Abortion page 119

3076 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by MyTie:

Unfortunately, fetuses are not capable of making decisions.

Fetuses are not capable of making decions as they have absolutely no higher brain functions whatsoever. As a direct result, they are not capable of making a decision and it must be made for them by their next of kin, or the closest blood relative. In all cases, this would be the mother.

True, they are incapable of making a decision. They can’t even talk after they are born until they learn the language. But they are a viable life, a stage in the development of a stand alone adult. Do you really think if the fetus had a voice it would choose to die?

What if you were in an accident and were in the hospital. You have tubes down your throat and can’t talk. You can only lay there and your next of kin comes in and says, she is no longer a viable human being as she may be paralyzed so terminate her. She would be a burden on her family and that is unfair. What about their careers?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

True, they are incapable of making a decision. They can’t even talk after they are born until they learn the language.

And that’s still partially because they aren’t even sentient yet.

But they are a viable life, a stage in the development of a stand alone adult.

And why is it so different from any other animal?

Do you really think if the fetus had a voice it would choose to die?

You keep missing this, though, it doesn’t know what death is. Period.

Wanna know why? Because it doesn’t even have a brain (or a very undeveloped one) until more than half-way into the pregnancy.

Originally posted by jhco50:

What if you were in an accident and were in the hospital. You have tubes down your throat and can’t talk. You can only lay there and your next of kin comes in and say, she is no longer a viable human being as she may be paralyzed so terminate her.

Uhh, I think you missed something, like the part where you make a point, or ask an actual question.

Also, unless you’re a vegetable and can’t actually move, you’d still be able to do something, just not talk. (Also, I’m pretty sure that people can moniter brain activity and come to conclusions from that.)

EDIT: There we go.

She would be a burden on her family and that is unfair. What about their careers?

No, wait, you still haven’t made a point, or at least a coherent one.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by jhco50:

I disagree EPR. If she was that worried about her career she would have been much more careful.

How do you know she wasn’t?

Her career was never on her mind and this is not a valid reason to kill a fetus.

And why must it be her fault for this?

And, more generally, why must you always (in this case, at least) blame the woman for this?

It would be like me killing the neighbor because he was hired to fill my job after I worked so hard to learn it.

That’s… Not like it. At all.

And how do you know she was? She may have been tying one on and acted like an idiot. Now she has the ability to kill the outcome of her stupidity.

It takes two to tango. It is also the woman’s responsibility to say no. She already knows he won’t become pregnant and she will suffer the consequences so that would mean she should be extra alert.

Of course it is. The only difference is she is killing legally and I would be doing it illegally.

 
Flag Post

Its not just the language Jhco. The higher brain function aren’t laid out yet. As tenco points out, they are not sentient at the time they are in the womb. You might just as well ask the spermatozoa for an opinion.

Wanna know why? Because it doesn’t even have a brain (or a very undeveloped one) until more than half-way into the pregnancy.

Brain starts developing at ten days. The higher brain functions don’t develop until after birth. There’s no ‘person’ there for a goodly long time afterwards. At mid-pregnancy, you’re dealing with something that can feel, see, hear, but cannot generate thoughts – there’s no consciousness yet.

We’re still working on defining exactly which structures are involved in conscious thought, but we do know which are not. If the only ones present are those that are not – the first ones formed – then conscious thought is not possible.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by jhco50:

True, they are incapable of making a decision. They can’t even talk after they are born until they learn the language.

And that’s still partially because they aren’t even sentient yet.

But they are a viable life, a stage in the development of a stand alone adult.

And why is it so different from any other animal?

Do you really think if the fetus had a voice it would choose to die?

You keep missing this, though, it doesn’t know what death is. Period.

Wanna know why? Because it doesn’t even have a brain (or a very undeveloped one) until more than half-way into the pregnancy.

Originally posted by jhco50:

What if you were in an accident and were in the hospital. You have tubes down your throat and can’t talk. You can only lay there and your next of kin comes in and say, she is no longer a viable human being as she may be paralyzed so terminate her.

Uhh, I think you missed something, like the part where you make a point, or ask an actual question.

Also, unless you’re a vegetable and can’t actually move, you’d still be able to do something, just not talk. (Also, I’m pretty sure that people can moniter brain activity and come to conclusions from that.)

