform Determination of Death Act (§ 1, U.L.A. [1980]) which states:

“An individual whose brain stem (lower brain) has died is not able to maintain vegetative functions of life, including respiration, circulation, and swallowing [is dead].”

And this is equally mirrored in the Australian and New Zealand Intensive Care Society (ANZICS) Statement on Death and Organ Donation, which defines death as: a) Irreversible cessation of all function of the brain of the person.

Evidently, the legal, scientific, and medical definition of death is quite clear. Death is the cessation of sustained brain activity, and sustained brain activity only begins in the developing foetus at week 25, although full bilateral synchronisation is not established until week 27/28. I’m happy to admit this is a medical and human specific definition. But it very much is the definition. A foetus is not a living human. And that is why “pro-life” is a biased term: it has in itself the implication that a foetus is a living human, which it is not. I’m not arguing, by the way, for abortion. Simply that the language that surrounds it is biased.

In technical terms “pro-life” is a meaningless label for people who oppose abortion (unless they oppose antibiotics as well). In terms of Islam, I find being called “kaffir” offensive. But I’ll get over it. I’m much more interested in the technical problems than the ones that offend me.

Oldschoolcontemporary: As ever it’s a treat to read from someone who has given the topic they’re writing on some serious consideration, however, your last reply has wholly ignored my points, with which the idiom “Like ships passing in the night.” comes to mind. My point about the criteria of life and why the accuracy of a claim doesn’t necessarily determine whether or not a term which appeals to the thing is biased have both gone untouched. Furthermore, your initial point being that the term “pro-life” is biased because it’s actually an error has been touched, touched thoroughly so! Now, by way of an objection, or perhaps explanation, as to when life begins, you wrote:

‘In 1979, the Conference of the Medical Royal Colleges, “Diagnosis of death” declared: “brain death represents the stage at which a patient becomes truly dead.” . . . “An individual whose brain stem (lower brain) has died is not able to maintain vegetative functions of life, including respiration, circulation, and swallowing [is dead].”’

rya1qzm56x3zozvietju

The above appears off in that simply because the fetus doesn’t (at least not in their early stages) satisfy your criteria to die as defined by the Conference of the Medical Royal Colleges, they’re therefore not alive. Again it’s a kind of non-sequitur to say because a thing cannot die in some particular fashion they’re then not to be considered alive. The conclusion wouldn’t follow even if a pro-life person agreed with the premises. Imagine if for example a biker gang approached you saying “If you don’t get yourself in a wreck you ain’t no real man.” (Ignoring the double negative) You’d probably realize first that their definition of “real man” wasn’t as is your own, secondly, you may wonder how badly you must damage your property or endanger your life to gain the approval of this band of fruit cakes! (your wreck may not be their high standard of “wreck”). Surely the idea that life (or even “human” life) is determined by a brains potentiality to expire is an unworkable definition. Starfish, sea urchins and Jellyfish all lack brain activity! You continued nonetheless:

‘Death is the cessation of sustained brain activity, and sustained brain activity only begins in the developing foetus at week 25, although full bilateral synchronisation is not established until week 27/28.’

preemie-5

Prematurely born babies like James Elgin Gill are, as Allallt later explains, not legally defined as human beings, so, should Christian believers and pro-lifers everywhere ignore the slaying of the above baby, or should we perhaps be telling the legal world to screw it’s definitions on straight?

With which you conclude: ‘I’m happy to admit this is a medical and human specific definition. But it very much is the definition. A foetus is not a living human.’ So, for a delivery to occur before the 25 week period, when you point to “sustained brain activity” being present, would mean that the delivered person (or thing) wouldn’t be either alive, human or both. Yet James Elgin Gill, born 128 days premature (that being 21 weeks and 5 days gestation), should seriously discomfort your theory, wouldn’t you agree? They’re apparently a healthy, happy young man today having been born in 87.* They certainly appear to be human. 😛 Similarly Amillia Taylor was born just 21 weeks and six days into her gestation, merely two weeks before the cut off point for abortion in the United State. They’re last I read going through the terrible twos and are laughing, talking and throwing tantrums like any other child. But by your reasoning they could have both been terminated and considered clumps of non-human, not living matter.

‘And that is why “pro-life” is a biased term: it has in itself the implication that a foetus is a living human, which it is not.’

