US Politics

Wisbech Eagle said:
I once stayed in an AirBnb in San Fransisco that was occupied by a single lady. It was a huge property. She proudly described to me her weapons. She had a multitude of AK47s, one apparently available within 20 feet of everywhere in the house. Plus a handgun she kept on her at all times.

We survived, but we didn’t complain about anything.
Click to expand...
They would. of been semi-automatic as you can't legally own a fully automatic version, so it wouldn't be anything like the weapons that the Taliban would use. One pull, one bullet.
 
Stirlingsays said:
Everyone is ignorant about many things. To know what you are talking about it helps to have researched and thought about it or have experienced it directly. This I have done with the former on abortion, but I haven't with IVF.

Why should I be expected to offer an opinion on something I haven't looked into.

Have that debate with someone who has.
Click to expand...
I doubt that I will be alone in thinking that is a convenient cop out, intended to avoid having to answer an inconvenient question.

You don’t need to either have researched or experienced IVF to answer the question. Which wasn’t about how an embryo is created. It was about whether destroying one is equivalent, in your opinion, to an abortion. The follow up question being why, whether the answer is either yes, or no.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
I doubt that I will be alone in thinking that is a convenient cop out, intended to avoid having to answer an inconvenient question.

You don’t need to either have researched or experienced IVF to answer the question. Which wasn’t about how an embryo is created. It was about whether destroying one is equivalent, in your opinion, to an abortion. The follow up question being why, whether the answer is either yes, or no.
Click to expand...

That's a dim comment.

Then again, knowing your opinions on many topics it's not surprising that you have opinions on topics that you haven't researched.

Sounds like someone who worked in marketing.....all bully bullshit and no truth.
 
My opinion on abortion is that it shouldn't exist after the detection of a heart-beat, which I think is six or seven weeks.

Essentially any significant development of a nervous system.

So while I haven't looked into IVF the answer is inherent.
 
eaglesdare said:
A woman is an adult human female with human reproductive organs with two XX chromosomes. If you don't understand this then you have no right to lecture us on biology and fact from fiction.
Click to expand...
Did you even read what I wrote? I understand the biological definition. Which is something determined at birth. This is a person’s sex.

What you completely overlook, or wilfully deny, is that someone’s sex does not always match their gender. Why this happens is an emerging science but that it does is real. It’s not imaginary. The research suggests it has to do with brain development and hormone imbalances.

When a person's internal sense of gender does not match their physical body or assigned sex, it can cause long-term distress known as gender dysphoria. This mismatch is not a choice or a social trend, but an inherent component of how the individual's mind and nervous system developed.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Did you even read what I wrote? I understand the biological definition. Which is something determined at birth. This is a person’s sex.

What you completely overlook, or wilfully deny, is that someone’s sex does not always match their gender. Why this happens is an emerging science but that it does is real. It’s not imaginary. The research suggests it has to do with brain development and hormone imbalances.

When a person's internal sense of gender does not match their physical body or assigned sex, it can cause long-term distress known as gender dysphoria. This mismatch is not a choice or a social trend, but an inherent component of how the individual's mind and nervous system developed.
Click to expand...
Utter nonsense, even for Wisbelch.
 
Stirlingsays said:
My opinion on abortion is that it shouldn't exist after the detection of a heart-beat, which I think is six or seven weeks.

Essentially any significant development of a nervous system.

So while I haven't looked into IVF the answer is inherent.
Click to expand...
At least that’s an answer, albeit one that is totally illogical. There is nothing inherently special about a heartbeat. A heart being just a muscle. Which starts to beat before the development of a nervous system and independent of it.

Nor is a nervous system in any way relevant. Brain function is, and that doesn’t start until the 3rd trimester. Up until then all your objections are founded in emotions. Not science.

Therefore deciding that it’s ok to destroy an unused embryo but not an unviable foetus, whether showing a muscle movement or signs of neural pathways or not, is completely illogical. Each one has the capacity to become a human being, but none are yet. Why then differentiate? Either all, or none, are acceptable.
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
At least that’s an answer, albeit one that is totally illogical. There is nothing inherently special about a heartbeat. A heart being just a muscle. Which starts to beat before the development of a nervous system and independent of it.

Nor is a nervous system in any way relevant. Brain function is, and that doesn’t start until the 3rd trimester. Up until then all your objections are founded in emotions. Not science.

Therefore deciding that it’s ok to destroy an unused embryo but not an unviable foetus, whether showing a muscle movement or signs of neural pathways or not, is completely illogical. Each one has the capacity to become a human being, but none are yet. Why then differentiate? Either all, or none, are acceptable.
Click to expand...

