Christianity Today Op Ed

[Sam]

You tell me, Sam. I am apparently too stupid to understand your past posts, so dumb it down for me. Please?

No. You've got to show me that I'm not wasting my breath, here. You can easily restate my argument if you're actually invested in this discussion. Really easily; I am, indeed, a trifle offended at this whole production.

I've shown you exactly the argument you need to restate to get the answer to your question. You've got to show the good faith work of demonstrating that you're listening to that argument.

--Sam

[One Bad Pig]

I am fully confident that I've explained my position in a way that answers the question Sparko was asking clearly. I submit that communication takes both clear speaking and active listening and that the latter, not the former, is very often the reason for an impasse.

This really isn't a difficult thing: the question was basic and clearly discoverable to anyone who could restate even the 30,000 ft. view outline of what I've been saying. I really don't need to keep expending my energy on it if it's all just bouncing off a brick wall.

Anyone who restates my argument about fetal personhood is going to have the answer to Sparko's question right there.

--Sam

Sam,

You are wasting a whole lot of energy on impugning the ability or willingness of others to understand your point of view; clearly you have some to spare. Why not use it to do something productive like restate your position in clearer terms?

[Sam]

Sam,

You are wasting a whole lot of energy on impugning the ability or willingness of others to understand your point of view; clearly you have some to spare. Why not use it to do something productive like restate your position in clearer terms?

Because my terms are perfectly clear and I'll waste a whole lot more of my energy if I have to keep going down a new chain of argument that is also going to end up being completely ignored.

A show of active listening is, at this point, required.

--Sam

[Sparko]

No. You've got to show me that I'm not wasting my breath, here. You can easily restate my argument if you're actually invested in this discussion. Really easily; I am, indeed, a trifle offended at this whole production.

I've shown you exactly the argument you need to restate to get the answer to your question. You've got to show the good faith work of demonstrating that you're listening to that argument.

--Sam

OK, here is what I stated:

3. You also argue against the fetus being a person, at least until a certain age.

you said, "What am I saying specifically in regards to #3? That's a pretty key issue with relevance your question!"

Here is what you have been saying:

This would be an ethical question but it's the wrong category of question.

The argument is not merely that embryos and fetuses, up to a certain date of gestation, do not suffer. It's that they lack the neurological capacity for suffering and, indeed, sensation processing. That relates to the question of what is a "person" and at what point do human organisms gain and lose the rights afforded to all persons?

We understand, for instance, that brain-dead patients do not have the rights afforded to persons -- at least not all of them. We understand that people who die do so slowly -- brain-death often precedes the death of other organs. We recognize, for the most part, that the life and health of a grown pregnant woman supersedes whatever rights are afforded to embryos and fetuses.

So the question isn't whether an organism suffers when talking about its rights. The question involves (but is not limited to) whether an organism has sufficient neurological capacity for suffering.

--Sam

Sounds exactly like you are saying that a fetus isn't a person when they lack the capacity to suffer. So "until they reach a certain age"

How exactly did I misstate your position?

[Sparko]

Sam,

You are wasting a whole lot of energy on impugning the ability or willingness of others to understand your point of view; clearly you have some to spare. Why not use it to do something productive like restate your position in clearer terms?

exactly. he has spent two pages of posts beating around the bush instead of typing a simple sentence.

[One Bad Pig]

Because my terms are perfectly clear and I'll waste a whole lot more of my energy if I have to keep going down a new chain of argument that is also going to end up being completely ignored.

A show of active listening is, at this point, required.

--Sam

Listening to what? All you're doing at this point is refusing to answer the question, pointing back at a 152-page thread (not all of which is on this topic, but it's not like this topic came in just yesterday either). The least you could to is point to a particular post or posts.

[Sam]

Listening to what? All you're doing at this point is refusing to answer the question, pointing back at a 152-page thread (not all of which is on this topic, but it's not like this topic came in just yesterday either). The least you could to is point to a particular post or posts.

This is a conversation I've been having with Sparko; he didn't just drop into the discussion with these questions. I have explained to him (and this is not the first time), the argument as to when fetuses can be said to obtain the property of personhood. He has responded to that argument and should understand how the question he's asked is answered in those posts.

If you haven't read the thread, that's not your problem. But it's also not your place to jump in and argue that I should be providing that information anew when he wasn't listening the first (or fourth) time.

--Sam

[Sam]

OK, here is what I stated:

3. You also argue against the fetus being a person, at least until a certain age.

you said, "What am I saying specifically in regards to #3? That's a pretty key issue with relevance your question!"

Here is what you have been saying:



Sounds exactly like you are saying that a fetus isn't a person when they lack the capacity to suffer. So "until they reach a certain age"

How exactly did I misstate your position?

If a fetus, at a certain point in gestation, develops the neurological capacity to process sensations and therefore obtains the required elements of personhood then why would you be asking me about infanticide?

--Sam

[Cow Poke]

And I'm reminded of the old adage that you can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink.

Seriously, if you want to snark then take a stab at it: restate the argument I've made here about fetal personhood in a paragraph. That's plenty of space to answer Sparko's question. What have I said is necessary for personhood, when does that capacity develop, how does that apply to the question.

It's easy, though harder than just finding things to gripe about, and it'd be a good exercise in how teaching takes two.

--Sam

What's this with you and all the complaining about 'snarking', Sam? Why has your thin gotten so skin? And why do you have to be such an arrogant backside?

[rogue06]

If a fetus, at a certain point in gestation, develops the neurological capacity to process sensations and therefore obtains the required elements of personhood then why would you be asking me about infanticide?