Implication aside pro-life would explicitly mean to say “for life” or “in favor of life”, which would mean for the pro-lifer to commit him or herself to only one strong stance, that being that whatever is developing in the womb is alive and that they’re in favor of its life continuing. Thus far they appear correct.

‘I’m not arguing, by the way, for abortion. Simply that the language that surrounds it is biased.’

BLM-Killings-2

Well, few people would, that’s why last I read there was a serious shortage of people being trained to carry out the practice. All the mental gymnastics in the world wouldn’t stop people from the feeling (regardless of whether or not that feeling was true) that they’re slaughtering a defenseless living thing in the place it should be safest. Actually, to do what abortion doctors do to living things in the womb seems on the face of it to go against the protection of life which doctors and nurses so often strive for. Which would make “abortion doctor” a sort of non-explicit oxymoron. Dr. Benjamin Kalish, an abortion doctor, wrote on the subject “Even now I feel a little peculiar about it, because as a physician I was trained to conserve life, and here I am destroying it.” So, people nearest to the act believe they’re destroying life. Similarly Dr. George Flesh gave an emotional account of their life as an abortion doctor:

“Extracting a fetus, piece by piece, was bad for my sleep. Depression clouded my office on days when I had an abortion scheduled. My pulse raced after giving the local anesthetic. Although I still felt sorry for the unmarried 20-year-old college junior, I felt increasing anger toward the married couples who requested abortions because a law firm partnership was imminent, or house remodeling was incomplete, or even because summer travel tickets were paid for.

angel

Anxiety attacks, complete with nausea, palpitations and dizziness, began to strike me in some social situations. In public, I felt I was on trial, or perhaps should have been. I no longer was proud to be a physician. Arriving home from work to the embrace of my kids, I felt undeserving that God had blessed me with their smiling faces. The morning shave became an ordeal, as I stared at the sad face in the mirror and wondered how all those awards and diplomas had produced an Angel of death.”

Allallt: I think there’s some interesting thinking here. But you seem to ignoring the fact that we have legal and medical definitions of what it means to be “dead”, as a human. It is different from the high-school definition you may have learned. This is because a vegetable in sufficient life support would be considered alive by the definition. But the fact that we’re defining human life different may be the exact issue. Having a “pro-life” group have their name imply a different definition of human life than the legal and scientific one is biased. Demanding a foetus is a human life (which the name “pro-life” does) makes abortion murder. That’s incredibly biased.

““If you don’t get yourself in a wreck you ain’t no real man.” (Ignoring the double negative) You’d probably realize first that their definition of “real man” wasn’t as is your own”

First of all, I have a t-shirt that says “I’m a real man”, so I don’t know how they’re going to argue with that.*

Men_6cefd0_1584851.jpg

Can any “man” who voted Labour in our recent elections really be described as “a real man”? I challenge you sir, produce this phantom shirt of yours, if you speak true!

Secondly, if this band of fruit cakes started a political movement to have the law officially recognise “being a man” not according to it’s current scientific and legal definition, but by their post-wreck definition, and thus wanted to change the law about road safety, if they were called the “pro-man” group, you might see the bias.

No, Elgin James was not born as a living human. That is an accurate summation of the law on the issue. It’s not my theory, it’s the actual law.

I would prefer you didn’t separate out the terms “living” and “human”. When you do that, you entirely dodge the fact that I’m not advocating a definition of human life. I’m telling you what the definition is. If you want to define “living” in broad biological terms, and “human” in broad genetic terms, then you end up calling tumours living humans. Parasitic and murderous living humans, but humans none the less.

You don’t see “pro-lifers” protesting anti-bacterial wipes (which, if you care about life in general terms, a little cloths of genocide). You them protesting abortion on the understanding that they mean pro-human-life, and on that issue the name is simply wrong.

(That said, you tend not to see pro-choicers advocating complete libertarianism and all drugs being legalised… so that’s not a good name either. I’ve changed my mind on that issue while writing to you.)

Oldschoolcontemporary:

‘But the fact that we’re defining human life different may be the exact issue. Having a “pro-life” group have their name imply a different definition of human life than the legal and scientific one is biased.’

