PDA

View Full Version : Abortion II: The Reckoning Revenge! IN CINEMASCOPE!


RobQel-Droma
02-08-2008, 08:30 PM
I think this argument would get a lot more support if someone could offer a rational argument for why fetuses should be considered "beings". After that, we can begin having similarly rational discussion about what rights these "beings" have and how they relate to other beings, etc.

You asked for it.

(this was something I wrote some time ago, so I might as well use it here)

"The arguments [for abortion] are many: a fetus can't feel pain, so it's not immoral; a fetus actually isn't fully human yet, so it's not murder; women have the right to choose to abort if it would be hard to take care of the newborn.

To start with the first... If a person can't feel pain, does that give you the right to kill them? I thought that there was quite a few people who are Pro-Choice who also against the death penalty? But that's painless too, right?

However, logic aside... Dr. Collins, author of the medical teaching text Principles of Anesthesiology, argues that the unborn may experience pain as early as nine weeks, but certainly by 13 weeks. To come to the point, it's no exaggeration to say that abortion not only kills babies, it tortures babies.

As abortionist Dr. Warren Hern said, "The sensations of dismemberment flow through the forceps like an electric current" during a D & E abortion.

Secondly, what makes a fetus any less human? Is there any scientifically proven difference? Well, there are a few - four to be exact. Would you like to know what they are?

1. Environment
2. Development
3. Level of dependency
4. Size

Those are the only verifiable differences. Let's take them one at a time.

Environment:

Yes, there is a difference between a fetus and a child. One is inside the womb, and one is outside in the world. But why would location make any difference? Does the fetus magically "become human" as it makes it's way outside of the mother? Not that I know of. So, obviously, the location has nothing to do with being more human.

Development:

True, a fetus is less developed than anyone else. And an infant is less-developed than a child. A child is less-developed than an adult. So what? Do we judge how human someone is by how developed they are? By that logic, a retarded child is almost sub-human compared to an adult. (come to think about it, wouldn't that mean it would be ok to kill a retarded child?)

Some maintain that a fetus is not actually developed into a living organism, but how can you prove that? Although the unborn's humanity, as I have said, has nothing to do with it's level of development, it's rapid growth does point to its status as a complete, self-sustaining organism. In fact, prenatal development progresses so fast that by day 43, an unborn has a heart that is beating and brain wave activity we can measure on an electroencephalogram. Did any of you Pro-Choice people know that...

Level of dependency:

Again, fairly obvious. Would a teenager be less human because he/she is dependent on someone? Or would someone with a terminal disease that is fully dependent on medical equipment and/or medication to stay alive be less human?

Size:

I hope I don't have to explain this very much. Is Shaquel O'Neal any more human than the midget next door?

So, that pretty much brings me to the end of my argument. To talk about the last point, I will say this: women who abort had the choice to have sex with whoever it was, they had the choie to take the risk that the intercourse would produce a child, they had the choice to not use some kind of birth control....

And you want them to have the choice to commit murder? I'm not forcing my beliefs down someone's throat, since last time I checked, murder was a crime. So why should they have that choice? Please... there's this thing called adoption. If you are unable to take care of the child, then put it up for adoption. Seems a win-win for everyone, and people don't have to murder because a new baby inconveniences them.

That's pretty much all I have to say. Life is precious, and it shouldn't be sacrificed just because someone doesn't want to have to deal with a new baby."

No doubt that your generalization fits some measurable percentage of welfare recipients, but even you seem willing to concede that it doesn't apply to everyone. Perhaps we'd be better off spending our time trying to figure out how to make sure the people that legitimately need help get it rather than categorically vilifying welfare and its recipients?

Oops, am I sorry. I forgot that anything less of exact statistics pretty much means "total generalization" to you, and, as a matter of principle, should be ignored.

And yes, I think we should.

Is there proof when life begins now? What if my religious beliefs state life begins at birth. Then would my religious beliefs forced down others throats make it morally correct to have an abortion.

See what I stated above. It's not my religious beliefs, it's science. And logic. And just a little bit of "Thou Shalt Not Murder".

I actually believe those that can work should, but not everyone on the welfare rolls are ripping off the system. Some are not fortunate enough to have the ability to work and some are even children. So are you are saying we should allow every fetus to grow into a child and then allow those that parents do not have the means to feed the child to starve to death?

Does anyone understand something called "adoption"?

It isn't? For some reason I thought gay marriage and “family values” were important topics to the right.

They are. Or "family values" doesn't mean anything to you? We can't try and keep a moral society, otherwise it's judging those who don't want to follow morals/ethics?

Sounds a like a political “hot button” of judging others to me in order stir up the masses. Or are amendments to the Constitution common place now?

Got to admire the Left. They're just so understanding about accepting anyone and everyone.[/sarcasm]

Sorry about the sarcasm, but I really have a hard time with your statement. If you want to keep thinking that the Left is a bunch of golden tolerant do-gooders, fine, but.... somehow I don't see them abstaining from judging people either. Or haven't you heard any of their criticism/hatred/attacks against Bush and the Republicans lately?

I am not saying people cannot legally judge someone that comments a crime. I’m saying it is not my place to judge someone that may not live their life to the same code of conduct I do. People have different religious and moral beliefs, but society’s laws must be obeyed.

Amen. I'm glad at least one person doesn't think the extreme (i.e. people can do whatever they want, if it is in accordance with their religious/moral beliefs).

That said you are correct all the more reason for sex education in order to give people the tools needed to prevent preventable STDs.

Unfortunately, sex ed or not, people still do what they want.

mimartin
02-09-2008, 03:55 PM
Fair enough. Now, how exactly do you determine that point? Many believe that that moment is conception.Many also believe it happens at birth. Fact is there is no way to know because we cannot even prove a soul existence. That is what I meant by forcing my religious beliefs down peoples throats. If we avoid looking at this through religious eyes, I would go with brain activity to determine when the fetus becomes human. After all, you cannot feel pain without the brain interrupting those electrical impulses as such. Without that interruption what looks like pain could only be an involuntary reaction, even plants have such and I would not put a plant on the same level has a human life.
I'm guessing this kind of scrutiny is why many people don't like to be held up as role models. The difference between Bubba and Gingrich(?) is that one broke the law and abused his office, the other just acted like a callous jackass. I don find it ironic that someone as "smart" as Clinton couldn't have crafted a more believable story. I guess the blood really does leave the brain in situations like that. ;) I still fail to see the abuse of office on Clinton side. I guess the Republican Congress could not see it or he would not have served out his term. I did see someone that lied to the American public, but other Presidents have also lied and are still lying to us. The problem I see with Clinton is he lied under oath, which should be punishable and he was punished by being disbarred.
So, by that logic, telling someone to abstain would be even more invaluable b/c an ounce of prevention is worth more than a ton of cure. :)I’m all for teaching abstinence as it is the only 100% way to prevent unwanted pregnancies and STDs. Of course, it is also common sense, if you do not have sex you will not get pregnant. Therefore, it should not an entire course to teach abstinence. It can be taught with other forms of safe sex practices in case the hormone infected youth does not have the willpower or the patience not to practice abstinence. All I was taught was abstinence and the only thing that saved me was luck, because I was a hormone infected teen.

Achilles
02-09-2008, 04:19 PM
You asked for it.

(this was something I wrote some time ago, so I might as well use it here)

"The arguments [for abortion] are many: a fetus can't feel pain, so it's not immoral; a fetus actually isn't fully human yet, so it's not murder; women have the right to choose to abort if it would be hard to take care of the newborn.

To start with the first... If a person can't feel pain, does that give you the right to kill them?Not at all...when we're talking about people. In this case, we aren't: we're talking about fetuses and embryos. Reminder: the challenge was to provide a rational argument for fetuses should be considered people.

However, logic aside... Dr. Collins, author of the medical teaching text Principles of Anesthesiology, argues that the unborn may experience pain as early as nine weeks, but certainly by 13 weeks. To come to the point, it's no exaggeration to say that abortion not only kills babies, it tortures babies.Still waiting.

PS: 86% of abortions take place before week 13. I'm no expert and I can't find any stats to back up my educated guess, but I imagine that 2nd trimester abortions rarely have anything to do with "I decided that I don't want to be pregnant anymore". And most states already have laws stating that 3rd trimester abortions can only be performed if there is a health risk to the mother.

Secondly, what makes a fetus any less human? Is there any scientifically proven difference? Well, there are a few - four to be exact. Would you like to know what they are?

1. Environment
2. Development
3. Level of dependency
4. Size

Those are the only verifiable differences. Let's take them one at a time.

Environment:

Yes, there is a difference between a fetus and a child. One is inside the womb, and one is outside in the world. But why would location make any difference? Does the fetus magically "become human" as it makes it's way outside of the mother? Not that I know of. So, obviously, the location has nothing to do with being more human. I wasn't aware that we were arguing human vs. non-human. The challenge was to provide a rational argument for why fetuses should be considered people.

Development:

True, a fetus is less developed than anyone else. And an infant is less-developed than a child. A child is less-developed than an adult. So what? Do we judge how human someone is by how developed they are? By that logic, a retarded child is almost sub-human compared to an adult. (come to think about it, wouldn't that mean it would be ok to kill a retarded child?) If the fetus is "less-developed" to the extent that they don't have a brain or a heart? If someone doesn't have brain activity or a heartbeat, we generally consider them to be dead. I don't understand the logic behind the argument that it's somehow immoral to "kill" something that isn't alive.

But to your point, no doubt that the 14% of abortions that do take place outside of the first trimester are in fact killing something that is alive. I guess I would want to know that if this did take place, it did so for a very good reason (i.e. to save the life or the health of the mother, etc). I don't understand the logic behind the argument that once a fetus can be considered "alive", that fetus' life takes precedence over everything else.

Some maintain that a fetus is not actually developed into a living organism, but how can you prove that? Although the unborn's humanity, as I have said, has nothing to do with it's level of development, it's rapid growth does point to its status as a complete, self-sustaining organism. In fact, prenatal development progresses so fast that by day 43, an unborn has a heart that is beating and brain wave activity we can measure on an electroencephalogram. Did any of you Pro-Choice people know that... I'd be more than happy to take a look at any source you'd like to provide that shows this. I'm betting it'll be a Pro-Life website :)

Level of dependency:

Again, fairly obvious. Would a teenager be less human because he/she is dependent on someone? Or would someone with a terminal disease that is fully dependent on medical equipment and/or medication to stay alive be less human? ?

Size:

I hope I don't have to explain this very much. Is Shaquel O'Neal any more human than the midget next door? I'm afraid you might have to. I'm not sure how this is related to the topic of abortion, let alone a rational argument for why a fetus without any brain activity or a heartbeat should be considered a person.

So, that pretty much brings me to the end of my argument. To talk about the last point, I will say this: women who abort had the choice to have sex with whoever it was, they had the choie to take the risk that the intercourse would produce a child, they had the choice to not use some kind of birth control....That's the end? I'm still waiting for argument that you said you were going to provide :(

And you want them to have the choice to commit murder? I'm not forcing my beliefs down someone's throat, since last time I checked, murder was a crime. Yep, murdering people is generally considered to be a crime (obvious exceptions being self-defense, etc).

So why should they have that choice?During the first trimester, it isn't murder so the point doesn't apply. In later trimesters there is usually a health issue. So why shouldn't a woman have a choice as to whether or not she gets to live?

Please... there's this thing called adoption. If you are unable to take care of the child, then put it up for adoption. Seems a win-win for everyone, and people don't have to murder because a new baby inconveniences them.

That's pretty much all I have to say. Life is precious, and it shouldn't be sacrificed just because someone doesn't want to have to deal with a new baby." Are you prepared to stand behind the argument that this is the only reason for abortion?

Oops, am I sorry. I forgot that anything less of exact statistics pretty much means "total generalization" to you, and, as a matter of principle, should be ignored. Yes, I do consider generalizations to be generalizations. They have their place in discourse also, however I think it's wise to recognize them for what they are.

Totenkopf
02-09-2008, 04:50 PM
Many also believe it happens at birth. Fact is there is no way to know because we cannot even prove a soul existence. That is what I meant by forcing my religious beliefs down peoples throats. If we avoid looking at this through religious eyes, I would go with brain activity to determine when the fetus becomes human. After all, you cannot feel pain without the brain interrupting those electrical impulses as such. Without that interruption what looks like pain could only be an involuntary reaction, even plants have such and I would not put a plant on the same level has a human life.

Ok, when do you see the soul as "entering"? Also, at what arbitrary point do you support declaring a developing human "human" (it ain't no seahorse in there :D )?


I still fail to see the abuse of office on Clinton side. I guess the Republican Congress could not see it or he would not have served out his term. I did see someone that lied to the American public, but other Presidents have also lied and are still lying to us. The problem I see with Clinton is he lied under oath, which should be punishable and he was punished by being disbarred.

His handling of the whole thing was an abuse of office. Chief law enforcement officer of the land and he lies under oath as well as advising at least one other. I don't care that he lied about a liasson(s) w/an underling. He knew what kind of press he was dealing with since watergate, so he should have come clean and quickly tried to put it behind him. Instead, he got himself disgraced and disbarred. Yay, Bill!(sarcasm). Half of Congress impeached him and the other half may have been too vulnerable to corruption charges of their own to follow through. Makes you wonder about all those missing FBI files ala Craig Livingstone (the man to toxic for anyone to admit knowing.......yet somehow...).