Please explain to me why a fetus has to be sentient to be a human being. Were you sentient as soon as you were born? It is highly unlikely. Were you aware of anything in those first hours? No? Well then, should you have been killed?

Because we are not other animals. We are the highest form of animal with the ability to reason. What other animal can has the ability to reach for the stars or invent something to make their lives easier? Again, having a brain does not negate the one big truth that it is a human. You do not have to have a brain to be of the human species.

No, it doesn’t, but neither does the newborn. I have a 3 year old granddaughter and she doesn’t know what death is either. Should she be killed for her lack of knowledge?

The point in my last statement was obvious. She is paralyzed and cannot talk for herself. Even though she would rather live, a next of kin made the decision to terminate her.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

And know do you know she was?

You’re not getting what I’m saying are you?

She may have been tying one on and acted like an idiot. Now she has the ability to kill the outcome of her stupidity.

Or the (possibly non-existent) condom could have broke too.

Also, you seem to avoid this each time I ask, but I’m still waiting for an answer; do you really want these women, who you say are irresponible, to raise a child?

It takes two to tango.

Well technically one could do all the work while the other is unconscious.

It is also the woman’s responsibility to say no. She already knows he won’t become pregnant and she will suffer the consequences so that would mean she should be extra alert.

Yes, and how dare she say not say no just in case of the unlikely possibility of a broken condom, and/or other contraceptives not working. (or just not figuring out that she was pregnant until it either became obvious, or really obvious, see “I Didn’t Know I was Pregnant.”)

Originally posted by jhco50:

Please explain to me why a fetus has to be sentient to be a human being.

Please point out just where I said that.

Were you sentient as soon as you were born? It is highly unlikely. Were you aware of anything in those first hours? No? Well then, should you have been killed?

Yeah, you’re totally not missing why abortions happen, are you?

Because we are not other animals.

And that matters because…?

We are the highest form of animal with the ability to reason.

Doesn’t mean we will.

Also, how exactly does that ability make us better than the rest?

What other animal can has the ability to reach for the stars or invent something to make their lives easier?

Not that many, but that’s partially because some don’t need to. (I.e. cockroaches)

Again, having a brain does not negate the one big truth that it is a human.

Still don’t remember saying that.

You do not have to have a brain to be of the human species.

Okay, so meat is murder, then.

No, it doesn’t, but neither does the newborn. I have a 3 year old granddaughter and she doesn’t know what death is either. Should she be killed for her lack of knowledge?

Solely because of that? Not at all, but we’re not using that as the only reason for legal abortions.

The point in my last statement was obvious. She is paralyzed and cannot talk for herself. Even though she would rather live, a next of kin made the decision to terminate her.

I take it you haven’t quite gotten your head wrapped around the concept of things that are worse than death?

And again, you can still check for brain activity, to see if she’s also brain dead, which would lead to her not being sentient anymore, and then not actually caring if she lived or died, because she couldn’t know what they were, let alone decide what she would want.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Its not just the language Jhco. The higher brain function aren’t laid out yet. As tenco points out, they are not sentient at the time they are in the womb. You might just as well ask the spermatozoa for an opinion.

Wanna know why? Because it doesn’t even have a brain (or a very undeveloped one) until more than half-way into the pregnancy.

Brain starts developing at ten days. The higher brain functions don’t develop until after birth. There’s no ‘person’ there for a goodly long time afterwards. At mid-pregnancy, you’re dealing with something that can feel, see, hear, but cannot generate thoughts – there’s no consciousness yet.

We’re still working on defining exactly which structures are involved in conscious thought, but we do know which are not. If the only ones present are those that are not – the first ones formed – then conscious thought is not possible.

But as soon as the egg is fertilized it has become a human being (bean as my son used to say). It is at that point a viable life and has the right to live.

I don’t know if I would say no consciousness as it has been seen that the fetus tried to block the blades of the cutter. But even in your description, you are describing the stages of the human species, growing and learning as it goes, even if it is not conscious of it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by jhco50:

And know do you know she was?

You’re not getting what I’m saying are you?

She may have been tying one on and acted like an idiot. Now she has the ability to kill the outcome of her stupidity.