Again I’ve yet to see the above defined, although brain death (or what people believe “human death”) has certainly had definitions applied and possibly formed, although to define one with what may indeed be an unworkable definition wouldn’t mean you’ve automatically defined t’other. To define death doesn’t mean we’d necessarily have a viable definition of its opposite. Moreover, I’d have to imagine the people behind the conference on brain death wouldn’t have expected their findings to be used in the fashion which they have. Now, what has been achieved by science is an exhaustive criteria by which “life” can be defined, and with regards to the above criteria the fetus fulfilled its benchmarks several times over. With which your case is explained further, as you’re not claiming the fetus isn’t alive, they certainly are, rather you’re assuming that they’re not human.

The question ought to be “How then do you define a human?”, wouldn’t you agree? Because to be as you have explained “a living human” means only to fulfill the prerequisites of being alive and also being human. Human being so defined in science as: “any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens; a person, especially as distinguished from other animals or as representing the human species.” would appear in addition to be applicable to the fetus. Especially so when read “distinguished from other animals” since the fetus has from day 1 their unique genetic code, one not shared by its mother nor like anything to come before or follow after.*

evolution

*Appears as though scientists have indeed spoken on the issue, the unborn are human and as alive as alive can be. The problem therefore isn’t that the data is shifting, rather it’s activists, sex on demand culture and identity politics which are interfering. Very much like how the APA (The American psychiatric association) had supposedly made their final say on the idea of same sex attractions as paraphilia before waves of activist pressure forced a change in their findings. The great fear today is that organizations like the APA are going to get consistent and follow through with their declassification of various desires, because apparently, the only reason they’ve not yet declassified pedophilia as a sexual disorder is because (unlike in the case of same sex desires) it would be in their words “a PR disaster”!

amilliataylor_wideweb__470x2890

For which they’re indeed alive (as you believe), and human (as you’re yet to be convinced of.) If however the definition is unsatisfactory you’re more than welcome to provide another which the fetus would either conform to or not. In the case of James Elgin Gill you explain it’s not that it’s your theory, rather you’re motioning towards the law (law which is often contradictory, clashing or incoherent on the subject) and saying “The law says you’re not really human yet.” Yet in my mind, and I’d imagine in yours too, it’s the law that would have to change before we would allow someone to kill that human on a hospital bed in front of our eyes. This is why outside the musings and definitions people simply don’t want to perform abortions, because they’re taking apart piece by piece what looks to be a child’s eye, their face, toes, hands and heart, everything that is or is to be recognized as human. If after having watched so horrid an event a doctor reassured you and I by saying “Don’t worry lads, the 1979 conference of the medical Royal Colleges has found they’re not really dying. Furthermore lawyers say we’re not doing anything wrong.” You may be reassured, perhaps not, the response appears to me however to be a big kid’s toy, an answer which doesn’t really put to flight the facts of pulling apart an infant who lives piece by piece. It’s not that I would say a fetus became you (that rightly sounds absurd), rather that you were a fetus, and thus for a man in uniform to threaten the fetus is to threaten mankind, perhaps not human life as you’re accustomed, but human life nonetheless.

hqdefault

Bias, as shown by an example of the ancients, isn’t about whether or not the person making any manner of claim is correct (they may or may not be correct), rather bias is based upon how much a person knows and if they’re coming to their conclusions based upon the relevant data.

Before anything else however, methinks the hidden gem in our discussion is our use of the word bias. As you might write as if to say a person independent term is biased, “pro-life is biased” may be the charge, yet to get hold of bias means to search it out as an inclination in someone, it’s a behavior, and for being behavior whether or not an actual term is being compromised by bias would rest entirely upon an individual subject’s background knowledge. Possessing sufficient background knowledge and insisting upon a course of action contrary to said background knowledge would then mean they’re being compromised by something other than the relevant knowledge. If the above is an accurate description then to accuse people of bias would only be appropriate given their warrant (or the lack thereof) to believe as they do. Rational warrant would be the deciding factor. Take for example an ancient thinker who by observing the apparent motion of the sun and planets comes to the conclusion that the planet upon which they reside is stationary. They’re mistaken, though nobody would say they’d had an unjustified bias in favor of concluding how they had. Revisiting your above objection again:

(1) Pro-life is biased due to the term going contrary to various authorities (i.e. Medical institutions and the law).