I’m all for teaching abstinence as it is the only 100% way to prevent unwanted pregnancies and STDs. Of course, it is also common sense, if you do not have sex you will not get pregnant. Therefore, it should not an entire course to teach abstinence. It can be taught with other forms of safe sex practices in case the hormone infected youth does not have the willpower or the patience not to practice abstinence. All I was taught was abstinence and the only thing that saved me was luck, because I was a hormone infected teen.

We are/were all "hormone addled" as teens, but we're supposed to be higher order animals with minds and willpower. You will never completely (short of some kind of mind control, I suppose) eradicate the possibility that teens (hell, never mind adults) will not use their brains in this area. However, perhaps a healthy dose of shame and stigmatizing certain behaviors (but isn't that what liberals do with political correctness at the universirty level now anyway) would go further than "here's a condom and a few other devices in case you don't want to control yourself" does now. If I tell you something is bad, but give you the means to do an end run around it, should I be surprised when you take the 2nd option?

@achilles--PS: 86% of abortions take place before week 13. I'm no expert and I can't find any stats to back up my educated guess, but I imagine that 2nd trimester abortions rarely have anything to do with "I decided that I don't want to be pregnant anymore". And most states already have laws stating that 3rd trimester abortions can only be performed if there is a health risk to the mother.

[Quote=Rob]
Oops, am I sorry. I forgot that anything less of exact statistics pretty much means "total generalization" to you, and, as a matter of principle, should be ignored.

Yes, I do consider generalizations to be generalizations. They have their place in discourse also, however I think it's wise to recognize them for what they are.

My, what a convenient style of conterargument. :D Also, I'm sure you merely assume the states do their due diligence in assuring that this is so, no?

mimartin
02-09-2008, 06:33 PM
Ok, when do you see the soul as "entering"? Also, at what arbitrary point do you support declaring a developing human "human" (it ain't no seahorse in there :D )? I don’t know. I have been taught both ways in church so I don’t know. I would like to believe it enters at birth, but that is for personal reasons and is not grounded in religion or anything else. It comes from someone close to me having multiple stillbirths.
However, perhaps a healthy dose of shame and stigmatizing certain behaviors I believe there is already too much shame and stigmatizing associated with adolescents and young adults and that is why suicide is the third leading cause of death for ages 15 to 24 years in the U.S.
If I tell you something is bad, but give you the means to do an end run around it, should I be surprised when you take the 2nd option?


Why would we tell someone sex is bad? Why would they believe us about anything else if we openly lied to them?

Telling them honestly what can happen if they have sex, even protected sex, would be what I would do. Telling them that protected sex is not 100% foolproof and what can happen both with STDs and with unwanted pregnancy.

I was only given one option and I still made an end run around it. It is called youth and the belief that you are immortal. I was also told to just say no to alcohol and drugs. I guess, I wasn’t that bad I listened on one out of three.

Totenkopf
02-09-2008, 09:32 PM
I wouldn't say that it was (that's the "it feels so good part"), just that having it whenever, with whomever, whereever isn't automatically ok either (ie probably bad). Stigmatizing a behavior isn't necessarily the same as banishment, either. That's where all the 'splaining comes in Lucy. Seriously, just like when you punish a child for doing something stupid, you don't just hit them/yell at them and forget about it. You also have to explain to them why they are being punished and that it's not a repudiation of them as a person, but rather the behavior. Sort of like the love the sinner, hate the sin admonition. Frankly, only telling them about the fallibility of the mechanics of preventative sex is falling short of your responsibility. We aren't robots afterall (or I'd bet the suicide rate would be a LOT lower, barring someone altering our "programming" ;) ). Btw, which 1/3 did you listen to?

Lest I forget, saying "hey, I'm only young" is no more convincing an excuse than "I was only following orders".

RobQel-Droma
02-09-2008, 11:40 PM
Not at all...when we're talking about people. In this case, we aren't: we're talking about fetuses and embryos. Reminder: the challenge was to provide a rational argument for fetuses should be considered people.

This was intended as a response against quite a few arguments used by Pro-Choice people, so it might not all be relevant.

PS: 86% of abortions take place before week 13. I'm no expert and I can't find any stats to back up my educated guess, but I imagine that 2nd trimester abortions rarely have anything to do with "I decided that I don't want to be pregnant anymore".

No doubt that your generalization fits some measurable percentage of abortions, but even you seem willing to concede that it....

PS: Oh, and as I stated in my argument, and also by the site I will reference below, an unborn has a beating heart and brain-wave activity by day 49. Week 13 would be day 91....

And most states already have laws stating that 3rd trimester abortions can only be performed if there is a health risk to the mother.

Good for them. ;)

I wasn't aware that we were arguing human vs. non-human. The challenge was to provide a rational argument for why fetuses should be considered people.

Well.... I dunno.... I just usually consider a human being a "person''....

If the fetus is "less-developed" to the extent that they don't have a brain or a heart? If someone doesn't have brain activity or a heartbeat, we generally consider them to be dead. I don't understand the logic behind the argument that it's somehow immoral to "kill" something that isn't alive.

As I say below, you have no way of deciding whether there is life in the fetus or not. Neither do I. However, I do believe that most of what I referred to in my argument was when a fetus had brain-wave activity and a heartbeat.

I don't understand the logic behind the argument that once a fetus can be considered "alive", that fetus' life takes precedence over everything else.

?

I would think that someone's life would be very important....

I'd be more than happy to take a look at any source you'd like to provide that shows this. I'm betting it'll be a Pro-Life website :)

Why yes, I suppose you could call it that. :xp: Way to try and discredit my source before I even show it.

Of course, it could just be that someone who had this information would agree with the Pro-Life side of things after seeing it....

Clicky (http://www.saskprolife.com/cgi-bin/prolife.cgi?area=thesis)

Not my only source, but many of the info I used is presented there as well, so its a good summary.

I'm afraid you might have to. I'm not sure how this is related to the topic of abortion, let alone a rational argument for why a fetus without any brain activity or a heartbeat should be considered a person.

First of all, I was never trying to say that a fetus without brain activity or a heartbeat should be considered a person. Secondly, remember that I wrote this for something else, and so some points I touch on may not quite be relevant to the topic at hand.

Thirdly, you have no scientific evidence that a fetus does not have life at that moment, and I have no scientific evidence that it does. I would think such a scientifically minded person as yourself would realize that, and that you cannot hope to prove something like that. So, you have no rational argument that it shouldn't be considered a person, either.

That's the end? I'm still waiting for argument that you said you were going to provide :(

Thanks for the little jab, but I believe I fully provided an argument.

During the first trimester, it isn't murder so the point doesn't apply. In later trimesters there is usually a health issue. So why shouldn't a woman have a choice as to whether or not she gets to live?

You say this as if every pregnant woman in "later trimesters" is likely to drop dead from the baby.

Are you prepared to stand behind the argument that this is the only reason for abortion?

I believe that I was clear that my argument was why abortion was wrong; not about the reasons for it.

Yes, I do consider generalizations to be generalizations. They have their place in discourse also, however I think it's wise to recognize them for what they are.

"...and I can't find any stats to back up my educated guess..."

I'll be ignoring that part of your post, then...

Thanks for your response.

If pain is the determining factor and by this logic a cow can feel pain. Am I a participant in murder because I ate a hamburger tonight? Brain function would be a more persuasive argument to when life begins in my opinion. As a religious person when the soul enters the body would as be a determining factor for me.

I believe it is fairly clear that my argument was not entirely based on the pain factor. You seemed to have singled this out but ignored the rest.

Yes, I do and I admire anyone that adopts a child, but not all children even get a chance at adoption.

So we should kill those who don't? I don't consider it my place to decide that a child would not get the chance to live because I consider life to be a worse option.

You also have to admire the Right, they get so far by just sprouting rhetoric that only divides the country. The same politician preaching “family values” leaves his wife while she is undergoing cancer treatments for his mistress, but Bill Clinton is the bad guy. Another talks about “family values” yet invest in a porn movie. The right is pretty accepting too, but only to those on the right.

And the Left is any different? My point was that simply because of one's political affiliation, it does not make them any better of a person. You seemed to think that the Left were just great people while the Right was a bunch of dirty hypocrites... I was trying to persuade you otherwise.

And yes, Bill Clinton (Mr. I did not have sex with that woman and I lied about it) is the bad guy as well as the other politician you referred to. I never said that the Right was infallible and perfect, just that the Left (in fact, neither side) was even close.

mimartin
02-10-2008, 12:34 AM
I believe it is fairly clear that my argument was not entirely based on the pain factor. You seemed to have singled this out but ignored the rest. Pain was the only part of your argument that I considered to have any scientific basics. If the fetus could feel pain (not involuntary muscle response) that would give merit to brain function and would no longer require me to force my religious beliefs down someone else throats to say early term abortions should be illegal.

So I will go back to that post and answer your question.

Secondly, what makes a fetus any less human?
A fetus is not human for the same reason a corpse is no longer human, lack of brain function.

So we should kill those who don't? I don't consider it my place to decide that a child would not get the chance to live because I consider life to be a worse option. We should not kill children, I would not even kill a fetus because of my beliefs. However, a fetus is not a child. Like I said early when we can grow the fetus outside the woman womb to full term then I would be all for outlawing all abortions. Until then I feel I would be forcing my religious beliefs and morals down someone’s throat by outlawing it.

Second, I will state it again not all unwanted children are adopted now. In what shape will these unwanted children from unwanted pregnancy be in? How are we going to stop their mothers from drinking, smoking, doing drugs and doing all the other prenatal care? Are we going to hire baby police to monitor them? How are we going to force these parents to give the child up for adoption and not either abuse it or kill it after it is born?

And the Left is any different? My point was that simply because of one's political affiliation, it does not make them any better of a person. You seemed to think that the Left were just great people while the Right was a bunch of dirty hypocrites... I was trying to persuade you otherwise.

And yes, Bill Clinton (Mr. I did not have sex with that woman and I lied about it) is the bad guy as well as the other politician you referred to. I never said that the Right was infallible and perfect, just that the Left (in fact, neither side) was even close.
Never said the left was any different other than they are not running every election on “family values.” That is where the term hypocrites come from in my mind.

There are bad people and good people on both sides. Someone can be of a Religious mind on either side. Some people can be on the Right because of their religious beliefs and some can be on the Left because of their religious beliefs.

One thing I would like to ask, how did Bill Clinton’s lie affect the country? Did one person die because of that lie? I’ve lied and I have lied about having sex. I actually thought that is what a gentleman did. Have any of you heard your not suppose to “kiss and tell.” :D

Achilles
02-10-2008, 12:34 AM
This was intended as a response against quite a few arguments used by Pro-Choice people, so it might not all be relevant. It seems that we agree that it isn't.

No doubt that your generalization fits some measurable percentage of abortions, but even you seem willing to concede that it....Generalization? I don't believe I generalized at all. I think I was quite explicit that I was making an assumption about 2nd trimester abortions.

PS: Oh, and as I stated in my argument, and also by the site I will reference below, an unborn has a beating heart and brain-wave activity by day 49. Week 13 would be day 91.... Funny. I predicted that it would be a pro-life web site and you delivered. Did you have a legitimate source (you know, the kind that cite their work, etc) that I can look at?

Well.... I dunno.... I just usually consider a human being a "person''....I am not aware of any human women that have ever carried a non-human fetus. The question isn't whether or not it's a human fetus vs. a non-human fetus but a living thing vs a non-living thing.

As I say below, you have no way of deciding whether there is life in the fetus or not. Neither do I. However, I do believe that most of what I referred to in my argument was when a fetus had brain-wave activity and a heartbeat.Right, compliments of your clearly biased, non-cited pro-life resource. We can dance around this as long as you'd like but is seems pretty clear to me that something without vital signs shouldn't be considered alive. If you'd like to punch holes in that reasoning, then I'd be more than happy to listen to whatever you have to say.

?

I would think that someone's life would be very important.... Agreed. So what if we're dealing with a situation where Life A is an unborn fetus and Life B is a full grown mother whose health/life is endangered by complications with the pregancy? I tend to favor the Life B.

Why yes, I suppose you could call it that. :xp: Way to try and discredit my source before I even show it.Or maybe I just know you better than you think I do. ;)

Of course, it could just be that someone who had this information would agree with the Pro-Life side of things after seeing it....

[url=http://www.saskprolife.com/cgi-bin/prolife.cgi?area=thesis]Clicky[/url

Not my only source, but many of the info I used is presented there as well, so its a good summary. Sorry, but it's hard for me to take this source seriously. Since you stated you have other sources, please send them along so that I can see what they have to say. I'm perfectly willing to consider that your points are valid, but propaganda, rhetoric, and hand-waving just aren't going to do it for me.

First of all, I was never trying to say that a fetus without brain activity or a heartbeat should be considered a person. Secondly, remember that I wrote this for something else, and so some points I touch on may not quite be relevant to the topic at hand. Well then I'm confused as to why you presumed that you were going to lay a smack down and then proceeded to offer points not related to the discussion. :confused:

The good news is that we seem to agree that an embryo or a fetus without brain activity or a heartbeat should not be considered "a person". Setting aside for a moment the fact that you and I have differing sources for when exactly this is, does this mean that you would be ok with abortions that take place up to 49 days? Why or why not?