I put your statement into Grok and asked if certain sections were correct....let's just say that it finds some of your opinions.....Mmmm....not very researched. Your high opinion of your opinions isn't as justifed as you appear to think.

The highlighted section in bold appears to give weight to my 7 week cut off point due to nervous system activity....which can't be disassociated with the start of brain nervous system development.

My position is in line with my personal morality in terms of the unborn development into a human, which in my view gives rights in accordance with a sense of humanity.

I accept that people will have their own view on the timeline.

Here is the response:

Nervous system development and “brain function”​

This is where the statement becomes inaccurate or oversimplified.

  • The nervous system begins forming early: the neural plate appears around week 3 post-fertilization, the neural tube closes by roughly weeks 4–6, and primary brain vesicles (forebrain, midbrain, hindbrain) are identifiable soon after. First synapses form in the spinal cord around 5–7 weeks post-conception, and spontaneous movements (driven by early neural circuits) appear around 7–8 weeks. Electrical activity in the developing brain is detectable in the first trimester.⁠Zerotothree
  • “Brain function” is not an all-or-nothing switch that flips only in the third trimester. Basic neural activity, reflexes, and brainstem-mediated functions emerge much earlier. More complex, organized cortical activity (the kind linked to higher sensory processing, sleep-wake cycles, or potential awareness) develops later—connections between thalamus and cortex strengthen around 24–28 weeks, and more mature patterns are seen in the third trimester. Claims that brain function “doesn’t start until the 3rd trimester” conflate basic neural activity with advanced cortical function.⁠Whattoexpect
Saying the nervous system is “in any way relevant” is also imprecise. Early cardiac activity does not depend on it, but later fetal heart rate regulation, movement coordination, and responses do involve the developing nervous system.

“Objections are founded in emotions. Not science” and the embryo/fetus distinction​

This is rhetorical, not a scientific claim. Developmental biology describes a continuous process: a unique human organism with its own genome exists from fertilization onward. Organ systems form on a predictable timeline (heart activity early, more complex brain structures and functions later). Where one draws a moral or legal line (heartbeat, viability, cortical activity, birth, etc.) is a value judgment, not something science alone dictates. Science can inform the facts of development but does not resolve the ethical question of when (or whether) that organism has rights or moral status.

The final paragraph correctly notes continuity of developmental potential but overreaches by declaring differentiation “completely illogical.” Different stages have measurably different capacities (e.g., independent circulatory function after cardiac activity begins; potential viability later; more advanced neural processing still later). People can reasonably weight those differences differently without the choice being pure emotion or pure logic.

Summary of accuracy​

  • Correct or mostly correct: Early heartbeat is myogenic (independent of a nervous system) and occurs before a functional nervous system exists; a heartbeat is not uniquely “special” as a biological marker.
  • Inaccurate or oversimplified: Brain function does not begin only in the third trimester; basic neural activity and the nervous system itself start much earlier. Nervous system relevance is not zero.
  • Non-scientific: Framing all opposing views as purely emotional, and declaring any developmental distinction “completely illogical.”
In short, the post gets some embryology right but misstates the timeline and nature of neural development and treats philosophical/ethical reasoning as if it were settled science.
 
Last edited:
Stirlingsays said:
I put your statement into Grok and asked if certain sections were correct....let's just say that it finds some of your opinions.....Mmmm....not very researched. Your high opinion of your opinions isn't as justifed as you appear to think.

The highlighted section in bold appears to give weight to my 7 week cut off point due to nervous system activity....which can't be disassociated with the start of brain nervous system development.

Here is the response:

Nervous system development and “brain function”​

This is where the statement becomes inaccurate or oversimplified.

  • The nervous system begins forming early: the neural plate appears around week 3 post-fertilization, the neural tube closes by roughly weeks 4–6, and primary brain vesicles (forebrain, midbrain, hindbrain) are identifiable soon after. First synapses form in the spinal cord around 5–7 weeks post-conception, and spontaneous movements (driven by early neural circuits) appear around 7–8 weeks. Electrical activity in the developing brain is detectable in the first trimester.⁠Zerotothree
  • “Brain function” is not an all-or-nothing switch that flips only in the third trimester. Basic neural activity, reflexes, and brainstem-mediated functions emerge much earlier. More complex, organized cortical activity (the kind linked to higher sensory processing, sleep-wake cycles, or potential awareness) develops later—connections between thalamus and cortex strengthen around 24–28 weeks, and more mature patterns are seen in the third trimester. Claims that brain function “doesn’t start until the 3rd trimester” conflate basic neural activity with advanced cortical function.⁠Whattoexpect
Saying the nervous system is “in any way relevant” is also imprecise. Early cardiac activity does not depend on it, but later fetal heart rate regulation, movement coordination, and responses do involve the developing nervous system.