Tolstoy in their The Kingdom of God is within You book wrote an interesting reply to the above argument, which is in reality an argument from authority:

‘There are people, hundreds of thousands of Quakers, Mennonites, all our Douhobortsi, Molokani, and others who do not belong to any definite sect, who consider that the use of force–and, consequently, military service–is inconsistent with Christianity. Consequently there are every year among us in Russia some men called upon for military service who refuse to serve on the ground of their religious convictions. Does the government let them off then? No. Does it compel them to go, and in case of disobedience punish them? No. This was how the government treated them in 1818. Here is an extract from the diary of Nicholas Myravyov of Kars, which was not passed by the censor, and is not known in Russia:

41WSclYjeRL._SX404_BO1,204,203,200_

In the morning the commandant told me that five peasants belonging to a landowner in the Tamboff government had lately been sent to Georgia. These men had been sent for soldiers, but they would not serve; they had been several times flogged and made to run the gauntlet, but they would submit readily to the cruelest tortures, and even to death, rather than serve. ‘Let us go,’ they said, ‘and leave us alone; we will not hurt anyone; all men are equal, and the Tzar is a man like us; why should we pay him tribute; why should I expose my life to danger to kill in battle some man who has done me no harm?”‘

Nicholas Myravyov, or rather the men they had been writing of, in my estimation, showed by their above behavior deep abiding moral convictions, even perhaps when to take up arms might have been the least dangerous or humiliating of their options. In addition, they looked to be sound of mind and better suited to instruct than the institutions instructing, that and in no way biased, wouldn’t you agree? Tolstoy continues:

“But in the recent cases of refusal on the part of Mennonites to serve in the army on religious grounds, the government authorities have acted in the following manner: To begin with, they have recourse to every means of coercion used in our times to “correct” the culprit and bring him to “a better mind,” and these measures are carried out with the greatest secrecy. I know that in the case of one man who declined to serve in 1884 in Moscow, the official correspondence on the subject had two months after his refusal accumulated into a big folio, and was kept absolutely secret among the Ministry. . . They usually begin by sending the culprit to the priests, and the latter, to their shame be it said, always exhort him to obedience. But since the exhortation in Christ’s name to forswear Christ is for the most part unsuccessful, after he has received the admonitions of the spiritual authorities, they send him to the gendarmes, and the latter, finding, as a rule, no political cause for offense in him, dispatch him back again, and then he is sent to the learned men, to the doctors, and to the madhouse.

During all these vicissitudes he is deprived of liberty and has to endure every kind of humiliation and suffering as a convicted criminal. (All this has been repeated in four cases.)’ They either send him to the frontier or provoke him to insubordination, and then try him for breach of discipline and shut him up in the prison of the disciplinary battalion, where they can ill treat him freely unseen by anyone, or they declare him mad, and lock him up in a lunatic asylum. They sent one man in this way to Tashkend–that is, they pretended to transfer to the Tashkend army; another to Omsk; a third him they convicted of insubordination and shut up in prison; a fourth they sent to a lunatic asylum.’

The above definition, an actual (not accurate) medical diagnosis as laid down by various authorities, would say people who refuse to fight in someone else’s war are lunatics. Similarly “the negroes” as they were named were coolly written of as “sub-human”, meaning you and I, I perhaps as I am being an abolitionist, would in times past be waging a war of words about whether or not the authorities which you readily sided with were correct when they treated African lives as something less than human. Now, to briefly clarify, my point isn’t to manhandle or mutilate the good name of science or various authorities, rather it’s to say if your argument is “Pro-life people are biased because they’re going against scientific and legal definitions” you’re in error. The facts of people going against an authority does not necessarily betray bias. Instead, whether or not people are biased could only be found after having considered their background knowledge. “The earth is flat” isn’t necessarily biased in the mouth of one man, whereas in another it’ll be totally so.

The Quakers, Mennonites and others were in possession of certain background knowledge. They could bring to mind “He who lives by the sword dies by the sword”, or perhaps “My Kingdom is not of this world.”, for which their behaviors weren’t compromised by an unjustified prejudice, rather on their background knowledge they’d decided upon the more difficult of two options for the sake of maintaining the treasured command of their Lord and God.

choice2

Her body, her choice, the problem with the above is that women are so coerced by feckless boyfriends, misled by the BBC into thinking they’re merely terminating lifeless mass, and blitzed by a message saying they’ve got to be sexually available to be healthy, happy or loved that they’re having an informed choice removed before they’ve had opportunity enough to even ask the questions.