Thirdly, you have no scientific evidence that a fetus does not have life at that moment, and I have no scientific evidence that it does. I would think such a scientifically minded person as yourself would realize that, and that you cannot hope to prove something like that. So, you have no rational argument that it shouldn't be considered a person, either. I've stated it before and I'll state it again: we consider things without a heart beat or brain activity to be "not alive". Doesn't matter to me if the organism in question is a developing embryo, a twenty-something construction worker that had a really bad OTJ accident, or an elderly person who expired peacefully in their sleep after a full life. Not alive is not alive.

Thanks for the little jab, but I believe I fully provided an argument.Possibly, but not the one you said you were going to provide (the one about why an embryo or a still-developing fetus should be considered "a person").

You say this as if every pregnant woman in "later trimesters" is likely to drop dead from the baby.Were you going to answer the question, or were you hoping that I wouldn't notice that you were trying to change the subject so that you wouldn't have to? I'll address your point (again) after you've addressed mine.

I believe that I was clear that my argument was why abortion was wrong; not about the reasons for it.Well then why did you include that remark? Can I safely assume that this means that you are not prepared to stand behind the argument that this is the only reason that women have abortions?

"...and I can't find any stats to back up my educated guess..."

I'll be ignoring that part of your post, then... You're free to do whatever you'd like, however I'll point out once more that there's a difference between a generalization ("all women have abortions because they don't want to be a mommy"), and an assumption ("it stands to reason that since women that don't want to be mommies would get the abortion in the first trimester, that most second trimester abortions occur for some other reason")

Thanks for your response. You too. Take care.

oops...have to throw my 2 cents in on this one:

You seemed to think that the Left were just great people while the Right was a bunch of dirty hypocrites... This is the same "Right" that wants to be permitted to tell everyone how to live and gets really upset when the people they want to lord over say "no thanks". I'm sure that liberal politicians make mistakes too and maybe even at the same rate/magnitude as conservatives. What they aren't burdened with though, is the larger-than-life hypocrisy that the Right seems to be unable to break away from.

Totenkopf
02-10-2008, 01:33 AM
This is the same "Right" that wants to be permitted to tell everyone how to live and gets really upset when the people they want to lord over say "no thanks". I'm sure that liberal politicians make mistakes too and maybe even at the same rate/magnitude as conservatives. What they aren't burdened with though, is the larger-than-life hypocrisy that the Right seems to be unable to break away from.

Wow, talk about one's capacity for self delusion. :D Your precious lefty hypocrites are always telling the rest of us to how to live, while they go off to do as they please. They are no less burdened by arrogance than the righties you fear so rabidly. Still, I'm not surprised you think this way.

RobQel-Droma
02-10-2008, 02:18 AM
Generalization? I don't believe I generalized at all. I think I was quite explicit that I was making an assumption about 2nd trimester abortions.

Ah. So, what if I said I was making an assumption about mother's reasons for abortions as well, and not a generalization at all....? Or are you simply disputing the fact that you made a remark about the frequency of 2nd trimester abortions with no source?

I'm just wondering about the hypocrisy behind your statements....

Funny. I predicted that it would be a pro-life web site and you delivered. Did you have a legitimate source (you know, the kind that cite their work, etc) that I can look at?

That's right, I remember this too. Any website that takes a specific stand on something (that you disagree with) you automatically ignore as not being reliable.

I'm very sorry about that.

But I'll humor you.... (just a thought, what would you consider reliable? I'm sure that you would give me a Pro-Choice website in a heartbeat....)

http://www.brainmind.com/FetalBrainDevelopment.html
http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/genpsyfetaldev.html
http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment1.php
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm

Just a bit about fetal development. Hope you consider these sources trustworthy enough.... :xp:

I am not aware of any human women that have ever carried a non-human fetus. The question isn't whether or not it's a human fetus vs. a non-human fetus but a living thing vs a non-living thing.

Funny, I don't recall you using the word "living". I think I responded to you using the word "people" in association with "human". And I believe that I addressed the "living" problem in my argument, and in later responses.

Right, compliments of your clearly biased, non-cited pro-life resource.

Nice spin.

And yet, you wanted me, I believe, in our earlier tangle over Iraq, to go watch "No End in Sight".... I'm sure there was no bias by the producer there.... :xp:

Seriously, if you want to keep thinking that somehow my sources are biased simply because of their side (i.e. Pro-Life), I don't see anything else to say. Obviously you find no such fault with your sources (whatever there may be) simply because of what stance they take on issues.

Next time we debate, I guess, I will ignore all sources you provide if they happen to state that they support the stance you might be taking at the time.

And just a thought.... how about you go and verify the material, instead of just sitting there and calling it unreliable? Of course, I guess it would make it easier to wiggle out of answering to evidence presented by such a source because you can simply call it biased, and therefore, have no obligation to reply.... but certainly you wouldn't do something like that.

We can dance around this as long as you'd like but is seems pretty clear to me that something without vital signs shouldn't be considered alive. If you'd like to punch holes in that reasoning, then I'd be more than happy to listen to whatever you have to say.

I concede your point. I still don't see how that changes to what I've said about brain activity and heartbeats appearing in "day 49"....

Agreed. So what if we're dealing with a situation where Life A is an unborn fetus and Life B is a full grown mother whose health/life is endangered by complications with the pregancy? I tend to favor the Life B.

That would certainly be a difficult choice, and I see your point.

But I didn't know that we were dealing with examples such as these that have these other factors in with them. As I recall, the discussion was simply about abortion, not about abortion in exceptional cases.

Sorry, but it's hard for me to take this source seriously. Since you stated you have other sources, please send them along so that I can see what they have to say.

Done. :)

I'm perfectly willing to consider that your points are valid, but propaganda, rhetoric, and hand-waving just aren't going to do it for me.

*choke*

Erm..... "rhetoric, and hand-waving"?

You didn't actually check the site out, did you?

Well then I'm confused as to why you presumed that you were going to lay a smack down and then proceeded to offer points not related to the discussion. :confused:

I don't know how many times I've said this, but you don't seem to get it.

"This was intended as a response against quite a few arguments used by Pro-Choice people, so it might not all be relevant."

"...this was something I wrote some time ago..."

This is the last time I will offer any explanation on this topic. I wrote this argument some time ago (so I basically copied and pasted it into my post here), and, at the time, I was arguing against some varied reasons given for why abortion was fine.

So.... rather than going through and trying to trim out all irrelevance, I simply presented it mostly as I had originally written it. I hope this clears up your confusion...

The good news is that we seem to agree that an embryo or a fetus without brain activity or a heartbeat should not be considered "a person". Setting aside for a moment the fact that you and I have differing sources for when exactly this is, does this mean that you would be ok with abortions that take place up to 49 days? Why or why not?

It depends on a variety of factors, so I can't really say "yes" or "no" definitively. Not trying to back out of answering (there would be no point). I guess that I would suppose that, if there was danger to the mother, then that would be a good reason for abortion at that time. However, no one really knows at which point life begins, so, otherwise, without such a factor.... I wouldn't consider it my decision to abort a baby.

I've stated it before and I'll state it again: we consider things without a heart beat or brain activity to be "not alive". Doesn't matter to me if the organism in question is a developing embryo, a twenty-something construction worker that had a really bad OTJ accident, or an elderly person who expired peacefully in their sleep after a full life. Not alive is not alive.

Everything you say here I agree with.

Possibly, but not the one you said you were going to provide (the one about why an embryo or a still-developing fetus should be considered "a person").

Did you happen to read any of my argument, or just dismiss it off-hand?

Were you going to answer the question, or were you hoping that I wouldn't notice that you were trying to change the subject so that you wouldn't have to? I'll address your point (again) after you've addressed mine.

You're one to talk :p, but I was not sidestepping the question. I find it difficult to answer your question when I am backed into a corner: if I say "no", I could have no feelings for the poor mother who could die, and if I say "yes", well, why am I not pro-Choice?

If the mother is in danger of losing her life, and there is no other way, then that might be what you would have to do. As I said, however, you asked the question as if all child-bearing women's lives were endangered by carrying a baby.

Well then why did you include that remark? Can I safely assume that this means that you are not prepared to stand behind the argument that this is the only reason that women have abortions?

Er, no.... I realize that there are always different reasons for abortions... but, although I don't know exact statistics, I would guess that most abortions are "convenience" abortions (or at least abortions that were not "mother in danger", or whatever other reasons could be used).

You're free to do whatever you'd like, however I'll point out once more that there's a difference between a generalization ("all women have abortions because they don't want to be a mommy"), and an assumption ("it stands to reason that since women that don't want to be mommies would get the abortion in the first trimester, that most second trimester abortions occur for some other reason")

Sure, that sounds reasonable.

Except for the fact that I never said "all women have abortions because they don't want to be a mommy". I believe I merely made a comment about a common reason for abortion.

This is the same "Right" that wants to be permitted to tell everyone how to live and gets really upset when the people they want to lord over say "no thanks". I'm sure that liberal politicians make mistakes too and maybe even at the same rate/magnitude as conservatives. What they aren't burdened with though, is the larger-than-life hypocrisy that the Right seems to be unable to break away from.

The Right aren't the only ones who are hypocrites in some of their beliefs, my friend. Again, I never said that the Right wasn't hypocritical in some beliefs, just that the Left was about equal in that respect.

Thanks again, and goodnight. (wow, my replies to you keep getting longer and longer... this is what I hate about debating ;) )

Pain was the only part of your argument that I considered to have any scientific basics. If the fetus could feel pain (not involuntary muscle response) that would give merit to brain function and would no longer require me to force my religious beliefs down someone else throats to say early term abortions should be illegal.

1. A fetus can feel pain....
2. What was unscientific about my post? Do you dispute anything that I said?

A fetus is not human for the same reason a corpse is no longer human, lack of brain function.

:confused: "...by day 43, the unborn entity has a heart that is beating and brain wave activity we can measure on an electroencephalogram..."

We should not kill children, I would not even kill a fetus because of my beliefs. However, a fetus is not a child. Like I said early when we can grow the fetus outside the woman womb to full term then I would be all for outlawing all abortions. Until then I feel I would be forcing my religious beliefs and morals down someone’s throat by outlawing it.

Which is why I posted my argument as for why abortion is killing a fetus can be considered murder.

You didn't seem to like it, though, for reasons that you did not explain...

Second, I will state it again not all unwanted children are adopted now. In what shape will these unwanted children from unwanted pregnancy be in? How are we going to stop their mothers from drinking, smoking, doing drugs and doing all the other prenatal care? Are we going to hire baby police to monitor them? How are we going to force these parents to give the child up for adoption and not either abuse it or kill it after it is born?

And I will state again, I'm not sure how this hypothetical case gives anyone the right to decide if a fetus lives or dies.

And the fact is, we can't do anything you talked about, so... I'm not sure what your point is.

Never said the left was any different other than they are not running every election on “family values.” That is where the term hypocrites come from in my mind.

As I told Achilles, the Left can be pretty hypocritical too.

There are bad people and good people on both sides. Someone can be of a Religious mind on either side. Some people can be on the Right because of their religious beliefs and some can be on the Left because of their religious beliefs.

Which is what I have been trying to say.

One thing I would like to ask, how did Bill Clinton’s lie affect the country? Did one person die because of that lie?

How did "the same politician preaching “family values” that leaft his wife while she is undergoing cancer treatments for his mistress" affect the country? Did one person die because of that?

How did this unknown character who "talks about “family values” yet invest in a porn movie" affect the country? Did one person die because of that hypocrisy?

I’ve lied and I have lied about having sex. I actually thought that is what a gentleman did.

:confused: A gentleman has an affair and then lies about it under oath?

Thanks for your response as well.

mimartin
02-10-2008, 03:25 AM
1. A fetus can feel pain....
A fetus cannot feel pain until it has brain activity.

You are saying it has brain activity at 43 days. I am not saying I agree with that because the only place I’ve been unable to find that short a time period is Anti-Choice websites.

The second source you listed above said that brain waves are detectable at the beginning of the second trimester 13 to 16 weeks. That would be 91 days at the earliest. Doctors cannot even agree when brain wave activity starts. So is it 43 days or twice that at 91 days?

You didn't seem to like it, though, for reasons that you did not explain... I had no feelings whatsoever about it. I didn’t like it, but I also did not dislike it. I just stated my opinion and the law of today that it is not murder.

And I will state again, I'm not sure how this hypothetical case gives anyone the right to decide if a fetus lives or dies. LOL Hypothetical case. It is in the woman’s body. You are forcing her to carry it to term and that is hypothetical. She has the power to abort the fetus no matter the law or our opinion. There were abortions in this country before Roe vs. Wade you know and there will continue to be them even if it is ever overturned. Oh and there are ways to cause a miscarriage just as there are ways to help prevent one. You ever held a baby in your arms after the mother was stupid enough to take diet pills during her pregnancy. I have.
How did "the same politician preaching “family values” that leaft his wife while she is undergoing cancer treatments for his mistress" affect the country? Did one person die because of that? It didn’t. I was talking about another Republican President (that I voted for once, but it did cure me from voting that way again for the rest of my life) who lied to the American people and did cost American lives.

:confused: A gentleman has an affair and then lies about it under oath?A gentleman does not have an affair.

That said, yes, I would lie even under oath, because it is nobodies business about my sex life.

Totenkopf
02-10-2008, 04:31 AM
That said, yes, I would lie even under oath, because it is nobodies business about my sex life.