Or the (possibly non-existent) condom could have broke too.

Also, you seem to avoid this each time I ask, but I’m still waiting for an answer; do you really want these women, who you say are irresponible, to raise a child?

It takes two to tango.

Well technically one could do all the work while the other is unconscious.

It is also the woman’s responsibility to say no. She already knows he won’t become pregnant and she will suffer the consequences so that would mean she should be extra alert.

Yes, and how dare she say not say no just in case of the unlikely possibility of a broken condom, and/or other contraceptives not working. (or just not figuring out that she was pregnant until it either became obvious, or really obvious, see “I Didn’t Know I was Pregnant.”)

Yes, I am getting what you are saying but it isn’t a viable argument as neither one of us really knows what was going through her mind…if anything.

Yes, the old condom argument. Damn those things are worthless. So is that pill or the other birth control methods. It wasn’t her fault, she didn’t know! (Sarcasm) Your answer is adoption. Now before you give me the old, not enough kids are adopted, instead of killing the baby why not revamp the adoption system?

Technically, but that would be rape.

With as many working contraceptives on the market, I can’t buy that argument anymore. Vika has been gone for awhile, but now she is back and she can tell you all about contraceptives I’m sure. Vika?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

But as soon as the egg is fertilized it has become a human being (bean as my son used to say). It is at that point a viable life and has the right to live.

But the woman? Who cares about her?

I don’t know if I would say no consciousness as it has been seen that the fetus tried to block the blades of the cutter.

You don’t need to be concision to feel pain.

But even in your description, you are describing the stages of the human species, growing and learning as it goes, even if it is not conscious of it.

… Wait, what?

Yes, the old condom argument. Damn those things are worthless. So is that pill or the other birth control methods. It wasn’t her fault, she didn’t know! (Sarcasm)

Alright, I’m probably going to dip into ad homonym a little here, but… Good God, I just can’t believe just how much you simultaneously missed my point, but also overreacted to it.

Your answer is adoption. Now before you give me the old, not enough kids are adopted, instead of killing the baby why not revamp the adoption system?

Easier said than done.

With as many working contraceptives on the market, I can’t buy that argument anymore. Vika has been gone for awhile, but now she is back and she can tell you all about contraceptives I’m sure. Vika?

So I’m guessing you missed the part where I said “she didn’t figure out she was pregnant until…”

And here’s a thought, what if they actually don’t use every contraceptive there is (thus making your argument moot), but rely on the more common ones that, while they still work, might not provide the same amount of protection as more or less doing the do by touching each other’s heart.

 
Flag Post

Jhco

With as many working contraceptives on the market, I can’t buy that argument anymore. Vika has been gone for awhile, but now she is back and she can tell you all about contraceptives I’m sure. Vika?

Contraceptives don’t always work. Human biology is still a royal pain in the butt sometimes, particularly when other drugs are involved. Some antibiotics will counter it partially or entirely. So if you have a light cold or the flu, you may not be entirely protected. If you’ve had chemical changes in your system such as bad food intake, it can cause the pill to lose effectiveness.

On the whole, the general advice is it is 98% effective, so there’s a 2% risk of fertilisation.

I would also like to point out that in every pack, seven pills are placebos, designed to trigger a period. So protection is not absolute the week after the period has taken place, either. It never is fully absolute.

Even using a condom, a cup, an implant, and an acidic lubricant, chances for successful termination are less than 100%. Its why we have things such as the morning after pill in the first place. Which is something you oppose Jhco.

tenco

You don’t need to be conscious to feel pain.

All too true. It’s an autonomic response. You don’t even need a central brain to trigger an autonomic reaction.

 
Flag Post

Tenco, don’t give me this sob story about the woman. What about the man, what about John Swartz (made up)? What about the parents, the grandparents, the great grandparents…and on and on. What about the little life in the womb. Is the woman the only one affected here? Not hardly. That argument is getting old.

Of course you need to have some kind of brain activity, but that doesn’t mean it is ok to kill. Just because someone is doped up on cocaine doesn’t give you the right to kill him because he doesn’t feel the pain. I don’t believe he is sentient at that point either.

Each step of the development the fetus is learning, even at a the cellular level.