So, is it fair to say pro life people have some overpowering background knowledge which should have overturned the use of the term “pro-life”, none which I’ve read. Rather insofar that you and I can find the vast majority of pro-life supporters, supporters who are both religious and secular, would say on their background information that they are “saving babies”, or “saving lives” when they’re talking an emotionally fragile girl out of going through with an abortion. You may believe their position as sensible as saying “The earth is flat”, such positions however aren’t biased by default.

‘First of all, I have a t-shirt that says “I’m a real man”, so I don’t know how they’re going to argue with that. Secondly, if this band of fruit cakes started a political movement to have the law officially recognise “being a man” not according to it’s current scientific and legal definition, but by their post-wreck definition, and thus wanted to change the law about road safety, if they were called the “pro-man” group, you might see the bias.’

They’re also nudists, so not only do they reject the premise of your t-shirt argument, you’ve also offended these proud people. Seriously though, you and I mock “pro-man” members precisely because the group’s definition of “to be a man” is too narrow. They’re jumping the gun and overlooking how to properly define man by way of their true bias, that being motorbikes. The charge against the pro-life people on the flip side is not that they’re being narrow but broad brush! People are trying to, possibly due to the bias of convenience, write out the fetus from being classed as human, for which they are constrained to imagine an overly narrow definition of the human kind.

yehudamoon5

Whereas the pro-life people are operating under commonplace axioms, ideas like cats produce kittens, dogs puppies, and as a consequence humankind produces the human kind. Two humans have in their union produced a certain kind of a thing, to imagine a human and a human to produce a non-human who later becomes a human by developing a brain steam seems fairly nonsensical.

‘You don’t see “pro-lifers” protesting anti-bacterial wipes (which, if you care about life in general terms, a little cloths of genocide). You them protesting abortion on the understanding that they mean pro-human-life, and on that issue the name is simply wrong.

(That said, you tend not to see pro-choicers advocating complete libertarianism and all drugs being legalised… so that’s not a good name either. I’ve changed my mind on that issue while writing to you.)’

For sure, simply to turn the criticism upon itself would show the sword cuts as well in one direction as it does in the other. That’s very astute. We could cruelly ask why the pro-choice movement don’t support my choice to heckle women outside of abortion clinics with a band of like minded adults, or why the pro-choice movement doesn’t support my choice to drag an ex-lover through a painful and protracted court battle with the stated aim of making her carry my child to term. The name therefore is grossly inaccurate. They’re however given a platform by the BBC to mislead by way of it.


Unlike many portions of the “Poetry in motion” conversation, in which I’m merely sharing an already strong body of evidence with an uninitiated person, my exchange with Allallt was an excellent opportunity to think in a more abstract and uniquely interesting way, which insofar as I can read brings out the best in everyone. Needless to say it was an exciting and enjoyable exchange that has only affirmed my views on the sanctity of life and our need to defend the unborn, even if this means being unfairly painted as woman haters or something far worse by the British media and shadowy figures in the “entertainment” industry.

Lastly however, I’d like to recommend further material to the likes of Allallt and others who find the topic of when life begins, or even whether or not the definition of when life begins is accurate as found in the legal and medical world, so interesting. Therefore, I’m recommending the material of Scott Klusendorf hereafter, any of which readers can find by a simple YouTube search. They’re not merely a passionate defender of the unborn, they’re also a world-class debater who’s taken on the abortionist side (and won) without exception, meaning it’s not merely in the hearts of liberals and conservatives that abortion is being rejected, it’s in their minds too, abortionists are losing the arguments.

As for the above conversation, I’m still the same sort of student I’ve always been, and a big part of me thinks that’s why my teachers always liked me so much.

1412551462138_wps_40_Mac_leads_hunt_for_young_

― T. C. M

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “OSC’s ALLALLT: How I defeated you so super soundly!

  1. I feel I should clarify: “xPrae: how I defeated you do soundly” is a spoof of xPrae’s post where he claims to have bested other interlocutors, not with content, but by remaining calm…

    As for this argument, I’ve got a post coming soon that I’m sure will infuriate the pro-choice. I’m glad you followed, I think you might like it. It is, in part, inspired by your challenge regarding pre-25 week births that survive. I argued they were not born as a living human. And I stand by that, given the current medical definition of human death (which, as you know, I used to inform my definition of human life).

