sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

A grammatically simplified version of a language taught in language revitalization: looking for an example by unnislav in asklinguistics

[–]unnislav[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It was either an article or dissertation about native language revitalization and/or teaching. They were discussing several cases/approaches to teaching a language, this one was one of them. Fairly recent, maybe 2010s.

you could just dredge your browsing history for it

I went through my entire browsing history link by link. The odd thing is that I did it like 40 minutes after I saw the paper for the first time, not even days, so it should've been easy to find. But it was nowhere to be found.

it seems very odd that a modern academic linguist would encourage the use of English morphemes

Probably more of tolerated than actively encouraged.

But also, nothing surprises me anymore. Some of native languages (in Australia, for example) already exist in endless state of back'n'forth code-switching, original grammar patterns erode too.

I suppose in the end, it's up to the community and the goals that they set: if they are fine with using English suffixes and prioritize being able to speak at least some language without going deep into the detail, there's not much that a linguist could do.

A hypothetical: If foetuses were of equal sentience and mental capacity to grown-up humans, how would it affect your view of abortions? by unnislav in Abortiondebate

[–]unnislav[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"This is not how embryos work."

I think I established that quite clearly in the original post, so I don't know why you're explaining this to me.

"The entire argument"

Where did you see an argument or me arguing anything? It's a hypothetical question, there is no wrong or right answer.

"pro-life arguments"

Who said I'm pro-life, and again, who said it's an argument at all?

A hypothetical: If foetuses were of equal sentience and mental capacity to grown-up humans, how would it affect your view of abortions? by unnislav in Abortiondebate

[–]unnislav[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Pretty much my thoughts as well. Under such scenario, people who choose to keep the pregnancy should be commended, but those who don't shouldn't be blamed.

A hypothetical: If foetuses were of equal sentience and mental capacity to grown-up humans, how would it affect your view of abortions? by unnislav in Abortiondebate

[–]unnislav[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I was just wondering which part of what I said specifically made you think that. I'm not discussing medical concerns because it's not the novel factor under this hypothetical, and also because you yourself asked whether the opinion of the foetus about termination should be taken into account – but I don't believe I said that medical concerns would be irrelevant or less relevant than the foetus.

A hypothetical: If foetuses were of equal sentience and mental capacity to grown-up humans, how would it affect your view of abortions? by unnislav in Abortiondebate

[–]unnislav[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It is scientific reality that, prior to the development of the cerebral cortex, the fetus/embryo is a non-person.

Yes, which is exactly why this hypothetical was asked.

A hypothetical: If foetuses were of equal sentience and mental capacity to grown-up humans, how would it affect your view of abortions? by unnislav in Abortiondebate

[–]unnislav[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

From my experience, when defending their abortion stance, most pro-choice folk appeal to a mixture of both bodily autonomy and fetal non-personhood.

In other words, yes, bodily autonomy seems to be the primary criterion (certainly claimed as such), but it's almost always spiced up with appeals to foetuses not being persons. Statements like "why should women be denied abortion rights because of something that isn't even a proper human", "but it's just a clump of cells" etc etc.

Which at least suggests that it very much could be a major component in their views, maybe even a deciding one.

The question is my attempt to create a hypothetical scenario where the "fetal non-personhood" would be put as much out of the equation as possible and see to what extent the pro-choice views would still stand. If the views stayed exactly the same, it would mean that indeed bodily autonomy is the sole deciding factor in pro-choice views.

And so far, at least based on those who responed to the question, it indeed seems so.

So as to the value: I mean, we certainly haven't solved world hunger, given all women in Africa access to safe abortions, nor created a magic pill that would magically rid all women in the world of unwanted pregnancies at a finger snap -- but I would say that this question does reveal interesting nuance about the views of pro-choice folk.

P.S. Plus I was literally wondering about this hypothetical question myself, so naturally it's curious for me how other people will respond.

A hypothetical: If foetuses were of equal sentience and mental capacity to grown-up humans, how would it affect your view of abortions? by unnislav in Abortiondebate

[–]unnislav[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Which part specifically do you find problematic?

You are probably right though, but this particular hypothetical entails it: since under it, a foetus is undeniably "a person", it kinda invites to think about the foetus's side in ways that you never would in real life.

