Abortion song

[MarkSB]

" Argument from propaganda is simply untenable."

This is a problem I'v given some thought.

Since propaganda seems to me to represent the word "persuasion" only in an uglier light, the problem with not using propaganda to make a point is merely by striving to prove your point you'r resorting to persuasion!

I spent some time looking for solutions. What I'v come up with:

1) You could try to examine the issue from many angles in your posts, admitting how things seem to you and why without resorting to emotions at all to prove your point. In other words, write in an objective robot-like tone of voice.

After all, even if, without making emotional appeals concerning the issues, a certain jovial (ect) personality shines thru your posts, some people might tend to agree with you because they like you, disagree because they don't like you (ect), all without realizing their emotions are manipulating their opinions.

2) Alternatively, you could try pointing out how folly-filled a thing it would be to take your word for anything, without attracting so much distrust the reader becomes super-skeptical... The key seems to me to be to inspire the Objective Skeptic (the, "just the evidence, m'am," type).

3) You can include in your posts actual techniques for seeing thru such propaganda techniques as repetition and emotional manipulation.

Things like, "Now, one manner of examining this evidence would be from the spectacles of a Christian Scientist. It might be interesting to "role play" the personality of a Christian Scientist, and examine this evidence from that perspective. One might invent all sorts of hypothetical personalities, and examine this data from these alternate perspectives, carefully noting the many reasons why the evidence might appear differently in different kinds of situations."

4. Aside from helping the reader identify personal bias, emotional triggers, and the tendency of repetition to concentrate one's focus on the repeated idea (even subconsciously concentrate on the repeated idea), and believe things just because I'v said them twice (perhaps I'v said them twice by accident so don't get paranoid), you might help the reader overcome personal emotional situational slavery (having emotions that respond to situational triggers regardless of what you DeSiRe to feel) by teaching techniques to those willing to listen which allow, thru prolonged effort of concentration, the reader's ability to manipulate his/her own emotions merely by willing them.

Such a technique might be as follows: Spend around 6 months taking 1 hour out of every day to meditate in the exact same still position in a quiet dark inactive unsmelly non-touchy (non-sensory) setting, so that one's thoughts gain an approximation of perfect stillness. After six months of serious dedication to this technique, begin spending that time meditating on the emotion joy (or love hate fear ect) expanding inside your mind until the emotion consumes you (but don't risk losing control, such as by meditating on very intense hate to the point of exploding), until you are satisfied you have created the desired emotional state, then move onto another emotional state.

5. Anything might help which inspires the reader to think for the reader's self. Can you think of more anti/(non)-propaganda techniques?

This is an excellent post, and it makes some very good points.

These are things I have been thinking about alot lately, especially with so many people who seem to condemn emotions as irrational. We are emotional beings and I wouldn't have it any other way.

 

[KalithAlur]

I am glad you found the post of interest, and that it was helpful to you.

I think emotions can often stimulate irrational responses to situations because of our emotional attachment, whether to being right (passion, righteousness, ect), whether to how wrong the other side is (fear, anger, sorrow, condemnation, ect), or something else not considered here.

One solution I think I mentioned, simply being aware of how emotions color information and taking a few steps back to analyze the situation from afar, is a solution I have seen suggested fairly commonly.

The more radical solution I suggested, learning to self-determine what it is you feel at any given moment, even to the point of temporarily entering states of apathy to gain a cold, purely rationalistic interpretation of what is going on, is less common I think. I have been criticized by people who consider this way of thinking "too robotic". To me, being manipulated by your environment seems more robotic than manipulating yourself.

Yes, we are emotional creatures, and no, I wouldn't have it any other way either. Positive emotions make life worth living.

 

[Texas Lynn]

I just heard a song on the radio called "Why did you kill me mommy". I can't of anything that has made feel as sick in the guts as this song did.

If the song was to support the cause of stopping mothers from killing their 2 yr old plus children, then I could see some relevance, but about abortion????

Yeah yeah, blahdy blahdy blah life begins at conception and all that - if that's what you wanna believe.

Pretending that an unborn baby has concious awareness is silly enough but this song is just plain sick.

Well. what do you expect from an ideology that thinks billboards of bloody feti are a good idea?

If you want to know, there are several pro-choice songs as well, including "Will the Fetus Be Aborted?" by Mojo Nixon and Jello Biafra, "Rapid City South Dakota" by Kinky Friedman, and "Red Ragtop" by Tim McGraw. Other anti-abortion lyrics have included a side comment on Paul Anka's "Havin' My Baby" and there is a song from the 1970s by a one-hit wonder called Charlene called "I've never been to me" with a treacly pronatalist vision. The singer portrays herself as some kind of supermodel cum actress or something and expresses envy for working class stay at home moms. Rrrrrrightttt....