“Objections are founded in emotions. Not science” and the embryo/fetus distinction​

This is rhetorical, not a scientific claim. Developmental biology describes a continuous process: a unique human organism with its own genome exists from fertilization onward. Organ systems form on a predictable timeline (heart activity early, more complex brain structures and functions later). Where one draws a moral or legal line (heartbeat, viability, cortical activity, birth, etc.) is a value judgment, not something science alone dictates. Science can inform the facts of development but does not resolve the ethical question of when (or whether) that organism has rights or moral status.

The final paragraph correctly notes continuity of developmental potential but overreaches by declaring differentiation “completely illogical.” Different stages have measurably different capacities (e.g., independent circulatory function after cardiac activity begins; potential viability later; more advanced neural processing still later). People can reasonably weight those differences differently without the choice being pure emotion or pure logic.

Summary of accuracy​

  • Correct or mostly correct: Early heartbeat is myogenic (independent of a nervous system) and occurs before a functional nervous system exists; a heartbeat is not uniquely “special” as a biological marker.
  • Inaccurate or oversimplified: Brain function does not begin only in the third trimester; basic neural activity and the nervous system itself start much earlier. Nervous system relevance is not zero.
  • Non-scientific: Framing all opposing views as purely emotional, and declaring any developmental distinction “completely illogical.”
In short, the post gets some embryology right but misstates the timeline and nature of neural development and treats philosophical/ethical reasoning as if it were settled science.
Click to expand...
Wisbech just churns out the Woke/Left party line on everything and of course he doesn’t actually believe in half of it himself and knows it is nonsense - he is simply a windup merchant.
 
georgenorman said:
Wisbech just churns out the Woke/Left party line on everything and of course he doesn’t actually believe in half of it himself and knows it is nonsense - he is simply a windup merchant.
Click to expand...

His views align very closely to what the establishment push as approved opinions.

If he's honest about his age, then it's more than likely that this approach has been taken his whole life. In other worlds fitting in with whatever was the establishement opinion of the time.

It's highly unlikely he had the majority of these 'progressive' opinions in more socially conservative times.

I gauge him as simply an adapter to whatever the establishment tells him to believe at the time. What his true beliefs are....Who is to say other than a commitment to trolling.
 
Last edited:
Stirlingsays said:
I put your statement into Grok and asked if certain sections were correct....let's just say that it finds some of your opinions.....Mmmm....not very researched. Your high opinion of your opinions isn't as justifed as you appear to think.

The highlighted section in bold appears to give weight to my 7 week cut off point due to nervous system activity....which can't be disassociated with the start of brain nervous system development.

My position is in line with my personal morality in terms of the unborn development into a human, which in my view gives rights in accordance with a sense of humanity.

I accept that people will have their own view on the timeline.

Here is the response:

Nervous system development and “brain function”​

This is where the statement becomes inaccurate or oversimplified.

  • The nervous system begins forming early: the neural plate appears around week 3 post-fertilization, the neural tube closes by roughly weeks 4–6, and primary brain vesicles (forebrain, midbrain, hindbrain) are identifiable soon after. First synapses form in the spinal cord around 5–7 weeks post-conception, and spontaneous movements (driven by early neural circuits) appear around 7–8 weeks. Electrical activity in the developing brain is detectable in the first trimester.⁠Zerotothree
  • “Brain function” is not an all-or-nothing switch that flips only in the third trimester. Basic neural activity, reflexes, and brainstem-mediated functions emerge much earlier. More complex, organized cortical activity (the kind linked to higher sensory processing, sleep-wake cycles, or potential awareness) develops later—connections between thalamus and cortex strengthen around 24–28 weeks, and more mature patterns are seen in the third trimester. Claims that brain function “doesn’t start until the 3rd trimester” conflate basic neural activity with advanced cortical function.⁠Whattoexpect
Saying the nervous system is “in any way relevant” is also imprecise. Early cardiac activity does not depend on it, but later fetal heart rate regulation, movement coordination, and responses do involve the developing nervous system.

“Objections are founded in emotions. Not science” and the embryo/fetus distinction​

This is rhetorical, not a scientific claim. Developmental biology describes a continuous process: a unique human organism with its own genome exists from fertilization onward. Organ systems form on a predictable timeline (heart activity early, more complex brain structures and functions later). Where one draws a moral or legal line (heartbeat, viability, cortical activity, birth, etc.) is a value judgment, not something science alone dictates. Science can inform the facts of development but does not resolve the ethical question of when (or whether) that organism has rights or moral status.