    That doesn’t mean I’m not advocating a change in that definition. As my most recent post shows, I advocate intellect and technology as a part of the definition of humanity. Therefore, I think technology can become a part of the definition of human life, too. It’s based on the premise that abortions are bad and anything that can be done to stop them while retaining (and in some cases, improving) women’s reproductive rights would be a good thing.

    So, I’ve pondered the pre-25 week survivors, and I think we should be able to define human life as that which could, with the aid of technology, survive removal from the womb to term.

    The will change hospital to hospital, country to country. But, as technology progresses it will become earlier and earlier. If you don’t want to carry a foetus to term, and you’re 10 weeks pregnant, then you induce labour (without terminating the foetus) and the foetus is incubated to term (when the technology exists). That’s probably on par, in terms of trauma, with how 10-week abortions happen now, anyway; you have to go into labour and deliver the terminated foetus.
    Eventually, if may be that you can safely suck out a cell at the moment of conception and bring that to term outside the womb. In that case, the morning after pill (granting my new definition) would be murder. But, also, the woman would have reproductive rights, still. Although that is the logical conclusion to my idea, I’m not comfortable calling a blastocyst a living human at all, or affording it rights. But not being comfortable with something isn’t a good moral argument (I don’t think). So I still think it’s an argument worth having.

    This is a strictly technological definition, though. You can’t claim that because the technology ‘might’ come that a foetus is a living human at 10 weeks. The technology has to be being implemented. I think that would be a more moral definition, and subsequent process. But, in the mean time, I support reproductive rights and abortion.

    For the record, though, in the current technological and medical state, I maintain that brain stem activity is what defines human life.

    As for BBC bias, I’ve come round to your way of thinking. Pro-choice is a silly name. It’s not pro-choice in terms of drug use. “Pro-choice” is, at best, euphemistic. I think “reproductive rights advocate” works better. But, calling the other group “pro-life” is even more absurd. It skips the conversation about what constitutes a human life, and it’s not really pro-life at all, they still eat meat and use disinfectant. I think “anti-reproductive rights advocates” is much more accurate.

    As for you defeating me “so super soundly”, well, I think we can both agree you’re saying that super flippantly.

    Like

    • ‘I feel I should clarify: “xPrae: how I defeated you do soundly” is a spoof of xPrae’s post where he claims to have bested other interlocutors, not with content, but by remaining calm…’

      I’d actually stumbled across xPrae’s original too, they’d written it as a slight against john zande (if memory serves) and yet another poster whose user name escapes me as of now. However, although I considered sharing that information, to explain my post was spoofing a spoof felt more than readers could take without first having their morning cup of coffee. You clarifying is welcomed though.

      You continued nonetheless, writing: ‘As for this argument, I’ve got a post coming soon that I’m sure will infuriate the pro-choice. . .’ And, with regards to definitions: ‘And I stand by that, given the current medical definition of human death (which, as you know, I used to inform my definition of human life).’

      I’m clinging to my guns and Bible as we exchange messages even now, Allallt! I genuinely look forward to being infuriated by your musings. About informing your definitions, here’s hoping the unique genetic code of every unborn foetus is also entering into your final thoughts on the subject, because to be distinguished from the mother carrying in so drastic a fashion really entered into my thinking on the subject. Now, my interpretation of your last post leads me into using words like viable and non-viable, as opposed to human and non-human, as you’re writing ‘with the aid of technology’ and the like, which, insofar as I’ve read, leads me into thinking both the non-viable foetus (who fails to survive in a distant land) and the viable would be equally human in substance, merely they’d be distinct only in that one nation can’t provide for their needs, their right to life. When you write: ‘. . .we should be able to define human life as that which could, with the aid of technology, survive removal from the womb to term. . .’ I’m being drawn into thinking that it’s the foetus who’s being denied their humanity on account of some degree of dependence on the mother, would that be fair to gather? Though, that couldn’t possibly follow, there’s nothing in being reliant upon another which goes to nullify a person’s humanity.