 

[KalithAlur]

my assertions that fetal awareness, at least in the form of fetal sentience, is confirmed by documented evidence (although not inconclusively) and becoming more and more accepted as true by the medical community at large (especially post-20or26 week fetal pain, and a tendency to believe the fetus experiences sensory arousal),

have not been refuted.

of course, nothing can be proven inconclusively really... but the evidence seems to be weighing more in favor of fetal awareness than against.

and anyway, what can be proven inconclusively by imperfect perceptual tools (such as the human nervous system) ? ?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

my assertions that fetal awareness, at least in the form of fetal sentience, is confirmed by documented evidence (although not inconclusively) and becoming more and more accepted as true by the medical community at large (especially post-20or26 week fetal pain, and a tendency to believe the fetus experiences sensory arousal),

have not been refuted.

of course, nothing can be proven inconclusively really... but the evidence seems to be weighing more in favor of fetal awareness than against.

and anyway, what can be proven inconclusively by imperfect perceptual tools (such as the human nervous system) ? ?

Sorry... link to sources? Cos I've read several articals suggesting that humans don't achieve anything like sentience until as late as 2 or 3 months AFTER birth... and remember, response to stimulus is NOT indicative of sentience... an unborn foetus may very well move if you poke it... but so will a venus fly trap

 

[KalithAlur]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_pain

http://www.brainmind.com/FetalBrainDevelopment.html

http://www.primal-page.com/mf3-7.htm

http://www.asahq.org/Newsletters/2001/10_01/white.htm

According to the wiki article (admittedly, a convenient but questionable source, but not the only place I'v heard this), Most scientists are coming to a consensus that the fetus does feel pain, and according to the newsletter article at the end of the list, which does not argue against abortion, the misrepresentation of this data is causing aborted fetuses to die agonizing deaths without being provided pain killers.

 

[KalithAlur]

of course, while hunting around quickly for those articles, I also came across a suggestion that babies spontaneously develop sentience the second the doctor smacks them...

 

[EnemyPartyII]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_pain

http://www.brainmind.com/FetalBrainDevelopment.html

http://www.primal-page.com/mf3-7.htm

http://www.asahq.org/Newsletters/2001/10_01/white.htm

According to the wiki article (admittedly, a convenient but questionable source, but not the only place I'v heard this), Most scientists are coming to a consensus that the fetus does feel pain, and according to the newsletter article at the end of the list, which does not argue against abortion, the misrepresentation of this data is causing aborted fetuses to die agonizing deaths without being provided pain killers.

I totally agree that foetuses have a pain response... it is standard practice to attempt to anaesthetise a foetus in prenatal surgery cases... but, as I say, a pain response is different to sentience... guppies display a pain response too, but they are hardly great candidates for sentience

of course, while hunting around quickly for those articles, I also came across a suggestion that babies spontaneously develop sentience the second the doctor smacks them...

Full points to you for doing the looking, although I can't imagine there has been much empirical research to support the sentience/slapping link... not least because people who are clearly sentient in later life were never slapped by a doctor at delivery

 

[RavenPoe]

Psychology for years has ignored growth and devlopment due to dominance by behaviorists. It's gonna take a ong time efore we can figure out this riddle.

But all I hear about is the baby - what about the mother - giving birth is quite horridly painful too.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Psychology for years has ignored growth and devlopment due to dominance by behaviorists. It's gonna take a ong time efore we can figure out this riddle.

But all I hear about is the baby - what about the mother - giving birth is quite horridly painful too.

I don't think the sentience of the mother is really at issue... although a few mothers I have met, perhaps it should have been

 

[KalithAlur]

sentience merely means sensation. sensation is awareness. pain is an emotion.

the infant's pain receptors are significantly more developed than a guppie.... many on the pro life side suggest that an unborn babe has a greater capacity to feel pain than a full-grown adult due to the nervous system's initial over-stimulation

and i believe the unborn child can feel physical pleasure as well. the fetal brain development article mentions fetal "arousal" but distinguishes this from emotional pleasures such as affection, humor, ect. I do not make the distinction because physical sensation is merely a different kind of emotion.

personally, i'm a sentientist... I don't eat sentient life, including cows pigs and anything with a nervous system, but i drink milk, eat eggs clams oysters and plants.

at what stage of sentience, then, does something qualify as a person? is this qualification based on quantity of emotion (quantity of sorrow, fear, love, ect), alternately quantity of positive emotion (quantity of love, affection, humor, ect), or something I'm missing?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

sentience merely means sensation. sensation is awareness. pain is an emotion.

the infant's pain receptors are significantly more developed than a guppie.... many on the pro life side suggest that an unborn babe has a greater capacity to feel pain than a full-grown adult due to the nervous system's initial over-stimulation

and i believe the unborn child can feel physical pleasure as well. the fetal brain development article mentions fetal "arousal" but distinguishes this from emotional pleasures such as affection, humor, ect. I do not make the distinction because physical sensation is merely a different kind of emotion.

personally, i'm a sentientist... I don't eat sentient life, including cows pigs and anything with a nervous system, but i drink milk, eat eggs clams oysters and plants.

at what stage of sentience, then, does something qualify as a person? is this qualification based on quantity of emotion (quantity of sorrow, fear, love, ect), alternately quantity of positive emotion (quantity of love, affection, humor, ect), or something I'm missing?