Why lie, just cop the 5th. That way they can't hang you on perjury. ;) Not that I'm accusing you of anything (b/c I'm NOT in this case), but I'd be willing to bet that NAMBLA has the same attitude. :xp: Also, I was under the impression that not bragging about such a relationship to others was the gentlemanly thing to do.

Achilles
02-10-2008, 04:40 AM
Ah. So, what if I said I was making an assumption about mother's reasons for abortions as well, and not a generalization at all....? Or are you simply disputing the fact that you made a remark about the frequency of 2nd trimester abortions with no source? Here, let's see if this helps. "Generalizing" is when someone makes a statement which may or may not apply to a sample but applies it to the population. For instance, when you made this generalization about welfare recipients in post 14:

"That's primarily because me (and others) don't believe in giving lazy people money so they don't have to work."

Or when you made this generalization about women that have abortions:

"Life is precious, and it shouldn't be sacrificed just because someone doesn't want to have to deal with a new baby."

Let's compare that to what I said:

"I'm no expert and I can't find any stats to back up my educated guess, but I imagine that 2nd trimester abortions rarely have anything to do with 'I decided that I don't want to be pregnant anymore'."

Hopefully, you can see the difference.

To your point, no doubt at all in my mind that a significant (dare I venture to say "majority") of abortions that take place in the first trimester are in response to an unplanned pregnancy. I won't dispute that at all. What I won't do is haphazardly posit that all abortions are done for this reason as you have. It's probably safe for you to assume that this is the case, but unwise for you to generalize all women that have abortions in this manner.

I'm just wondering about the hypocrisy behind your statements.... Feel free to point out any hypocritical statements that you can find. I'm always happy to be educated by my peers.

That's right, I remember this too. Any website that takes a specific stand on something (that you disagree with) you automatically ignore as not being reliable.Any website that makes statements that aren't backed up with sources are considered to be unreliable. After more than a decade in the higher education system, I have this funny thing about not accepting things that appear to be made up.

I'm very sorry about that. Apology accepted. :)

But I'll humor you.... (just a thought, what would you consider reliable? I'm sure that you would give me a Pro-Choice website in a heartbeat....) That's an interesting assumption to make. It saddens me to hear that you think I'm that stupid, but you are entitled to your opinion. If nothing else, I appreciate the honesty.

http://www.brainmind.com/FetalBrainDevelopment.html"In fact, as early as the 9th week of gestation the fetus is able to spontaneously move the extremities, head, and trunk (de Vries, Visser, & Prechtl, 1985). It has also been suggested that the near term fetus may be endowed with some degree of cognitive capability (e.g., Hepper & Shahidullah, 1994; Kisilevsky, Fearson & Muir, 1998)."

The first statement is only cursorily related to the second one. Patients that are considered "brain dead" have also been known to exhibit spontaneous movement in their extremities. Furthermore you'll notice that the second sentence is very, very conditional ("suggested", "may", "some"). This is a step in the right direction, but it's hardly definitive. Not that it should be dismissed outright, but neither should it be accepted either. I'd recommend placing that in the "hmmm, isn't that interesting" column.

http://webspace.ship.edu/cgboer/genpsyfetaldev.htmlBig step backwards. The first source was well cited. This is not.

If you go to the link he provided, I think you'll find a handful of interesting differences. I'll point out one of them here:

Your Source: "In Week 3 we see the formation of the heart, the beginning development of the brain and spinal cord, and the beginning of the gastrointestinal tract."

His Source: "The brain, spinal cord, and heart begin to develop, The gastrointestinal tract begins to develop"

Your source says the heart develops in week three. The National Institute of Health says the heart begins to develop by week three. Big difference. This could be a simply editorial mistake in his haste to get this site published for his students, it could be that he's biased and has an agenda, or it may be that his site was hax0red by l33t pro-life cyber terrorists. Either way, the source has bad info.

PS: NIH says, "Week 20: Fetal heartbeat can be heard with a stethoscope". For those of you watching at home, the 20th week is approximately 2/3 of the way through the 2nd trimester.

http://www.pregnancy.org/pregnancy/fetaldevelopment1.phpInterestingly, this site seems to have different numbers altogether.

"Week Five: First heartbeats begin - If you have an early ultrasound you may not be able to recognize this tiny being as a baby, but there is no mistaking what it feels like seeing your child's heartbeat on that screen. That rhythmic beat is echoed in your own heart."

Aw, shucks. Clearly this kind of dewy-eyed talk is the hallmark of any academia-class research source. It says that you can hear the heartbeat in week 13. Your previous source said week 3. So is it week 3, week 5, or week 13? While you're figuring that out, I'm going to stick with the NIH numbers.

PS: While this site is not explicitly pro-life, it is biased. Note the banner at the top of the page showing the two women comparing baby-bumps, making it clear that this is site for pregnant women. Also, the soppy sentimental language that I pointed out earlier (and is present throughout) makes it pretty clear that they are not making any attempt to objectively share information.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htmHa! This is the site that your 2nd source referenced (and then promptly made up his own info anyway). As I've already pointed out, this site offers week 20 for a heartbeat. Did you even read these sites before posting them? I can't imagine that you would have missed this. Perhaps you thought I wouldn't click on them?

In summary, of the 5 sources that you've now provided, only one of them supports your earlier argument. As I have already pointed out, even that support is shaky at best. As always though, if you have other sites that you'd like for me to read, just provide the links and I'll be happy to take a look.

Just a bit about fetal development. Hope you consider these sources trustworthy enough.... :xp: Yes, two of them were quite good. Unfortunately, neither one really supported your argument.

Funny, I don't recall you using the word "living". I think I responded to you using the word "people" in association with "human". And I believe that I addressed the "living" problem in my argument, and in later responses. You just quoted me using the word "living". What is your point?

Nice spin. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...

And yet, you wanted me, I believe, in our earlier tangle over Iraq, to go watch "No End in Sight".... I'm sure there was no bias by the producer there.... :xp: Have you seen it? Didn't I offer to pay for movie tickets for you and your parents so that you could actually, I don't know, see it before you determined it was bunk? Who's open-minded now?

FWIW, I actually read your sites before I determine whether or not they are biased.

Seriously, if you want to keep thinking that somehow my sources are biased simply because of their side (i.e. Pro-Life), I don't see anything else to say. Obviously you find no such fault with your sources (whatever there may be) simply because of what stance they take on issues. Biased = having a side, so yes, if your source is taking a side, I will consider it biased.

Next time we debate, I guess, I will ignore all sources you provide if they happen to state that they support the stance you might be taking at the time. You're free to do whatever you'd like, but this doesn't sound like a grown-up exchange of ideas and information any more. You apparently feel more comfortable assigning labels to me because I'm not taken in by invented "facts" and figures than you do objectively examining your own arguments before you make them. Not much I can do about that.

And just a thought.... how about you go and verify the material, instead of just sitting there and calling it unreliable? Apparently, you've been assuming all this time that I don't. Heh.

Tell me, how am I supposed to determine if something is unreliable without first looking at it. Sounds impossible to me.

Of course, I guess it would make it easier to wiggle out of answering to evidence presented by such a source because you can simply call it biased, and therefore, have no obligation to reply.... but certainly you wouldn't do something like that.Here's how it works:

You make an argument.
I ask for supporting evidence (you can always avoid this step by providing it in step 1, fyi).
You provide a source that is unreliable (see post 39)
I point out that it is unreliable and ask for another one
Repeat steps 3 and 4 until you actually provide a reliable source that supports your argument or until one of us gives up and abandons the thread.

If you don't provide a reliable source, that isn't my fault. Pointing out that your source is unreliable is not "wiggling". But if you would like to present a counter-argument for why your sources should be considered reliable, I'm more than willing to hear you out. Perhaps we can start with your last post where two of your links were essentially the same material and all of them had differing time lines for fetal heart development.

I concede your point. I still don't see how that changes to what I've said about brain activity and heartbeats appearing in "day 49".... Well since "vital signs" include heartbeat and brain activity, I assumed that it would be obvious. My apologies for using terms that you are not familiar with.

That would certainly be a difficult choice, and I see your point.

But I didn't know that we were dealing with examples such as these that have these other factors in with them. As I recall, the discussion was simply about abortion, not about abortion in exceptional cases. I appreciate you being willing to consider other points on this one. :)

Just to clarify, anti-abortionist want to make all abortions illegal. They don't care about circumstances such as health, life or death, pregnancy as a result of rape, etc. Abortion = bad = illegal. No more questions.

pro-abortionists point out that there will always be circumstances in which abortion might not only be ok, but necessary. Therefore it should not be illegal. Furthermore, they resent the idea that the government should be able to determine whether or not a woman should be pregnant.

Any of the reasonable demands that anti-abortionist could ask for (3rd trimester abortions only legal if approved by a physician and related to mother's health, etc) have already been in place for years. In other words, anti-abortionist don't care about "exceptional cases". They see abortion as a black or white issue. I'm merely pointing out that it is not.

*choke*

Erm..... "rhetoric, and hand-waving"?

You didn't actually check the site out, did you?The comment wasn't directed at your source alone ;)

And yes, I did look at the site. It made a lot of assertions that were not supported by evidence and made arguments that it arbitrarily decided were "sound" without providing any explanation for why a reasonable person should agree with them.

I don't know how many times I've said this, but you don't seem to get it.
<snip> I'm confused because you said you were going to do something, then you didn't do it, and now you appear to be saying that you never said you were going to do it even though we have it in print that you did.

Me: I think this argument would get a lot more support if someone could offer a rational argument for why fetuses should be considered "beings".
You: (quoting the comment above) You asked for it.

You've yet to provide this argument. You've admitted that the argument that you did provide was for why you think abortion is wrong. Hopefully this helps to explain why I'm still waiting for this "You asked for it" argument born from the heavens and carried down to LucasForums on the wings of angels that you implied that I was going to get to read. If you don't intend on providing it, please let me know so that I can begin the grieving process. Thanks.

It depends on a variety of factors, so I can't really say "yes" or "no" definitively. Not trying to back out of answering (there would be no point). I guess that I would suppose that, if there was danger to the mother, then that would be a good reason for abortion at that time. However, no one really knows at which point life begins, so, otherwise, without such a factor.... I wouldn't consider it my decision to abort a baby. Well said. You realize that this is not what "pro-life" people believe, right? They absolutely want it to be 100% their decision - and they don't care about health issues. Which side do you want to be on?

Everything you say here I agree with. Ok. Then we seem to agree that a fetus attains personhood when it has a heartbeat and brain activity. There is still some dispute over whether this is 49 days (your argument) or 20 weeks (my source). Therefore it isn't "murder" to abort a fetus before this threshold is met. Furthermore, I'm willing to wager that we would also both wholeheartedly agree that abortions should only take place after this threshold if there is a very good reason to do so.

Did you happen to read any of my argument, or just dismiss it off-hand? Considering that I painstakingly responded to each of your points (just like I do every other post I reply to), I don't see how you can even ask that.

You're one to talk :p, but I was not sidestepping the question. I find it difficult to answer your question when I am backed into a corner: if I say "no", I could have no feelings for the poor mother who could die, and if I say "yes", well, why am I not pro-Choice? Sorry to hear that logical conclusions cause you stress. You're right though, you did paint yourself into one heck of a corner. I don't think pushing the dialog any further is going to accomplish much of anything, so I'll leave the last word to you. Please do take some time to consider the implications of what you just said here.

If the mother is in danger of losing her life, and there is no other way, then that might be what you would have to do. As I said, however, you asked the question as if all child-bearing women's lives were endangered by carrying a baby.Not quite. We were specifically discussing late-term abortions. As I have already pointed out, most states have laws making late term abortion illegal unless there is a health risk to the mother. Therefore, yes, for the specific type of abortion we were discussing, a woman's health is in danger. Now you've answered my question and I believe I've addressed your point.

Er, no.... I realize that there are always different reasons for abortions... but, although I don't know exact statistics, I would guess that most abortions are "convenience" abortions (or at least abortions that were not "mother in danger", or whatever other reasons could be used). Right, but considering that 86% of abortions take place before 13 weeks (well before the 20 week threshold generally accepted), I don't see why that's a big deal. If the fetus has vital signs at 20 weeks but is aborted before that, why all the drama?

Sure, that sounds reasonable.

Except for the fact that I never said "all women have abortions because they don't want to be a mommy". I believe I merely made a comment about a common reason for abortion. I have no doubt that this is probably how you wanted your comment come across.

The Right aren't the only ones who are hypocrites in some of their beliefs, my friend. Again, I never said that the Right wasn't hypocritical in some beliefs, just that the Left was about equal in that respect. We're all hypocrites to some extent. I do think that Ted Haggart telling thousands of people that homosexuality is wrong only to later be "outted" by a male prostitute is probably a little higher on the hypocrisy scale than lying about cheating on your wife. FWIW, I consider cheating on a spouse to be significantly more immoral than being gay (i.e. not a moral issue at all), but this isn't about moral vs. immoral, it's about hypocrisy.

Thanks again, and goodnight. (wow, my replies to you keep getting longer and longer... this is what I hate about debating ;) )Last word is your's, sir. Thank you for the discussion :)

RobQel-Droma
02-10-2008, 07:27 PM
You are saying it has brain activity at 43 days. I am not saying I agree with that because the only place I’ve been unable to find that short a time period is Anti-Choice websites.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. If you are doubtful of my info because you can't find any other sources to back up my claims, then please look below (as it seems Achilles expressed concerns over my listed sources as well).