 
Flag Post
Of course you need to have some kind of brain activity, but that doesn’t mean it is ok to kill. Just because someone is doped up on cocaine doesn’t give you the right to kill him because he doesn’t feel the pain. I don’t believe he is sentient at that point either.

Each step of the development the fetus is learning, even at a the cellular level.

If someone is doped up on cocaine they still have a functional brain. A fetus does not have that.

The fetus is not ‘learning at the cellular level’. At that stage it is merely following the DNA and RNA programming, line by line. It is in essence, a biological robot.

 
Flag Post

Have you ever heard about the studies being done that associate the heart and the brain as both being capable of brain functions? I have heard of it but I don’t know a lot about it. Please tell me and the others what you know about that if you would.

Ok, you would know about the cellular level better than me I guess.

 
Flag Post

A baby is not a baby until it is born, simple as that. What a fetus might turn into is meaningless. A fetus is part of a woman who is pregnant – a fetus does not walk around on its own. It needs to suck the life out of its mother. It frankly is more like a parasite.

When the fetus is delivered from the female, it then is a baby and human, thus has the full rights of a human. A fetus is not a human. A fetus is simply a human in development with no rights at all.

It really is not that hard to understand

 
Flag Post

A fetus is not human….(banging head) What brought you to that conclusion? First you tell us it is not human and then you tell us it is human. Which is it?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

A fetus is not human….(banging head) What brought you to that conclusion? First you tell us it is not human and then you tell us it is human. Which is it?

I’m pretty sure you’re not separating the “biologically human” and “person-hood human” concepts here.

Originally posted by jhco50:

Tenco, don’t give me this sob story about the woman.

Okay, so I wont… And didn’t.

Is the woman the only one affected here? Not hardly.

Did I say she was?

That argument is getting old.

You mean the one about “the woman is probably the one most affected, so it should be up to her to decide?”

Of course you need to have some kind of brain activity,

Enough to be able to feel, at least.

but that doesn’t mean it is ok to kill.

It also doesn’t mean that it’s okay to not kill it.

Just because someone is doped up on cocaine doesn’t give you the right to kill him because he doesn’t feel the pain. I don’t believe he is sentient at that point either.

Except they still are very much sentient, crazy, but still sentient.

Each step of the development the fetus is learning, even at a the cellular level.

Vika already covered this, you’d get a better argument if you were talking about a house plant.

Originally posted by jhco50:

Have you ever heard about the studies being done that associate the heart and the brain as both being capable of brain functions?

Enlighten me, then.

I have heard of it but I don’t know a lot about it.

Yeah, that’s helpful…

Please tell me and the others what you know about that if you would.

Heart = right side of the brain

Brain = left side of the brain

Now go and get a recent biology book and figure it out.

 
Flag Post

Tenco, there isn’t much to argue about in that post and I’m getting tired tonight. However, something I brought up that I would appreciate you looking into is the study I brought up. I only heard a report on it one time and it does exist out there somewhere, I’m sure. See if you can find anything on it. I will try to as well.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Its not just the language Jhco. The higher brain function aren’t laid out yet. As tenco points out, they are not sentient at the time they are in the womb. You might just as well ask the spermatozoa for an opinion.

Wanna know why? Because it doesn’t even have a brain (or a very undeveloped one) until more than half-way into the pregnancy.

Brain starts developing at ten days. The higher brain functions don’t develop until after birth. There’s no ‘person’ there for a goodly long time afterwards. At mid-pregnancy, you’re dealing with something that can feel, see, hear, but cannot generate thoughts – there’s no consciousness yet.

We’re still working on defining exactly which structures are involved in conscious thought, but we do know which are not. If the only ones present are those that are not – the first ones formed – then conscious thought is not possible.