      Nevertheless, you continue: ‘But, in the mean time, I support reproductive rights and abortion.’ Now, that’s where I’m thinking the problem really is found, “reproductive rights”, which to me appears as a kind of buzz phrase, is politics, that’s politics and not high science. Women’s rights, diversity, inclusion, these are things that appear to trample upon a person coming to an accurate definition based upon the relevant data, rather it’s modern man, who when confronted with the surviving foetus, the DNA evidence and the axioms says to himself ‘Well, I’m standing by women, girl pow’r!’ And never modern man mind how it’s female kind who are disproportionately slain by the abortion doctors, those females are a lot less opinionated than modern man’s ultra liberal girlfriend, and as a consequence can’t twist his arm into various positions. Thus far I’m thinking that’s what biased looks like, it’s a person using woman’s rights to murder women (how bizarre if indeed so). Or as Proverbs reads: ‘every way of a man (or woman) is right in his (or her) own eyes’, the only problem with that is facts don’t care about a person’s feelings (to pinch a line from Ben Shapiro).

      You then wrote ‘Pro-choice is a silly name.’ concluding ‘reproductive rights advocate’ works far better, but reproductive rights advocate lacks pop! Nobody’s going to read so long a position on a shirt, sign or bumper sticker. In addition, to toy with what it means to advocate reproductive rights either affirmed or dissolved from on high by a government, even a government more interested in being informed by lobbying activists than the hard sciences, could mean what it means to be a reproductive rights advocate stretches so broadly as to include behaving as a pro-lifer, or might even under another administration include the slaying of infants up to three years of age (as advanced by some abortionists today!) The caricature of the abortionist as “pro-death” or “anti-life” certainly appears less of a caricature when the abortion lobby’s thinking is carried through to its logical conclusion. You summarized, supposing with regards to the name pro-life that: ‘I think “anti-reproductive rights advocates” is much more accurate.’ Would that also be true if the more proficient and well-read pro-lifer has accurately, consistently and without indulging in other irrelevant avenues of thought defined the foetus as they truly are, would they be justified in saying they’re pro-life insofar as the foetus is concerned, in addition to adding the sheer strangeness of the reproductive rights advocate, who could be constraint as being absolutely anything.

      ‘As for you defeating me “so super soundly”, well, I think we can both agree you’re saying that super flippantly.’

      Considering the fact that you were the first to like a post which mostly consists of me contradicting your views, I’m happy to say you’ve been a class act the entire way, so both you and I know how super soundly was meant. And considering I haven’t shown up on your blog in any “My thoughts on this idiot” posts, I’m guessing I’ve yet to offend (always preferable). Rather if I wasn’t being flippant, I’d modestly write how I picked your pocket on a few points, but considering how. . .experimental much of your material is, I’m shocked you aren’t changing or modifying your views every other day (that’s a compliment too.) It’s that experimental sort of writing which shows there’s truly exciting, original content coming, the sort of thing a person can really ponder and want to handle by their own mind. It goes without saying I’ve enjoyed reading.

      I’ll have to avail myself of your accumulating case for how technology and life can form a sort of symbiotic relationship or definition of life, as you’ve explained in the above, after which I’ll be sure to constructively tear it down insofar as I’m able! Until then however, I’m hoping Scott Klusendorf has informed the next post you’re lining up. On a side note, I take umbrage (umbrage sir!) with your definition of faith as found in your word glossary online, as you appear to be using the Mark Twainian definition of ‘faith is believing what you know ain’t so’, or to be more specific, ‘pretending to know things you don’t know.’ I’m set on convincing you your definition is mistaken. I’ve got a few dialogues in which atheism, Christianity and faith are defined between myself and another poster, rather than arguing the point here, I hope you visit again to have a read of the back and forth, maybe give your take on the exchange afterwards, methinks the theory of epistemology is a subject about which you would very much enjoy discussion.

      Like

  2. I went round and round with zande, over the “bilateral synchronization” fad. (Are they actually sent playbooks from some atheist society?) He absolutely refused to define his terms though many times asked to clarify. Are we talking “human”, or “living”, or “personhood”? Challenged repeatedly that many things are living without the arbitrary criteria he used, and that literally no one believes that thing in human women’s wombs is not human, he simply changes the criteria of the discussion, back and forth.
    One has to just walk away finally, or at least I do.

    I am gratified to see (over at Allalt’s) that you have actually got him using Scripture as his proof-text. It’s wonderful.

    Liked by 1 person

    • It must be so liberating for John to be able to write things and make claims with seemingly zero background knowledge or interest in what’s actually true. Just do a google search and he’s away. It appears, although you may know him better than me, he can write and write and not really go anywhere. 🙂 Whereas everybody else are suckers, reading and studying and trying to further understand a subject.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s