The second source you listed above said that brain waves are detectable at the beginning of the second trimester 13 to 16 weeks. That would be 91 days at the earliest. Doctors cannot even agree when brain wave activity starts. So is it 43 days or twice that at 91 days?

I realize that there is some inconsistency, but I have seen several reliable sources that list brain-wave activity being present normally around 40-43 days. I did a little research on this, and, as far as I can tell, it is the earliest that brain functions start. Of course, if you are of the mind as Achilles, then most of the sites you wouldn't think reliable because they have Pro-Life affiliations.... so, pretty much leaves me with no choice.

However....

http://www.carenetsomd.org/Abortion.php

Probably the most non-"biased" site I could find; its just a pregnancy center that simply gives information for those wanting to know about abortion. It lists a time between 35-42 days when the brain starts to function and control movement.

I had no feelings whatsoever about it. I didn’t like it, but I also did not dislike it. I just stated my opinion and the law of today that it is not murder.

I made the comment because you merely singled out one portion of my argument and seemed to ignore all the rest (or simply not address it).

LOL Hypothetical case. It is in the woman’s body. You are forcing her to carry it to term and that is hypothetical.

:confused:

"In what shape will these unwanted children from unwanted pregnancy be in? How are we going to stop their mothers from drinking, smoking, doing drugs and doing all the other prenatal care? Are we going to hire baby police to monitor them? How are we going to force these parents to give the child up for adoption and not either abuse it or kill it after it is born?"

Sorry, but I think you changed your argument slightly.... I believe, in your post I put in quotations above, you listed several exceptions/factors that are not generally present (drugs, drinking, smoking, abuse). All making up, as I called it, a hypothetical abortion situation. But in your reply to me, you seemed to cut away all the extra details and simply whittle it down to "a women bearing a child". I'm kinda confused right now....

She has the power to abort the fetus no matter the law or our opinion. There were abortions in this country before Roe vs. Wade you know and there will continue to be them even if it is ever overturned. Oh and there are ways to cause a miscarriage just as there are ways to help prevent one. You ever held a baby in your arms after the mother was stupid enough to take diet pills during her pregnancy. I have.

Er, all true.... but I have no idea what your point is.

It didn’t. I was talking about another Republican President (that I voted for once, but it did cure me from voting that way again for the rest of my life) who lied to the American people and did cost American lives.

Ah, well.... that is another discussion entirely, so I won't get into that.

A gentleman does not have an affair.

That said, yes, I would lie even under oath, because it is nobodies business about my sex life.

Well, I'm not sure much more I can say after that. That's your view, and you're certainly welcome to do that, although I don't recommend lying under oath to anyone about anything. ;)

Anyways, thanks for your reply. I think I'm going to follow Achilles and allow you the last word if you wish.

Here, let's see if this helps. "Generalizing" is when someone makes a statement which may or may not apply to a sample but applies it to the population. For instance, <snip>

Hopefully, you can see the difference.

Based on your definitions of "generalization" and "assumption", I could easily change my statement to "I think mostly welfare is abused by lazy people who don't want to work", and my changed statement would be somehow O.K. with you. I'm not sure of the difference. Either way I make a comment about the abuse of welfare....

And, how, in your mind, is a generalization any better than an assumption? You seem to take one as being fine, and the other as not. Both are primarily guess, and I don't see how you can find no fault with your sourceless assumption and yet call me out for "generalizing" with my minor "generalization" (in this case, it could just as well be assumption) that welfare is abused by lazy people.

To your point, no doubt at all in my mind that a significant (dare I venture to say "majority") of abortions that take place in the first trimester are in response to an unplanned pregnancy. I won't dispute that at all. What I won't do is haphazardly posit that all abortions are done for this reason as you have. It's probably safe for you to assume that this is the case, but unwise for you to generalize all women that have abortions in this manner.

Again, splitting hairs. I really don't get how generalizing something is any different than assuming something. Perhaps in the way it is said? I dunno. But either way (I say this again), it is making a baseless guess about something. I would even go farther and say that a generalization is simply applying something (such as the reason for abortion) that does in fact have basis in facts to a larger group without actually knowing; an assumption would be simply deciding on a "fact" without any basis in reality at all, with no knowledge of whether it is right or not.

Looking at it this way, I'm not sure how it is ok to make an "assumption", but not to make a "generalization". As I said before, maybe you are talking about the way it is said (such as directly stating that you have no basis for a claim you might make), but then, if you don't, why even state that claim in the first place?

Any website that makes statements that aren't backed up with sources are considered to be unreliable. After more than a decade in the higher education system, I have this funny thing about not accepting things that appear to be made up.

Well, I guess you'll just have to educate me with this "higher education" that you have so I'm not so darn naive.

First of all, I don't know how my site appeared "made up". Secondly, have no idea how bias somehow automatically discredits a source. Thirdly, I have provided another source in my reply to mimartin with information backing up my original argument.

That's an interesting assumption to make. It saddens me to hear that you think I'm that stupid, but you are entitled to your opinion. If nothing else, I appreciate the honesty.

Don't get me wrong, it wasn't a remark on your intelligence. But I would assume that you, if you thought the source was reliable (in your definition of reliable), you would provide it without caring that it was a Pro-Choice website.

And at least it wasn't a generalization.

The first statement is only cursorily related to the second one. Patients that are considered "brain dead" have also been known to exhibit spontaneous movement in their extremities. Furthermore you'll notice that the second sentence is very, very conditional ("suggested", "may", "some"). This is a step in the right direction, but it's hardly definitive. Not that it should be dismissed outright, but neither should it be accepted either. I'd recommend placing that in the "hmmm, isn't that interesting" column.

However you want to look at it. However, a brain-dead patient can still be considered alive, no?

Also, if you scroll down, it mentions that by week 10, a fetus will already began taking short instinctive "breaths" and have periods of heightened brain and heart activity.

Your source says the heart develops in week three. The National Institute of Health says the heart begins to develop by week three. Big difference. This could be a simply editorial mistake in his haste to get this site published for his students, it could be that he's biased and has an agenda, or it may be that his site was hax0red by l33t pro-life cyber terrorists. Either way, the source has bad info.

What?

"It develops in week three." "It begins to develop by week three."

And from this, you suggest that perhaps the source is biased and has an agenda, and is possibly lying?

Er.... let me see. If "it develops in week three", it makes no mention at what time it started. If it "begins to develop by week three", it could just as well develop in week three. In other words, by means either at that time or before, and so that means that the heart could develop any time before week 3. Not too hard to see it developed in week 3. You find interesting ways to try and discredit my sources, don't you? :)

PS: NIH says, "Week 20: Fetal heartbeat can be heard with a stethoscope". For those of you watching at home, the 20th week is approximately 2/3 of the way through the 2nd trimester.

Ok... it makes no mention that there isn't a heartbeat before than, merely that, by week 20, it can be heard by an instrument such as a stethoscope....

Aw, shucks. Clearly this kind of dewy-eyed talk is the hallmark of any academia-class research source. It says that you can hear the heartbeat in week 13. Your previous source said week 3.

Er, no. It said that the heart develops in week 3. Never mentioned heartbeats.

So is it week 3, week 5, or week 13? While you're figuring that out, I'm going to stick with the NIH numbers.

Note that these only stated when you can hear the heartbeat, presumable talking to pregnant mothers. Not when the heart started beating....

And lets compare the numbers, shall we?

NIH: Heart starts to develop by week 3.
My Source: Heart develops in week 3.

Seems pretty close. As far as the brain:

Source 1 (listed above): Brain-wave activity recorded in days 35-42.
Source 2 (my original source): Brain-wave activity able to be recorded by day 43
Source 3 (the one you considered to be the most reliable): Fetus brain/spinal cord developed by week 7, which would mean around day 42.

PS: While this site is not explicitly pro-life, it is biased. Note the banner at the top of the page showing the two women comparing baby-bumps, making it clear that this is site for pregnant women. Also, the soppy sentimental language that I pointed out earlier (and is present throughout) makes it pretty clear that they are not making any attempt to objectively share information.

:xp: Yes, since we are talking about abortion and fetuses, it would doubtless be for pregnant women....

As always though, if you have other sites that you'd like for me to read, just provide the links and I'll be happy to take a look.

http://www.carenetsomd.org/Abortion.php

You just quoted me using the word "living". What is your point?

My point is that, first, you told me that the argument was not whether it was human, but if it was a person. Then, when I respond with "I usually consider a 'human' to be a 'person'", you changed your terminology to "living". And, as I said, I believe quite a bit of my argument was about whether a fetus was alive or not.

Have you seen it? Didn't I offer to pay for movie tickets for you and your parents so that you could actually, I don't know, see it before you determined it was bunk? Who's open-minded now?

Well, now, that's quite an assumption to make - that I determined it was bunk before I even saw it.

Oh, and.... talking about open-mindedness.... "I'd be more than happy to take a look at any source you'd like to provide that shows this. I'm betting it'll be a Pro-Life website."

"Who's open-minded now?" :p

FWIW, I actually read your sites before I determine whether or not they are biased.

"Biased = having a side, so yes, if your source is taking a side, I will consider it biased."

"I'm betting it'll be a Pro-Life website."

Pro-Life = having a side, having a side = biased....

You're free to do whatever you'd like, but this doesn't sound like a grown-up exchange of ideas and information any more. You apparently feel more comfortable assigning labels to me because I'm not taken in by invented "facts" and figures than you do objectively examining your own arguments before you make them. Not much I can do about that.

So why exactly do you label my sources as being biased before you even see them?

Tell me, how am I supposed to determine if something is unreliable without first looking at it. Sounds impossible to me.

It sure does.

If you don't provide a reliable source, that isn't my fault. Pointing out that your source is unreliable is not "wiggling".

And I can't do anything about you refusing to find those sources reliable, simply because they are "biased." Of course, I could have thrown in a lot more, but most were Pro-Life websites, so you wouldn't accept them anyways...

Well since "vital signs" include heartbeat and brain activity, I assumed that it would be obvious. My apologies for using terms that you are not familiar with.

:confused:

Just to clarify, anti-abortionist want to make all abortions illegal. They don't care about circumstances such as health, life or death, pregnancy as a result of rape, etc. Abortion = bad = illegal. No more questions.

<snip>

"Am I to be inexplicably burdened with the beliefs of....?" :)

And yes, I did look at the site. It made a lot of assertions that were not supported by evidence and made arguments that it arbitrarily decided were "sound" without providing any explanation for why a reasonable person should agree with them.

Sounded pretty "sound" to me. Especially after checking quite a few other sites that had the same exact information (many with Pro-Life leanings, of course).

Although, as I said, it could just be that anyone in possession of this knowledge would agree with the Pro-Life side of things.... meh, I dunno.

I'm confused because you said you were going to do something, then you didn't do it, and now you appear to be saying that you never said you were going to do it even though we have it in print that you did.

I did, you just didn't seem to accept it...

I think this argument would get a lot more support if someone could offer a rational argument for why fetuses should be considered "beings".

I don't know what to say, Achilles. I gave you quite a large argument as to why fetuses shouldn't be considered any different from any other human beings.

Hopefully this helps to explain why I'm still waiting for this "You asked for it" argument born from the heavens and carried down to LucasForums on the wings of angels that you implied that I was going to get to read. If you don't intend on providing it, please let me know so that I can begin the grieving process. Thanks.

:p I really think I hate you... but I'm not sure...

Well said. You realize that this is not what "pro-life" people believe, right? They absolutely want it to be 100% their decision - and they don't care about health issues. Which side do you want to be on?

Thankfully, everything is not in black and white, and so, I take more of a middle ground in the issue.

Uh-oh! You just made a generalization there!

There is still some dispute over whether this is 49 days (your argument) or 20 weeks (my source). Therefore it isn't "murder" to abort a fetus before this threshold is met.

I believe the quote you provided merely mentioned that the heartbeat could be heard by a stethoscope by week 20....

Furthermore, I'm willing to wager that we would also both wholeheartedly agree that abortions should only take place after this threshold if there is a very good reason to do so.

I certainly do.

Sorry to hear that logical conclusions cause you stress. You're right though, you did paint yourself into one heck of a corner.

"I" painted? I believe you were the one that set up this big hypothetical case in which usual reasoning wouldn't apply, and I said as much... I believe I answered to it, however, so you have that. But still, that is, as I said, a hypothetical case with several extra factors that are not in a normal abortion case that I refer to.

Right, but considering that 86% of abortions take place before 13 weeks (well before the 20 week threshold generally accepted), I don't see why that's a big deal. If the fetus has vital signs at 20 weeks but is aborted before that, why all the drama?

Because, for one, I believe you yourself stated that those figures are an "assumption", and also, I have laid out an argument for a fetus being alive as early as 43 days, give or take.

I have no doubt that this is probably how you wanted your comment come across.

And I have no doubt that you seemed to take my comment wrong.

FWIW, I consider cheating on a spouse to be significantly more immoral than being gay (i.e. not a moral issue at all), but this isn't about moral vs. immoral, it's about hypocrisy.

I think we came up against this in another thread, so I won't really comment. As we decided in that topic, I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree about whether homosexuality is a moral issue or not.

Last word is your's, sir. Thank you for the discussion :)

You too. Take care.