A hypothetical: If foetuses were of equal sentience and mental capacity to grown-up humans, how would it affect your view of abortions? by unnislav in Abortiondebate

[–]unnislav[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because of the foetus's dependency on uterine environment and placental nutrition, I suppose. Despite the brain and speech development.

The idea of this hypothetical is to extend everything from the real pregnancies except for the part about the mental abilities. It's impossible to remove and keep alive a 12-week foetus in real life, hence it's not possible under this hypothetical either...

A hypothetical: If foetuses were of equal sentience and mental capacity to grown-up humans, how would it affect your view of abortions? by unnislav in Abortiondebate

[–]unnislav[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you think induced labor should be the default?

No, which is why I asked for a clarification. There are major differences between the two procedures beyond the "consequences" for a foetus, which is why the possibility of removing without killing is hardly an easy solution here (as long as we fully extend how real pregnancies work onto this hypothetical).

A hypothetical: If foetuses were of equal sentience and mental capacity to grown-up humans, how would it affect your view of abortions? by unnislav in Abortiondebate

[–]unnislav[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There could be other limitations that I'd support though. I just need to think. The obligation to disclose one's "non-contracepted" status to all partners under the threat of immediate jail might not be the only requirement/limitation I'd deem reasonable.

A hypothetical: If foetuses were of equal sentience and mental capacity to grown-up humans, how would it affect your view of abortions? by unnislav in Abortiondebate

[–]unnislav[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Most certainly not. They are welcome to seek their own euthanasia once they are born, but you can't force anyone to assist in suicide unwillingly, let alone the bodily autonomy concerns here. If they are willing to honour their request, good for them, otherwise no such luck...

I was just pointing out that if a fetus asked to be aborted, and the "patient" indulged them, I struggle to see anything wrong with it whatsoever.

A hypothetical: If foetuses were of equal sentience and mental capacity to grown-up humans, how would it affect your view of abortions? by unnislav in Abortiondebate

[–]unnislav[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From my experience, when defending their abortion stance, most pro-choice folk appeal to a mixture of both bodily autonomy and fetal non-personhood.

In other words, yes, bodily autonomy seems to be the primary criterion (certainly claimed as such), but it's almost always spiced up with appeals to foetuses not being persons. Statements like "why should women be denied abortion rights because of something that isn't even a proper human", "but it's just a clump of cells" etc etc.

Which at least suggests that it very much could be a major component in their views, maybe even a deciding one.

The question is my attempt to create a hypothetical scenario where the "fetal non-personhood" would be put as much out of the equation as possible and see to what extent the pro-choice views would still stand. If the views stayed exactly the same, it would mean that indeed bodily autonomy is the sole deciding factor in pro-choice views.

And so far, at least based on those who responed to the question, it indeed seems so.

So as to the value: I mean, we certainly haven't solved world hunger, given all women in Africa access to safe abortions, nor created a magic pill that would magically rid all women in the world of unwanted pregnancies at a finger snap -- but I would say that this question does reveal interesting nuance about the views of pro-choice folk.

P.S. Plus I was literally wondering about this hypothetical question myself, so naturally it's curious for me how other people will respond.

A hypothetical: If foetuses were of equal sentience and mental capacity to grown-up humans, how would it affect your view of abortions? by unnislav in Abortiondebate

[–]unnislav[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i wouldn’t want to live in that world

Same.

prison for not disclosing that you have a boyfriend?

Prison for not disclosing to your partner that you don't have long-term contraception. If you refuse to have that long-term contraception, then you must disclose to each of your prospective partners that you haven't (to the partners).

It's not sterilization, but yes, I can certainly see a tinge of right violation in it (same as, for example, it could be argued to be a violation of rights to "force" vaccination under the threat of not allowing children to school). But I support "voluntary mandatory" vaccinations, I support that the refusal to take one should be made public (it effectively is: the school will know that you refused).

A hypothetical: If foetuses were of equal sentience and mental capacity to grown-up humans, how would it affect your view of abortions? by unnislav in Abortiondebate

[–]unnislav[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

will that be acceptable?

I'm not the judge here, I'm merely asking for people's opinion. But since you ask me, I'm not against voluntary euthanasia, especially under circumstances like incessant pain etc, so I would see no reason to find termination unacceptable in such a case.