I really should get more research conducted

And I would if I wasn’t so damn lazy

Not yet- I’m enjoying procrastination too much

1.) Sentience is the only thing that separates so-called ‘Intelligent Life’ (IL from this point onwards)- namely humans- and so-called ‘Unintelligent Life’ (UL)- notably, animals.
2.) We should treat things by properties of their categorical correspondence in set classification. For example, we should not distinguish between UL X and UL P as things in themselves per criteria of stipulation 1.), but we would distinguish between say a human and a horse due to differences in categorical classification.
3.) As fetuses aren’t sentient, then they are technically UL as opposed to IL.
4.i) Therefore, we should treat fetuses as would treat any other breed of UL.
4.ii) Thus, we shouldn’t treat fetuses as, strictly speaking, IL including properly developed humans as to the species homo sapiens
5.) We should always, in immediacy, appraise the inherent qualities of IL over those of UL and therefore conclude to subjugating animals’ rights under the power of IL’s rights as to contextual prioritization given that they are, by common amenity of evaluation, absolutely equal or at least infinitesmally different in avergae concensus. In other words, humans are more important than horses and thus come first in consideration in reflexive benefaction. However, if, on the other hand, humans are at a great advantage over animals, the moral thing to do is help the animals at the expense of the human unless such would endanger or even injure the IL of which would remove the validity of the UL reputation.
6.) Abortion is the process in which the UL is expurgated for the sake of IL out of potentially life-threatening difficulties. By rationale of points 1-5, abortion is inextricably justified. As a matter of fact, the denial of abortion as a right should count as invalid and the particular case of rejecting abortion protocol in actual emergencies should be remedied as to elimination of danger in favor of the mother involved in procreation
7.) Abortion should always be a matter of preference in the mother’s decision whence it is important as a life-death situation.

OK, so I [think I] proved one side of the argument

8.) However, when the dilemma of the UL is considerably greater than that of the IL in finalization, then the IL should step up to help the UL by moral principles. Refer back to point 5

9.) As a matter of personal convenience, there is substantially greater harm for the fetus in potential than for the parents or at least the individual mother and, by risking expense at the care of the fetus, the mother would not be harmed directly.

10.) Therefore, referring back to former points, we meekly conclude that when abortion is purely done out of personal convenience, it is an artificial vice to espouse the syllabus of abortion.

Just discussing the reality of abortion as a stage in itself with past directories

It seems that, as I previously mentioned earlier in this thread, the issue of abortion simply is truly multifacteted in the sense of circumstantial dependence. Refer back if need be to page 117. I merely provided justification for some of my thinking here and shared it with fellow SDers

 
Flag Post

It is at that point a viable life and has the right to live.

That’s a discussion point instead of an argument.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Have you ever heard about the studies being done that associate the heart and the brain as both being capable of brain functions? I have heard of it but I don’t know a lot about it. Please tell me and the others what you know about that if you would.

No, I see where you are coming from, but you are getting confused. You’re talking about the cardiac plexus (Warning: That link assumes you already understand biology. Cannot find a layperson one.), that gathering of peripheral nerve cells that extends deep into the heart and partially surrounds it, connecting to the vagus nerve, the superior, middle and interior cardiac nerves.

It basically controls the heart as a supervisor would. Instructions come down the four primary nerves to it, and it direct the heart how to respond based on those commands. All four are autonomous, and we can detect the signals transmitted down them. None of them transmit memories or thought information – but then they all terminate in the hindbrain, and there is no connection to the hippocampus to speak of. If there’s no connection to ‘memory central’ as it were, then there is no access to memory storage in the first place.

 
Flag Post

Of late,,in this discussion (& most of the others he’s in), most of what jake-o has presented pretty much is a “function” of the below.

Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by Ketsy:

Correction: You think it’s true. More than once you have made a claim that was later demonstrated to be false.


I have made mistakes Ketsy. Be it faulty information (or memory) or other reason I will stand corrected. No one is perfect and I can admit when I have given wrong information.

Originally posted by jhco50:

I didn’t see that post. I don’t make up information. Some of it is from memory and I don’t have links to it, but it is all true.

His penchant for the hyperbole aside, other than it is one of the fine tools which fools use to shore up a weak arguement, I think the last post very much exposes why discussion w/ him ends up being exercises in folly,, wrestling w/ a pig,, a font of frustration because of how his refusal to respond to our requests for information other than his typical repetition of his bana pap & his demonizing of our points.

I luv to discuss issues. I think the abortion issue is one that demands discussion. BUT, this “merry-go-’round” jake-o has us on is a good example of why no real workable resolution will likely EVER to attained. His diversionary, misdirective, insulting, anecdotal “proof” are what “gets us nowhere”….at least in the arena of hope that he et.al. will (NOT change his mind) at least accept the data that challenges his ideology & mull it over.