DeadYorick
02-10-2008, 08:14 PM
I personally believe that people should be able to do whatever they want. Since Abortion ties into Stem Cell research which could benefit humanity I guess I have to support it.

Rogue Nine
02-10-2008, 08:33 PM
Please keep the discussion civil here, folks. You've all done an admirable job so far, but we could do without some of the snippy-ness and veiled insults. We are here to discuss opinions, not make other people think the way we think or 'win' arguments, so please, leave all that crap at the door.

Pho3nix
02-10-2008, 08:38 PM
Again? :xp:

As I've stated before, I believe that abortion is a human right. Women should be able to decide what to do with their bodies. There's nothing more to it.

SilentScope001
02-10-2008, 09:55 PM
Well, erm.

Would you Pro-Choicers be okay with the destruction of all the unborn eggs of endangered sea turtles? As an fetus cannot think, it has no rights, meaning that any fetus can be destroyed without any moral qualms, in much the same way that anyone can kill a fly. Not just the mother has the right to destroy the feuts, but also any other person. But, since the endangered sea turtle has no concept of property rights, and therefore does not 'own' the eggs in question, we should have the right to destroy those eggs, for a good cause, of course. Help the local economy. Help us hungry folks. Help those sea turtles. (If not, then why?)

Population control too may be useful. If the state has control over the unborn fetuses, it could choose to terminate them, helping immensly overpopulation problems.

Just thinking of ways to use the Pro-Choicers philosphy for something other than causing a pointless culture war. Let's find common ground.

Pro-Lifers:
Let us assume that we have to support abortion, and nothing can be done. Is there some sort of ritual that we can appeal to, in order to erase the sins that we are comitting?

Let say, I want to get rid of a fetus. And I don't want to give it up for adoption, I'd rather just kill it. Instead of trying to stop it, is there some sort of modern day 'blood money' system by which I give money, and in return, I get clemency for the abortion?

I go to a Church, and I donate $5/week to some African child to save a life. Since I am saving a life, I can then use that debt to kill a life. Would that be 'morally acceptable'? Or is it just trying to find legal loopholes which will make God quite angry?

Det. Bart Lasiter
02-10-2008, 10:36 PM
Let us assume that we have to support abortion, and nothing can be done. Is there some sort of ritual that we can appeal to, in order to erase the sins that we are comitting?Slaughter a chicken on top of a mountain.

mimartin
02-10-2008, 10:38 PM
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Your not sure, yet you admit that there are inconsistency in when brain activity is present?
I realize that there is some inconsistency, but I have seen several reliable sources that list brain-wave activity being present normally around 40-43 days. So which reliable resource is correct is what I was asking. I actually did a little research too. The information I received leads me to believe that even doctors cannot agree when brain function begins.

http://www.carenetsomd.org/Abortion.php Can’t tell anything about this site as the fail to tell list their sources at all.

I made the comment because you merely singled out one portion of my argument and seemed to ignore all the rest (or simply not address it). I did not ignore the rest at all, I read it, but I only commented on the part that I thought had any relevance to me. I wrote why in my last post.


Sorry, but I think you changed your argument slightly.... I’ve changed nothing. I care about children. If we suddenly banned all abortions I would like to know what is going to happen to these children. All I can get out of you is “Adoption.” Which I agreed with you is a noble endeavor. However, you have yet to tell me what happens to the children that are not adopted or that are not given up to adoption.

Er, all true.... but I have no idea what your point is. Point is you want to protect a fetus, but it does not seem like you want to protect the child. You really believe that if we ended abortion that everything will workout great without any type of plan. Mothers that did not want the child will suddenly love and cherish that little bundle of joy.

I don't recommend lying under oath to anyone about anything. ;)I wouldn’t unless they ask me something that is completely irrelevant to anything, such as my sex life. The problem with taking the 5th is everyone actomaticlly assumes that it is true then. You may as well just answer the irrelevant question as to take the 5th.

Totenkopf
02-11-2008, 02:18 AM
Problem is, being asked the question is going to make many people think you're guilty anyway. Besides, if you lie (like Bill and even Gary Hart, though not in a court of law), you're almost garunteed that it will come back to bite you in the arse.

Web Rider
02-11-2008, 06:51 AM
Secondly, what makes a fetus any less human? Is there any scientifically proven difference? Well, there are a few - four to be exact. Would you like to know what they are?

1. Environment
2. Development
3. Level of dependency
4. Size

Those are the only verifiable differences. Let's take them one at a time.
I take issue with not that these are listed, but...oh just read what's below.

Environment:

Yes, there is a difference between a fetus and a child. One is inside the womb, and one is outside in the world. But why would location make any difference? Does the fetus magically "become human" as it makes it's way outside of the mother? Not that I know of. So, obviously, the location has nothing to do with being more human.
Environment makes a different because it determines the level of expose one has to risks. A newborn is exposed to a significantly higher number of risks than in the womb. Germs(heh, almost wrote Germans), for example, are much more easily contracted outside the womb. Bad air, bad water, ect...while these things ARE translated through the mother, the are filtered to some extent, not necessarily a high extent, but even a mother smoking while pregnant and smoking in front of her child are two definitively different things, and have entirely different effects.
This ties into dependency later on. So you have to take this into account when you read the dependency and vice versa.

Development:

True, a fetus is less developed than anyone else. And an infant is less-developed than a child. A child is less-developed than an adult. So what? Do we judge how human someone is by how developed they are? By that logic, a retarded child is almost sub-human compared to an adult. (come to think about it, wouldn't that mean it would be ok to kill a retarded child?)

Some maintain that a fetus is not actually developed into a living organism, but how can you prove that? Although the unborn's humanity, as I have said, has nothing to do with it's level of development, it's rapid growth does point to its status as a complete, self-sustaining organism. In fact, prenatal development progresses so fast that by day 43, an unborn has a heart that is beating and brain wave activity we can measure on an electroencephalogram. Did any of you Pro-Choice people know that...
Children do no receive the same rights as "adults", that is, anyone over 18. Why? because we judge them to be less intelligent, less mature, less physically capable, in some instances, less sane, and of course, less deserving. Rights they have are extended to them through their parents and other adults. It is quite true to say that if 18+ers wanted to deprive those under 18 of all rights, they could. And it would be legal.

Furthermore, ECGs can measure even the faintest electrial impulses. If you stop for a moment and think about how faint the electrical impulses are that are sent in the brain compared to say, those sent in a computer, you are essentially saying that "if it's got brainwaves, it's human". An obviously, since cats have brainwaves, but do not have all our rights, that is not the way the system works.

You must also understand the context in which these impulses are sent. These aren't sentient thoughts, they are much like when you plug an electrical tester into a socket, they are saying the parts are plugged in and growing. Which isn't a spectacularly human feat since the human featus looks much like almost every other mamillian featus....and some fish. Nor is a beating heart a spectacularly grand feat. If this determines humanity, do people with fake hearts become non-people? No, so obviously, since brainwaves dont even determine humanity, we cannot say that brainwaves or a beating heart determine humanity.

Level of dependency:

Again, fairly obvious. Would a teenager be less human because he/she is dependent on someone? Or would someone with a terminal disease that is fully dependent on medical equipment and/or medication to stay alive be less human?
People dependant on machines later in life established their humanity by being born. hence, incomparable. While in the womb, the fetus is subject to all the whims of the mother, any running she does, smoking, drinking. There is no option to "let me out and die". They aren't dependant to say, as they are simply without a choice. What right does a mother have to not give their fetus a choice? Logically we should chain mothers down as soon as they're pregnant. Of course that could cause stress and that's bad. Dependancy is different at this point because there's no options.

Size:

I hope I don't have to explain this very much. Is Shaquel O'Neal any more human than the midget next door?
Throughout history, small people have generally been considered "less" than big people.

So, that pretty much brings me to the end of my argument. To talk about the last point, I will say this: women who abort had the choice to have sex with whoever it was, they had the choie to take the risk that the intercourse would produce a child, they had the choice to not use some kind of birth control....
Well, you're welcome to tell that to the president and his buddies who sponsor abstinence only education. As much as I dislike abortion, I would prefer to see more emphasis on brith control, unforunatelly, the religious nuts who've already gotten "life" defined as conception, quickly step in to argue that we have no right to prevent that seed from being plowed into that field. In short, I feel at this point it's a matter of we can't even let "them" get a foot in the door.

And you want them to have the choice to commit murder? I'm not forcing my beliefs down someone's throat, since last time I checked, murder was a crime. So why should they have that choice? Please... there's this thing called adoption. If you are unable to take care of the child, then put it up for adoption. Seems a win-win for everyone, and people don't have to murder because a new baby inconveniences them.
I would tell you to go out, get raped, and become pregnant, but you are obviously a guy, so, it is difficult to understand that perspective. I agree that I would like to see LESS abortion. But I can't in good conscience outright ban it. My ex got pregnant from a rape. She ended up having a miscarriage from all the stress it added to her...yes...that can happen, read some studies, stress can do horrid things to the body. In any case, pregnancy is not a simple matter of "oh, I've got a baby in me, 9 months here I come!"

That's pretty much all I have to say. Life is precious, and it shouldn't be sacrificed just because someone doesn't want to have to deal with a new baby."
Life is sacrificed for a variety of worse reasons every moment. I'm sure some child in Uganda was murdered in the time it took me to write this(10 miniutes or so). Why are we so obsessed with the unborn, with the living are being slaughtered around the globe? Instead of adding to the population, maybe we should save the one that's already here.

Darth InSidious
02-11-2008, 08:44 AM
Wow, talk about one's capacity for self delusion. :D Your precious lefty hypocrites are always telling the rest of us to how to live, while they go off to do as they please. They are no less burdened by arrogance than the righties you fear so rabidly. Still, I'm not surprised you think this way.
Achilles...left-wing...

Something in the combination of these two does not fit...

Totenkopf
02-11-2008, 02:48 PM
Anything specific in mind? One doesn't have to be an extremist to prefer those closer to their side than not.

mur'phon
02-11-2008, 03:59 PM
Something in the combination of these two does not fit...

What fits in America dosne't necesarly fit in Europe :D

RobQel-Droma
02-12-2008, 01:44 AM
Just a couple thoughts (my last, I assure you):

@mimartin: I don't understand what else you want in a source (meaning the link I gave you). Its obvious that there is no way, if they "cited" their sources - such as scientific essays/reports done by doctors - you wouldn't be able to check those anyways, so what exactly do I have to give you until you just accept it? As long as it has come kind of citation, would you just accept it as true? I honestly don't know what more you want me to do (its an official website for the South Maryland pregnancy center for cryin' out loud, and I'm sure Achilles at least would find no "bias" there). But whatever, as I said, this will be the last I say on this topic.

@Web Rider: First of all, humans can only produce other humans, right? So I'm not questioning a fetus's humanity, I'm questioning if it has life (which would make killing it murder). So, a human with brainwaves would be a "living person"... your analogy to fish or computers is rather irrelevant, since it is already known that we are dealing with a human.

Also, I do see that you pointed out some things while going over my four points, but I still ask: does that somehow make a fetus not alive/sub-human? I realize that some of what you say is true, but I don't think it really makes a difference. You also told me to "realize that these are not sentient thoughts", but.... *ahem*, how exactly do you know that? Obviously, you must have some scientific knowledge that I don't have, because I was not aware of any certainty of what these brain impulses were. ;)

And I know that children are dying in third-world countries. But this thread is about abortion, and that is off-topic. I don't know why people tend to try and always bring that up when discussing issues such as this... I'm aware that we should help them, but why should we neglect either of these issues? I'm going one at a time here...

To finish up, and to clarify, I would like to say this: I'm sorry if I offended anyone by coming across as "black and white" on this issue. I realize that there are cases in which abortion might be needed to protect the life of the mother; and I also realize that some of you might personally have known situations like this, so you might have a better grasp on the reality of it. My post was only intended to try and point out that abortion does in fact kill a live human being.

And lol... someone is having fun with this thread title. :p

Totenkopf
02-12-2008, 02:18 AM
Children do no receive the same rights as "adults", that is, anyone over 18. Why? because we judge them to be less intelligent, less mature, less physically capable, in some instances, less sane, and of course, less deserving. Rights they have are extended to them through their parents and other adults. It is quite true to say that if 18+ers wanted to deprive those under 18 of all rights, they could. And it would be legal.

However, the one thing you fail to mention is that they are not judged as nonhuman b/c they have fewer rights than adults.


Furthermore, ECGs can measure even the faintest electrial impulses. If you stop for a moment and think about how faint the electrical impulses are that are sent in the brain compared to say, those sent in a computer, you are essentially saying that "if it's got brainwaves, it's human". An obviously, since cats have brainwaves, but do not have all our rights, that is not the way the system works.

A metal detector can detect a metal plate in your head, but that doesn't make you a robot/less human either.


You must also understand the context in which these impulses are sent. These aren't sentient thoughts, they are much like when you plug an electrical tester into a socket, they are saying the parts are plugged in and growing. Which isn't a spectacularly human feat since the human featus looks much like almost every other mamillian featus....and some fish. Nor is a beating heart a spectacularly grand feat. If this determines humanity, do people with fake hearts become non-people? No, so obviously, since brainwaves dont even determine humanity, we cannot say that brainwaves or a beating heart determine humanity.

Ah, yes, the seahorse argument. B/c the fetus looks like any other fetus, ergo it's not human. :rolleyes: What determines the human fetuses humanity is it's naturally occuring HUMAN DNA.