--Sam

So let's go back to people in deep comas, where someone's brain activity can essentially flatline but some recover. At that point they don't have the neurological capacity to process sensations if there is virtually no brain activity so I guess you're fine with pulling the plug on them. OTOH, unborn babies just 7 weeks old are exhibiting brainwave patterns -- more so than those in the coma.

And going back to "processing sensation" which implies that it is fine to terminate a life if they cannot feel it. I guess a quick instant kill while someone is asleep or been drugged would be fine. And heaven help those with congenital analgesia.

[rogue06]

And I'm reminded of the old adage that you can lead a horse to water but can't make him drink.

I prefer the modern version: You can lead a liberal to knowledge but you can't make them think.

[One Bad Pig]

This is a conversation I've been having with Sparko; he didn't just drop into the discussion with these questions. I have explained to him (and this is not the first time), the argument as to when fetuses can be said to obtain the property of personhood. He has responded to that argument and should understand how the question he's asked is answered in those posts.

If you haven't read the thread, that's not your problem. But it's also not your place to jump in and argue that I should be providing that information anew when he wasn't listening the first (or fourth) time.

--Sam

From what I've read, it appears that he has indeed understood your position correctly, but you have some sort of heartburn regarding his observations of the implications of your position.

[Sparko]

If a fetus, at a certain point in gestation, develops the neurological capacity to process sensations and therefore obtains the required elements of personhood then why would you be asking me about infanticide?

--Sam

We are past that Sam. I accepted your answer on that.

I asked you if what I stated was as position was true or not. Apparently it WAS. So why did you make a big deal about what I said? Saying I didn't understand what you believed and making me go back and re-read it all over again. Was it just a game to you? Or just more avoidance?


So let's try again. Now we know #3 was correct. What about the rest? a yes or no would suffice.

Oh and after this little fiasco, we can also check off #6 as being true.

And yet when I state what I think you are saying, or what Ox is saying, I am accused of twisting your words.

Here is what I have garnered from your logical and clear answers:

1. You claim to be pro-life.
2. You also claim to not want to change the laws to make abortion legal
3. You also argue against the fetus being a person, at least until a certain age.
4. You say the only recourse is to try to convince people abortion is wrong.
5. You can't tell me what that argument (see 4) would be, or whether it would include all abortion, or just abortion after a certain stage of development.
6. Instead when asked for a clear answer, you merely obfuscate and refer me back to your "clear answers" which are not clear at all.

[Sam]

We are past that Sam. I accepted your answer on that.

I asked you if what I stated was as position was true or not. Apparently it WAS. So why did you make a big deal about what I said? Saying I didn't understand what you believed and making me go back and re-read it all over again. Was it just a game to you? Or just more avoidance?


So let's try again. Now we know #3 was correct. What about the rest? a yes or no would suffice.

Oh and after this little fiasco, we can also check off #6 as being true.

[box]
And yet when I state what I think you are saying, or what Ox is saying, I am accused of twisting your words.

Here is what I have garnered from your logical and clear answers:

1. You claim to be pro-life.
2. You also claim to not want to change the laws to make abortion legal
3. You also argue against the fetus being a person, at least until a certain age.
4. You say the only recourse is to try to convince people abortion is wrong.
5. You can't tell me what that argument (see 4) would be, or whether it would include all abortion, or just abortion after a certain stage of development.
6. Instead when asked for a clear answer, you merely obfuscate and refer me back to your "clear answers" which are not clear at all.

No, no no -- won't play that game. What you had asked is whether I consider infanticide illegal. I told you that my answer was already contained in the discussion we've had.

Now, you're jumping and moving goalposts around.

Go back to the headwaters and acknowledge that your question about infanticide was completely redundant given the conversation to that point.

--Sam

[Sparko]

No, no no -- won't play that game. What you had asked is whether I consider infanticide illegal. I told you that my answer was already contained in the discussion we've had.

Now, you're jumping and moving goalposts around.

Go back to the headwaters and acknowledge that your question about infanticide was completely redundant given the conversation to that point.

--Sam

No, what I asked was

You seem trying to obfuscate the matter instead of just answering me directly. I will try starting at the beginning.

Are you personally OK with abortion before a certain level of development? Yes or No.

If no, why not?

To which you said:

What I'm trying to do is either 1) help you develop the skill of following and addressing a logical argument or 2) not waste a great deal of my time if you're incapable of that skill or unwilling to exercise it.

My posts so far clearly answer your question. If you've been following the argument at all, you would know the answer. If you're willing to go back and figure out, that's a good indication we can move forward. If not, it's a good indication that I shouldn't keep running toward a wall.

--Sam

To which I answered:

And yet when I state what I think you are saying, or what Ox is saying, I am accused of twisting your words.

Here is what I have garnered from your logical and clear answers:

1. You claim to be pro-life.
2. You also claim to not want to change the laws to make abortion legal
3. You also argue against the fetus being a person, at least until a certain age.
4. You say the only recourse is to try to convince people abortion is wrong.
5. You can't tell me what that argument (see 4) would be, or whether it would include all abortion, or just abortion after a certain stage of development.
6. Instead when asked for a clear answer, you merely obfuscate and refer me back to your "clear answers" which are not clear at all.

So you are the one playing the games here Sam. Not me. If you don't want to just answer me, then just say so and stop responding to my posts. It's that simple. But if you do want to have a discussion and you want me to understand your position, then acknowledge my points above, or tell me where I got any wrong. This stupid "go back and read it again" nonsense has to stop. You can easily restate your position or correct my understanding with a simple sentence or two.

I don't need your help in "developing the skill of following and addressing a logical argument" -- in fact, it seems you are the one having the problem in that regard.