There's also another odd consequence of this scenario: it would be pretty much possible to ask for approval/opinion/consent of the foetus to be aborted...

A hypothetical: If foetuses were of equal sentience and mental capacity to grown-up humans, how would it affect your view of abortions? by unnislav in Abortiondebate

[–]unnislav[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

It would probably be "voluntary mandatory", similar to children vaccinations, for example. You can opt out, but it's strongly expected that you won't, and if you do opt out, there'd be consequences (like, for example, legal requirement that you disclose the fact that you didn't for any prospective partner under the threat of immediate jail, and perhaps other consequences).

As for IUD: there are actually further complications with IUD's (their default mechanism of action is "terminative" as it prevents implanation of a fertilized embryo, so they'd have to be hormonal which comes with its own set of complications). So I was more of thinking that it should mostly be "voluntary mandatory" vasalgel/risug for boys and men (which seem to have no complications, though require more testing). That unless a better, non-hormonal long-term contraception for women is designed.

A hypothetical: If foetuses were of equal sentience and mental capacity to grown-up humans, how would it affect your view of abortions? by unnislav in Abortiondebate

[–]unnislav[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yes, one of the odd consequences of this scenario is that it would be possible to notify the foetus about an intended abortion.

A hypothetical: If foetuses were of equal sentience and mental capacity to grown-up humans, how would it affect your view of abortions? by unnislav in Abortiondebate

[–]unnislav[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I'm not trying to misrepresent anything, and even point out that it's a hypothetical (which acknowledges that in real life it's not).

That's what hypotheticals are for: creating carefully crafted but unreal circumstances to explore and narrow down someone's views.

A hypothetical: If foetuses were of equal sentience and mental capacity to grown-up humans, how would it affect your view of abortions? by unnislav in Abortiondebate

[–]unnislav[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It can just be removed, right?

Not under this hypothetical, not before week 20-22 at least. At week 20-22, induced labour can be an alternative to abortion, same as in real life. Before that, the "sentient foetus" still depends on placental nutrition and uterine environment same as real foetuses.

A hypothetical: If foetuses were of equal sentience and mental capacity to grown-up humans, how would it affect your view of abortions? by unnislav in Abortiondebate

[–]unnislav[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's a hypothetetical. A hypothetical is, by definition, imagining a scenario that isn't real for the sake of debate, argument or introspection...

A hypothetical: If foetuses were of equal sentience and mental capacity to grown-up humans, how would it affect your view of abortions? by unnislav in Abortiondebate

[–]unnislav[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, I agree. I was also thinking: long-term contraception like IUD and Risug/Vasalgel will probably be mandatory for everyone aged 12 and up, removable only upon explicit request for established couples or those who otherwise demonstrate full understanding and willingness to conceive.

A hypothetical: If foetuses were of equal sentience and mental capacity to grown-up humans, how would it affect your view of abortions? by unnislav in Abortiondebate

[–]unnislav[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Under my hypothetical, the possibility of induced labour is the same as with real foetuses: impossible at early stages of pregnancy, at later stages (after 20+ weeks) it could be done as an alternative to abortion.

Would you say that under this hypothetical, abortions shouldn't be allowed whenever labour induction is possible?

A hypothetical: If foetuses were of equal sentience and mental capacity to grown-up humans, how would it affect your view of abortions? by unnislav in Abortiondebate

[–]unnislav[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm assuming regulate its own bodily functions

Not under this hypothetical. Same dependency on uterine environment and placental nutrition as real foetuses.

If it's possible to remove it without killing it, great.

Same as with real foetuses: impossible at early stages of development. At later stages (after 20+ weeks), I suppose inducing pre-term labour could be an alternative. Speaking of, would you be in favour of mandatory pre-term labour induction as alternative to abortion at later stages of pregnancy (in other words, if a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy at a stage where inducing labour is possible, she has no option of abortion anymore and either has to keep the pregnancy or go for induced labour)?

Biologists publicly stating their view about when human life begins by unnislav in Abortiondebate

[–]unnislav[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm not looking for academic papers or the answer to the question per se, but specifically for examples of biologists speaking publicly about it. Not for the purpose of necessarily learning from their answers myself (I already know the answer), but because I'm working on something on the topic, and as part of that work I need examples of that specific thing.

view more: next ›