People dependant on machines later in life established their humanity by being born.

If you're so willing to overlook terminating a life in the early stages, when you claim there is no sentient thinking, how far are you from euthanizing people no longer capable of sentient thought?


Well, you're welcome to tell that to the president and his buddies who sponsor abstinence only education. As much as I dislike abortion, I would prefer to see more emphasis on brith control, unforunatelly, the religious nuts who've already gotten "life" defined as conception, quickly step in to argue that we have no right to prevent that seed from being plowed into that field. In short, I feel at this point it's a matter of we can't even let "them" get a foot in the door.

Totally irrelevant. There are now so many avenues for people to get an education or even materials for sex that what a sitting president believes isn't going to significantly impact anything.


I would tell you to go out, get raped, and become pregnant, but you are obviously a guy, so, it is difficult to understand that perspective. I agree that I would like to see LESS abortion. But I can't in good conscience outright ban it. My ex got pregnant from a rape. She ended up having a miscarriage from all the stress it added to her...yes...that can happen, read some studies, stress can do horrid things to the body. In any case, pregnancy is not a simple matter of "oh, I've got a baby in me, 9 months here I come!"

Ah, yes, the usual emotional argument that somehow trumps all other postions. Abortion should be freely available to all b/c a statistically insignificant # of people (who could be taken into account under law) have suffered a grievous misdeed.


Life is sacrificed for a variety of worse reasons every moment. I'm sure some child in Uganda was murdered in the time it took me to write this(10 miniutes or so). Why are we so obsessed with the unborn, with the living are being slaughtered around the globe? Instead of adding to the population, maybe we should save the one that's already here.

Still, why add to such senseless behavior? ;)

mimartin
02-12-2008, 09:59 AM
@mimartin: I don't understand what else you want in a source (meaning the link I gave you). Its obvious that there is no way, if they "cited" their sources - such as scientific essays/reports done by doctors - you wouldn't be able to check those anywaysWell I did not go to the greatest university in the world, but if I would have turned in a report with that source I would have failed that project. Yes, you can check scientific reports done by a doctor if it was published. I did a research paper on Lasek for a business communication class and I did cite my sources and went to the original sources. At the very least, they could have given the name of the doctor they are using as a reference since that is not a widely accepted stance. Seems to me with the significances of the decision these websites should hold themselves to a higher standard than a college report.

Achilles
02-12-2008, 10:16 AM
Seems to me with the significances of the decision these websites should hold themselves to a higher standard than a college report. Unless, of course, their audience is people that don't know better and their purpose is to persuade, rather than inform. Then they can just keep on doing what they are doing now.

mimartin
02-12-2008, 01:10 PM
But, Achilles I was under the impression that you would find no “Bias” with that site.

I did find an article that states where most of the 40 something days and fetus pain arguments come from. I would actually say the page is bias, but she does cite her sources and provides links when possible. Which means she is not affraid of her message being scrutinized. 1964 – That is where this 40 something day argument really comes from? (http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm)

Achilles
02-12-2008, 01:28 PM
But, Achilles I was under the impression that you would find no “Bias” with that site. I think the page had loaded about 80% of the way before the bias started clubbing me over the head. Real easy litmus test: if the resource refers to dilation and extraction (D&X) as "partial birth abortion", it's a "pro-life" site. Legitimate, objective sources won't substitute politically-motivated or emotionally-charged language for an actual medical term. The site is clearly written to maximize fear and guilt. Hardly unbiased.

I did find an article that states where most of the 40 something days and fetus pain arguments come from. I would actually say the page is bias, but she does cite her sources and provides links when possible. Which means she is not affraid of her message being scrutinized. 1964 – That is where this 40 something day argument really comes from? (http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm)Thanks for the link. Kudos for the research.

Totenkopf
02-12-2008, 04:41 PM
I think the page had loaded about 80% of the way before the bias started clubbing me over the head. Real easy litmus test: if the resource refers to dilation and extraction (D&X) as "partial birth abortion", it's a "pro-life" site. Legitimate, objective sources won't substitute politically-motivated or emotionally-charged language for an actual medical term. The site is clearly written to maximize fear and guilt. Hardly unbiased.

Equally easy litmus test, any site that ignores the controversey over the misapplication of D&X is undoubtedly and hopelessly biased in the favor of virtually unrestricted abortion, even up to the last minute. I'm sure that the misuse of clinical language has been used throughout history to hide abuses.

Web Rider
02-12-2008, 08:03 PM
However, the one thing you fail to mention is that they are not judged as nonhuman b/c they have fewer rights than adults.
I would say that they are indeed judged as less than human. If they were judged as 100% human, they would have all the rights.

Slaves did not have all the same rights because they were not judged to be human. The comparason is similar.

A metal detector can detect a metal plate in your head, but that doesn't make you a robot/less human either.
Which is entirely irrelevent.......
So, lets stay on point? Which is: an ECG can measure brainwaves, ie: electrical impulses. If this is a defining point of humanity, then all things with electrical impulses in the brain measurable by an ECG should be considered human, or at least partially so.

Ah, yes, the seahorse argument. B/c the fetus looks like any other fetus, ergo it's not human. :rolleyes: What determines the human fetuses humanity is it's naturally occuring HUMAN DNA.
ah! So then you would agree that my hand deserves all the same rights as me because it contains human DNA. You agree that cancer should not be removed because it containts NATURALLY OCCURRING HUMAN DNA.

If you're so willing to overlook terminating a life in the early stages, when you claim there is no sentient thinking, how far are you from euthanizing people no longer capable of sentient thought?
please, don't even try that with me. I've stated before that it is not the place of the government to keep the braindead alive. If a person CHOOSES to give birth, if a person CHOOSES to keep a loved one alive that can no longer sustain thought, that is THEIR business. Not the role of the government.

Totally irrelevant. There are now so many avenues for people to get an education or even materials for sex that what a sitting president believes isn't going to significantly impact anything.
oh you've got to be kidding me. he's the president! Of course people listen to what he says. He is the LEADER of the COUNTRY, regardless of how intelligent or stupid anything he says it, people WILL listen to him because he's the president. People believe that the president is working in their best interests, and that people elected him because he knows the right answers to the right questions. of course people will listen to him. Saying "oh, people don't listen to what the president says" is like saying people don't have ears. it's completly untrue.

Ah, yes, the usual emotional argument that somehow trumps all other postions. Abortion should be freely available to all b/c a statistically insignificant # of people (who could be taken into account under law) have suffered a grievous misdeed.
I'll be sure to tell every rape victim that gets pregnant and can't get an abortion that you don't give a flying willy that somebody sexually assaulted them with their willy.

Still, why add to such senseless behavior? ;)
Senseless behaviour is stopped with education, not laws. Laws that mandate better education? Sure. But making laws that say "you can't do that" have yet to stop the existing problems. They have, historically, made this particular issue WORSE.

Totenkopf
02-12-2008, 11:04 PM
However, the one thing you fail to mention is that they are not judged as nonhuman b/c they have fewer rights than adults.

I would say that they are indeed judged as less than human. If they were judged as 100% human, they would have all the rights.
Slaves did not have all the same rights because they were not judged to be human. The comparason is similar.


Poor reasoning here. By that same standard, prisoners (nevermind POWs)are "less than human" (subhuman?) as well. Most people in every country have less rights than their leaders, so I guess most of us are "less than human" also.


A metal detector can detect a metal plate in your head, but that doesn't make you a robot/less human either.


Which is entirely irrelevent.......
So, lets stay on point? Which is: an ECG can measure brainwaves, ie: electrical impulses. If this is a defining point of humanity, then all things with electrical impulses in the brain measurable by an ECG should be considered human, or at least partially so.
..ah! So then you would agree that my hand deserves all the same rights as me because it contains human DNA. You agree that cancer should not be removed because it containts NATURALLY OCCURRING HUMAN DNA.



My point is that just b/c a machine can detect anything doesn't make someone human or not. By your logic, if the human brain ceases to produce any brainwave/electrical impulses, the deceased is no longer even human (not merely dead). I would say that measurable brainwave activity does prove that a human fetus is more than just an indeterminate lump of amorphous tissue mass. As to the offal about cancers and hands being "people" somehow b/c they contain any human DNA, well.....you said it, not me.



If you're so willing to overlook terminating a life in the early stages, when you claim there is no sentient thinking, how far are you from euthanizing people no longer capable of sentient thought?


please, don't even try that with me. I've stated before that it is not the place of the government to keep the braindead alive. If a person CHOOSES to give birth, if a person CHOOSES to keep a loved one alive that can no longer sustain thought, that is THEIR business. Not the role of the government.

So, you're saying that even a debilitated person has human rights, but you're all to ready to allow for them to be violated b/c someone deems them a drain. So much for being "human", I guess. Btw, I said nothing about government involvement in the decision process, you inferred that.




Totally irrelevant. There are now so many avenues for people to get an education or even materials for sex that what a sitting president believes isn't going to significantly impact anything.


oh you've got to be kidding me. he's the president! Of course people listen to what he says. He is the LEADER of the COUNTRY, regardless of how intelligent or stupid anything he says it, people WILL listen to him because he's the president. People believe that the president is working in their best interests, and that people elected him because he knows the right answers to the right questions. of course people will listen to him. Saying "oh, people don't listen to what the president says" is like saying people don't have ears. it's completly untrue.

Wow, this is just too precious. You seriously expect me to believe that you think b/c a president is for or against something that everyone that voted him into office goes lockstep with him on every issue? Nevermind that few people (if any) actually say things like "well, I'm going to the drugstore b/c the president says condoms are responsible". Since when did a president become the sole source of information about sex education? If these people truly believed the president, why they'd also be far more likely to abstain and thus deprive you of such a silly position in the first place. On the other hand, Clinton did seem to convince gullible youths that felatio wasn't sex. :rolleyes:


Ah, yes, the usual emotional argument that somehow trumps all other postions. Abortion should be freely available to all b/c a statistically insignificant # of people (who could be taken into account under law) have suffered a grievous misdeed.


I'll be sure to tell every rape victim that gets pregnant and can't get an abortion that you don't give a flying willy that somebody sexually assaulted them with their willy.

Consult the emboldened print above. The rest is cute, but irrelevant.


Still, why add to such senseless behavior?

Senseless behaviour is stopped with education, not laws. Laws that mandate better education? Sure. But making laws that say "you can't do that" have yet to stop the existing problems. They have, historically, made this particular issue WORSE.

Education is only half the equation. If your statement were true, many self-inflicted behaviors amongst educated people would disappear overnight. We know that drinking and driving don't go together, but that abuse hasn't ended. Do you seriously believe that everyone who abuses narcotics really have no clue what they're doing to themselves? How about adults who in engage in extramarital affairs that produce children? They didn't know pregnancy was a possible end result of sex? Education alone, without any enforcement mechanisms, is utterly useless. About as vainglorious as saying that the enemy will stop fighting you if only you could get him to sit down and see the sweet light of (your) reason. Nice try.

Web Rider
02-12-2008, 11:26 PM
Poor reasoning here. By that same standard, prisoners (nevermind POWs)are "less than human" (subhuman?) as well. Most people in every country have less rights than their leaders, so I guess most of us are "less than human" also.
Quite so actually. Does not the government get away with more? Do not it's officials seem to have more freedom to do things that would normally get Average Joe in trouble? And indeed, most people probably regard criminals as less than human. That's why they're called criminals, and not "humans", in order to strip them of their humanity and make it easier for us to agree with imprisoning them.

My point is that just b/c a machine can detect anything doesn't make someone human or not.
So you would agree that an ECG is a bad standard to judge humanity by?
By your logic, if the human brain ceases to produce any brainwave/electrical impulses, the deceased is no longer even human (not merely dead).
Much as they retain human DNA for many many years after death, they are indeed no longer "human". You can't really claim the dead are afforded freedom of speech. The right to bear arms. They WERE human, yes, but since they're dead....
I would say that measurable brainwave activity does prove that a human fetus is more than just an indeterminate lump of amorphous tissue mass. As to the offal about cancers and hands being "people" somehow b/c they contain any human DNA, well.....you said it, not me.
Ah, but YOU said that fetuses were more than fish because they contain human DNA, and thus, that's why they get rights. My hand has human DNA, therefore it should have the same rights as humans.
I suggest you define "brainwave activity" before we go further, because, as I have continually pointed out, cats have brainwaves too, in fact, most living organisims with brains have brainwaves.


So, you're saying that even a debilitated person has human rights, but you're all to ready to allow for them to be violated b/c someone deems them a drain. So much for being "human", I guess. Btw, I said nothing about government involvement in the decision process, you inferred that.
We are discussing laws here are we not? The banning of abortion is something done by governments. If people don't want to HAVE abortions, it is a matter of enough people being unwilling to give them and enough people not getting them, not a peice of paper....anyway.
But debilitated is NOT what I spoke of before now was it? I specially said "braindead" people. There is a massive difference between those who are braindead and those who are missing a leg. Their rights are not being violated, there is no right that says a person MUST live at all costs. People die, it happens. This person would die without somebody intervening. If somebody who's not paid with my taxes wants to do that? great! if not, well, then let nature take it's course.


Wow, this is just too precious. You seriously expect me to believe that you think b/c a president is for or against something that everyone that voted him into office goes lockstep with him on every issue?
my my, you really don't read anything I post. I said people would listen to him. I never said who would. I simply said that becase of his position and number of supporters he has a rather hefty weight riding with his words.