No, sentience is about being self aware. I suggest you study the field some more. At the moment you are engaging in the Fundy Word Redefinition project...

 

[KalithAlur]

dictionary.com is in on it too...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sentience

if by "self aware," you mean "capable of discerning the existence of one's self apart from emotions, as an intellectual realization," i'd like to see your sources.

although I admit I don't use the word "sentientist" like some people use "scientist," and I in no way claim to be an expert on the experiences of sentient life forms.

the deer is self-aware to this extent - the deer is aware of the deer's pain, the deer's affection for its own family, and the dear's hunger, and so on. the deer is not self-aware to this extent - the deer does not say thing like, "I think, therefore, I am," (at least according to modern scientific consensus).

before accusing me of engaging in the "fundy" anything, know that to be a fundamentalist is to adhere to dogma (such as the statement, "to be a fundamentalist is to adhere to dogma," since this statement implies what fundamentalism Must Be, and that "is" [or seems to me to be] the definition of dogma), and dogma is something I don't do.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

dictionary.com is in on it too...

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sentience

if by "self aware," you mean "capable of discerning the existence of one's self apart from emotions, as an intellectual realization," i'd like to see your sources.

although I admit I don't use the word "sentientist" like some people use "scientist," and I in no way claim to be an expert on the experiences of sentient life forms.

the deer is self-aware to this extent - the deer is aware of the deer's pain, the deer's affection for its own family, and the dear's hunger, and so on. the deer is not self-aware to this extent - the deer does not say thing like, "I think, therefore, I am," (at least according to modern scientific consensus).

before accusing me of engaging in the "fundy" anything, know that to be a fundamentalist is to adhere to dogma (such as the statement, "to be a fundamentalist is to adhere to dogma," since this statement implies what fundamentalism Must Be, and that "is" [or seems to me to be] the definition of dogma), and dogma is something I don't do.

for the purposes of our discussion... shall we agree that to be sentient, one must be aware of feeling pain?

I contend that while a foetus IS capable of a demonstrated pain response, it isn't AWARE that it is in pain

 

[WatersMoon110]

Abortion's can be very difficult on people. Some people regret them and some people don't. It's about that choice.

Which is why I tend to support measures like a 24 or 48 hour waiting period and mandatory counseling for women considering abortion, even though I am (also) Pro-Choice. I think that these help might help women to make the choice that is best for them, as some might rush into having an abortion without fully thinking it through (and those that already have thought it through would not be harmed by talking with someone and waiting a short time).

That's a bit offtopic for the OP, so I'll add that I have heard some of that song (maybe on a commercial?) and thought it rather bad, both the song and the lyrics. But I'm somewhat picky when it comes to music.

 

[KalithAlur]

if i punch my friend jeff in the nose, even if he screams bloody murder, i have no way of confirming his pain or anger exists by directly experiencing it, because i'm not inside his nervous system.

that being said, to experience pain is to be aware of pain. what does it matter if you can reason abstractly about it and communicate to yourself a symbol for your direct experience?

 

[KalithAlur]

also, the first definition of sentience provided by dictionary.com is as follows:

capacity for sensation or feeling.

the rest of the definitions tend to be in agreement with this definition.

but for your own purposes, I'm fine with you using any definition you want.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

if i punch my friend jeff in the nose, even if he screams bloody murder, i have no way of confirming his pain or anger exists by directly experiencing it, because i'm not inside his nervous system.

that being said, to experience pain is to be aware of pain. what does it matter if you can reason abstractly about it and communicate to yourself a symbol for your direct experience?

ah, well THAT way lies a particularly tricky existential problem... how do we know if ANYONES sensations are real, including our own?

You might be interested to look up "chinese room" paradox to learn more...

But for the moment, I am happy to accept that sentience exists among inteligences wth demonstrated sentient ability

 

[Fantine]

If it makes you feel any better, Kathy Troccoli has a song about an unborn baby who prays for and forgives her mother for contemplating abortion:

Cause if I should die before I wake
I pray her soul you'll keep
Forgive her Lord, she doesn't know
That you gave life to me
On the days when she may think of me
Please comfort her with the truth
That the angels hold me safe and sound
Cause I'm in Heaven with you
I'm in Heaven with you

http://www.lyricsdownload.com/kathy-troccoli-a-baby-s-prayer-lyrics.html

This song is sentimental, but I think it conveys the same message in a very gentle way......the baby loves her mother unconditionally--can't the mother do the same for him/her?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

If it makes you feel any better, Kathy Troccoli has a song about an unborn baby who prays for and forgives her mother for contemplating abortion:



http://www.lyricsdownload.com/kathy-troccoli-a-baby-s-prayer-lyrics.html

This song is sentimental, but I think it conveys the same message in a very gentle way......the baby loves her mother unconditionally--can't the mother do the same for him/her?

humans don't work that way.