The final paragraph correctly notes continuity of developmental potential but overreaches by declaring differentiation “completely illogical.” Different stages have measurably different capacities (e.g., independent circulatory function after cardiac activity begins; potential viability later; more advanced neural processing still later). People can reasonably weight those differences differently without the choice being pure emotion or pure logic.

Summary of accuracy​

  • Correct or mostly correct: Early heartbeat is myogenic (independent of a nervous system) and occurs before a functional nervous system exists; a heartbeat is not uniquely “special” as a biological marker.
  • Inaccurate or oversimplified: Brain function does not begin only in the third trimester; basic neural activity and the nervous system itself start much earlier. Nervous system relevance is not zero.
  • Non-scientific: Framing all opposing views as purely emotional, and declaring any developmental distinction “completely illogical.”
In short, the post gets some embryology right but misstates the timeline and nature of neural development and treats philosophical/ethical reasoning as if it were settled science.
Click to expand...
That you choose Grok as your researcher says quite a lot, before we start on the analysis!

The accusation seems primarily that the explanation is “inaccurate or over simplified”.

To an expert that may well be true, but it wasn’t addressed to an expert. It was simplified to enable someone who admits to being ignorant to grasp the point. The development of a nervous system is indeed the precursor to the development of the brain, but only the precursor. A functioning brain, which establishes sentience, doesn’t exist until the 3rd trimester. Every stage prior to that is developmental. From the sperm and egg, through fertilisation etc. etc.

So the question about where the line is drawn is important and your answer, being based solely on emotion, is illogical.

I most definitely, despite Grok’s response to questions we have not seen, but I wager were loaded, am not treating philosophical/ethical reasoning as if it were settled science. I fully understand and respect the difference. You though don’t.

I am as emotionally responsive to childbirth as anyone else. I understand the over powering impact it has. I am though able to set that aside and try to understand why very difficult decisions must be made.
 
Stirlingsays said:
He views align very closely to what the establishment push as approved opinions.

If he's honest about his age, then it's more than likely that this approach has been taken his whole life. In other worlds fitting in with whatever was the establishement opinion of the time.

It's highly unlikely he had the majority of these 'progressive' opinions in more socially conservative times.

I gauge him as simply an adapter to whatever the establishment tells him to believe at the time. What his true beliefs are....Who is to say other than a commitment to trolling.
Click to expand...
I am 82. I wish I wasn’t but my birth certificate doesn’t lie.

Until I was in my 30s I was fiercely anti abortion in all circumstances. Then I stopped and thought about all sides of the matter. I remain anti abortion today, in that I am not pro abortion. I think it should always be avoided if possible, should never be used as a substitute for responsible behaviour or contraception, but that there are circumstances when it’s the least worse option.

That is, I believe, the honest way to approach this subject. Not from a simple blanket ban based only on emotions, but from an objective assessment based on circumstances and scientific facts.
 
Stirlingsays said:
My opinion on abortion is that it shouldn't exist after the detection of a heart-beat, which I think is six or seven weeks.

Essentially any significant development of a nervous system.

So while I haven't looked into IVF the answer is inherent.
Click to expand...

Because of earlier complications we were worried and did early scans and did one at 7 weeks, 10 weeks and then the main one at 12 weeks. At 7 weeks we heard the heartbeat. It was amazing! ❤️

For IVF thank God we didint need it in the end as the day we were supposed to start it the day I got back from Leipzig we got the positive test. Its certainly a moral quandary and somthing I was not keen on doing so a relief in the end. It has it benefits but also as pointed out unused fertilized eggs (life) get discarded and that was what I was having trouble wrapping my head around. I'm not one for overshare here normally maybe it's the pints 😅
 
Wisbech Eagle said:
Did you even read what I wrote? I understand the biological definition. Which is something determined at birth. This is a person’s sex.

What you completely overlook, or wilfully deny, is that someone’s sex does not always match their gender. Why this happens is an emerging science but that it does is real. It’s not imaginary. The research suggests it has to do with brain development and hormone imbalances.

When a person's internal sense of gender does not match their physical body or assigned sex, it can cause long-term distress known as gender dysphoria. This mismatch is not a choice or a social trend, but an inherent component of how the individual's mind and nervous system developed.
Click to expand...

You are parroting ideology over biological facts. You can't be taken seriously if you don't know what a woman is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Holmesdale Online Shop

Back
Top