He et.al are constantly harping on this “adoption” crap.

1) On the one hand, they bemoan the huge numbers of “babies” aborted,,,,yet they don’t propose any realistic evidence that these could all be adopted.

2) He repeatedly IGNORES or refuses to answer the very simple, obvious fact that his “women who are irresponsible sluts for getting pregnant” probably aren’t the best ppl to be adding to the human gene pool via adoption of their large “spawn”.

3) As more-&-more enlightenment about what happens to the development of the fetus due to the “mother’s” activities (drinking, smoking, drugs, etc.) is discovered,,,the interest in adopting from this “unknown-factor” source conversely diminishes.

4) This results in the competative factors of such adoption to become more pevalent. Of course all of these depend upon the “cause” of need to adopt. Scenarios:

Male or female both fertile but just can’t concieve or “carry to term”: Implantation of their fertilized egg into a surrogate. Female fertile: Donor sperm…esp. from a “known” source. Male only fertile: donor egg (esp. froma known source) implanted in female OR a surrogate is used.

5) The trendiness of foriegn adoption aside, there has to be some good reasons that Americans are opting to seek their family member from there. I’m taking into account the concept of “bleeding-heart-liberalism” wanting to reduce child-suffering in those areas….which is, as I see it, mostly only a token effort and possibly even more of a problem than a solution.

Some things for jake-o et.al. to consider when using ADOPTION as a counter in the debate on abortion:
1)
2)
3)

So, jake-o, just as many here have been trying to tell YOU….adoption really isn’t all that “easy”,,,,nor is it much at all in the way of an “alternative” to aborting an unwanted, unplaned pregnancy.

Below: Darks post as an example of the many who have been trying to “educate” YOU on this “pipe-dream” method ya use in yer perchant to believe YOU have realistic reasons for making abortion illegal.

Originally posted by Darkruler2005:
jcho said:

And as we have discussed before there is always adoption

Are you living in an illusion world where adoption rates are incredibly high and kids being given up for adoption incrediby low? If not, why suggest to torture the kid without a real mother and not even real motherly attention given to them for some time?

Per usual, jake-o refused to answer….for whatever reason.
 
Flag Post

In my point of you i consider the feotus a life form, even tho it has no thinking or anything it is no reasons to kill them by having ( Abortion )

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:Per usual, jake-o refused to answer….for whatever reason.

The question was loaded. There are always homes ready for adoptable children. The fact is, that adoption is difficult in the US because the system that one must go through in order to adopt is extensive and difficult. If anything, that means that the system needs some reform, not that abortion is somehow legitimized.

 
Flag Post

The both of us agree the adoption system needs a reform, and the both of us agree that we want to lower the amount of abortions, and that this can be done through a better adoption system. However, that updated adoption system currently is not in place. So, the discussion of values is between those of the woman and those of the fetus.

 
Flag Post

Even a perfect adoption system would not offer a place for every child that is the result of an unwanted pregnancy.
And even with a perfect adoption system the woman would still have to go through the whole pregnancy and face all the unwanted consequences that comes with.


Originally posted by jhco50:
Originally posted by EPR89:

I think being worried about the career you have been working for very hard for a long time is a perfectly valid reason.

I disagree EPR. If she was that worried about her career she would have been much more careful. Her career was never on her mind and this is not a valid reason to kill a fetus. It would be like me killing the neighbor because he was hired to fill my job after I worked so hard to learn it.

No, it’s not. And many people here have explained that to you again and again. If you want to argue like that for you personally, fine. But as soon as you want your opinion to be what everyone should follow you need something better.
Sex is not just for making babies.


Originally posted by jhco50:

But as soon as the egg is fertilized it has become a human being (bean as my son used to say).

That is certainly true.

It is at that point a viable life and has the right to live.

This is certainly not true.

Why am I even telling you that? Practically everyone has done so on here, countless times. Again, if you think that way, fine. If you want this opinion to be reflected in laws, you need to find actual arguments for it. All you are doing is sharing your opinion and demanding it to be what laws should be based on.