Nevermind that few people (if any) actually say things like "well, I'm going to the drugstore b/c the president says condoms are responsible".
Schools have dropped sex ed classes because the president said "abstinence only" is the way to go.
Since when did a president become the sole source of information about sex education?[.quote]
You are also apparently good at putting words in my mouth. I said he was a weighty source because of his political position. not the only one, not necessarily the best one even. Just a weighty one.
[quote]If these people truly believed the president, why they'd also be far more likely to abstain and thus deprive you of such a silly position in the first place.
"these people" are not generally in a position to care honestly. They are married, or like you say, abstain. But because the president has decided this way, they feel it is their duty to enforce that position upon others.
On the other hand, Clinton did seem to convince gullible youths that felatio wasn't sex. :rolleyes:
Most "youths" these days believe that everything besides traditional sex isn't sex. Is that's Clinton's doing? maybe. probly their parents had a hand in it too.

Consult the emboldened print above. The rest is cute, but irrelevant.
ninja'd eh? Sorry, if you check the quote in my post, you will see that that line did not exist when I first quoted you. Actually, before the Roe V Wade, they were taken into account by the law. The Law said "no".

Education is only half the equation. If your statement were true, many self-inflicted behaviors amongst educated people would disappear overnight.
I believe you will find that self inflicted injury is not common among the highly educated and that mental disorders, such as depression, bipolar, anxiety, and others, play a role in such a thing. Self-inflicted things are generally the result of an unstable mind.
We know that drinking and driving don't go together, but that abuse hasn't ended.
That is likly due to the pathetic attempts schools do at educating people on the subject.
Do you seriously believe that everyone who abuses narcotics really have no clue what they're doing to themselves?
No, I believe they are doing it because they are addicted and can't stop. I believe education on the subject could prevent it entirely, and help treat those addicted, instead of calling them criminals and throwing them in a cell.
How about adults who in engage in extramarital affairs that produce children? They didn't know pregnancy was a possible end result of sex?
I think they selectivly chose to believe that it would not happen to them. However, I do believe that many people are geniunely surprised when they get preggers after sex. WHY? Because there is a great emphasis on sex in our culture, but NOT on SAFE sex.
Education alone, without any enforcement mechanisms, is utterly useless. About as vainglorious as saying that the enemy will stop fighting you if only you could get him to sit down and see the sweet light of (your) reason. Nice try.
If your enemy saw the "light" of your line of thought, then logically your enemy now believes that your line of thought is truth, and therefore would not fight somebody he agrees with.
No, I believe better education can stop these things before the start. I doubt they will have a significant affect on people already taking part in them. People already involved them generally don't want to change...because it's hard, it's scary, and people don't like difficulty and scary things.

Jae Onasi
02-12-2008, 11:49 PM
Mayo clinic (one of the leading medical research institutions in the world) has a site on basic fetal development. If you want more in depth than that, there are good books on neonatology, embryology and fetal development, and Gabbe's Obstetrics is a classic medical text in the field.

This page (http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/prenatal-care/PR00112) describes development in the first trimester. During week 3 after conception (considered week 5 of pregnancy) is when the heart starts to beat (hence the confusion of 'by week three' and 'in week three'). While with a stethoscope someone may not be able to hear the heartbeat until week 20 of pregnancy (18 weeks after conception), it's beating well before then, and can be heard on ultrasound much earlier.

Medline plus (a service of the NIH) (http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm) has a gestational timeline. The brain starts forming at week 3 gestation (1 week after conception) and is formed enough for the baby to start moving around week 9 gestation and making active movements between weeks 13 and 16 gestation. I have not extensively searched fetal EEGs.

In one JAMA article (http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/16118385) the authors state fetal pain may occur as early as 23 weeks gestation, though the authors suggested it was closer to 29 weeks. Another medical article (http://www.medscape.com/medline/abstract/10780206) notes fetuses may experience pain as early as 26 weeks and possibly from 20 weeks gestation and on. In a few other articles I looked at, the general consensus seems to be that fetal pain starts around 26 weeks gestation when the particular nerve cell tracts that register most pain types form.

Your embryology/prenatal trivia for the day.

Mod note: Don't get too descriptive of sex types, please. We're PG-13 here.

Web Rider
02-12-2008, 11:52 PM
I'm curious to know how a fetus could be 3 weeks into gestation after only having been concieved a week earlier.

Jae Onasi
02-13-2008, 12:08 AM
I'm curious to know how a fetus could be 3 weeks into gestation after only having been concieved a week earlier.

It's the difference between dating pregnancy and dating actual fetal development. Gestational dating starts from the day of the woman's last menstrual period, which is about 2 weeks before actual conception, typically. So while a woman may be at 6 weeks gestation, the embryo is actually only 4 weeks old.

Web Rider
02-13-2008, 12:22 AM
It's the difference between dating pregnancy and dating actual fetal development. Gestational dating starts from the day of the woman's last menstrual period, which is about 2 weeks before actual conception, typically. So while a woman may be at 6 weeks gestation, the embryo is actually only 4 weeks old.

that sounds like really poor math IMO. I mean, I realize it's difficult to say " This fetus is EXACTLY X weeks along." But it sounds really iffy. I mean, if they know that they're generally about 2 weeks off, why don't they just adjust their weeks instead of totally throwing people off with flipping back and forth between "base 8" and "base 10".

Totenkopf
02-13-2008, 01:36 AM
Quite so actually. Does not the government get away with more? Do not it's officials seem to have more freedom to do things that would normally get Average Joe in trouble? And indeed, most people probably regard criminals as less than human. That's why they're called criminals, and not "humans", in order to strip them of their humanity and make it easier for us to agree with imprisoning them.
If one takes your logic to its natural conclusion, then Canadians are more human than Chinese, b/c clearly Canadians enjoy a greater degree of freedom than their Chinese counterparts.

So you would agree that an ECG is a bad standard to judge humanity by?
I'd say it was good for checking for electrical impulse activity.

Much as they retain human DNA for many many years after death, they are indeed no longer "human". You can't really claim the dead are afforded freedom of speech. The right to bear arms. They WERE human, yes, but since they're dead....
So, if the remains aren't human, what species are they?


I would say that measurable brainwave activity does prove that a human fetus is more than just an indeterminate lump of amorphous tissue mass. As to the offal about cancers and hands being "people" somehow b/c they contain any human DNA, well.....you said it, not me.


Ah, but YOU said that fetuses were more than fish because they contain human DNA, and thus, that's why they get rights. My hand has human DNA, therefore it should have the same rights as humans. I suggest you define "brainwave activity" before we go further, because, as I have continually pointed out, cats have brainwaves too, in fact, most living organisims with brains have brainwaves.

Get real. Your argument is that a human fetus is less human b/c it share similarities in appearance with other animals at various stages of development. It's a discredited argument and not something to be taken seriously. Fish and humans are genetically nonviable for purposes of procreation. What will the future hold? Who knows, but it won't be relevant to this conversation in the here and now.

We are discussing laws here are we not? The banning of abortion is something done by governments. If people don't want to HAVE abortions, it is a matter of enough people being unwilling to give them and enough people not getting them, not a peice of paper....anyway. But debilitated is NOT what I spoke of before now was it? I specially said "braindead" people. There is a massive difference between those who are braindead and those who are missing a leg. Their rights are not being violated, there is no right that says a person MUST live at all costs. People die, it happens. This person would die without somebody intervening. If somebody who's not paid with my taxes wants to do that? great! if not, well, then let nature take it's course.

I'd say brain dead qualifies as a severe form of debilitation. :D Apparently, when you look at the history of human "civilization", there is no hard and fast rule that says a person must live at all. ;)

My my, you really don't read anything I post. I said people would listen to him. I never said who would. I simply said that becase of his position and number of supporters he has a rather hefty weight riding with his words.

Well, frankly, you did in fact say: people. My response didn't limit itself to one or two specific groups. I merely state that it's really stretching credulity to assert that the president's position on the issue is going to trump all other sources of info a person has on this subject. Presidential policies to "discourage" some formal school based system of sex-ed does not equal information blackout. Anyone who looks to a president for learning about the birds and the bees is as stupid as the educated person who abuses narcotics thinking it won't happen to him/her. Don't know about you, but I've never heard anyone say "I'm not using prevention b/c the president says it's wrong".


You are also apparently good at putting words in my mouth. I said he was a weighty source because of his political position. not the only one, not necessarily the best one even. Just a weighty one.

Actually, you're the one being a bit disingenuous here. You're imputing far too much value to the president's position on sex ed in the schools vis-a-vis people's behavior.

If these people truly believed the president, why they'd also be far more likely to abstain and thus deprive you of such a silly position in the first place.


"these people" are not generally in a position to care honestly. They are married, or like you say, abstain. But because the president has decided this way, they feel it is their duty to enforce that position upon others.


Not clear on your point here. Are you trying to assert that the president's policy is forcing everyone to abstain or be forced into abstaining? The "these people" I was referring to were the ones unduly influenced by the president's position on sex-ed (whoever they are).


Most "youths" these days believe that everything besides traditional sex isn't sex. Is that's Clinton's doing? maybe. probly their parents had a hand in it too.

Clinton as cultural icon of sorts, perhaps. Their parents probably by default (ie not taking time to discuss these issues w/their kids most likely, all the more so with the proliferation of smut on the web and pop culture in general).




{post#28}
Ah, yes, the usual emotional argument that somehow trumps all other postions. Abortion should be freely available to all b/c a statistically insignificant # of people (who could be taken into account under law) have suffered a grievous misdeed.

{post#35}
Ah, yes, the usual emotional argument that somehow trumps all other postions. Abortion should be freely available to all b/c a statistically insignificant # of people (who could be taken into account under law) have suffered a grievous misdeed.


Consult the emboldened print above. The rest is cute, but irrelevant.

ninja'd eh? Sorry, if you check the quote in my post, you will see that that line did not exist when I first quoted you. Actually, before the Roe V Wade, they were taken into account by the law. The Law said "no".

Perhaps you forgot to read. Go back and check. The only diff between the 2 is that I used bold print the 2nd time around.


I believe you will find that self inflicted injury is not common among the highly educated and that mental disorders, such as depression, bipolar, anxiety, and others, play a role in such a thing. Self-inflicted things are generally the result of an unstable mind.

Now that's a quaint notion......educated minds are axiomatically stable ones.



We know that drinking and driving don't go together, but that abuse hasn't ended.

That is likly due to the pathetic attempts schools do at educating people on the subject.

Fascinating. You're implying that barring a formal school class, people don't have the sense to figure out that driving intoxicated is stupid. Do these people all live in a vacuum?


No, I believe they are doing it because they are addicted and can't stop. I believe education on the subject could prevent it entirely, and help treat those addicted, instead of calling them criminals and throwing them in a cell.

You're leaving out a very big step here. They had to take the drugs (in most cases voluntarily) FIRST before an addiction could ever develop. They may need to be educated about how to get off of a particular substance after an addiction has formed, though.



How about adults who in engage in extramarital affairs that produce children? They didn't know pregnancy was a possible end result of sex?

I think they selectivly chose to believe that it would not happen to them. However, I do believe that many people are geniunely surprised when they get preggers after sex. WHY? Because there is a great emphasis on sex in our culture, but NOT on SAFE sex.

But what about all that education they had that was supposed to prevent them from engaging in the act (or at least in an "unprotected" state) in the first place? Oops, guess none of that learning took too well.



Education alone, without any enforcement mechanisms, is utterly useless. About as vainglorious as saying that the enemy will stop fighting you if only you could get him to sit down and see the sweet light of (your) reason. Nice try.


If your enemy saw the "light" of your line of thought, then logically your enemy now believes that your line of thought is truth, and therefore would not fight somebody he agrees with. No, I believe better education can stop these things before the start.

Sorry, that just smacks of extreme naivete`. You missed the point, though. There is an underlying and somewhat arrogant assumption that YOU can "educate" someone to do things YOUR way, when their goals are often contradictory to yours.

Web Rider
02-13-2008, 02:01 AM
If one takes your logic to its natural conclusion, then Canadians are more human than Chinese, b/c clearly Canadians enjoy a greater degree of freedom than their Chinese counterparts.
I would likly agree with an argument that the Chinese are looked at as a lower set of humans due to their being prevented from "being all they can be" so to speak.

I'd say it was good for checking for electrical impulses/brainwave activity.
Then we agree that the ECG is not a good unit of measure when looking for "humanity".

So, if the remains aren't human, what species are they?
When people talk about remins, it geneerally goes: "these are the remains of a human" or "these are human remains" in short, they are what remains of what was once a human.

Get real. Your argument is that a human fetus is less human b/c it share similarities in appearance with other animals at various stages of development. It's a discredited argument and not something to be taken seriously. Fish and humans are genetically nonviable for purposes of procreation. What will the future hold? Who knows, but it won't be relevant to this conversation in the here and now.
no, that's not my argument. My argument is that if ANYTHING with human DNA should be given rights, my hand should not be legally allowed to be forced by myself to excercise my freedom of speech. My argument is: human DNA does not mean something is human. Cancer has human DNA and we remove it all the time. While human DNA may be a FACTOR in what makes a human, it is not the only one. To argue that ALL something needs to be human is human DNA is a false argument.

I'd say brain dead qualifies as a severe form of debilitation. :D Apparently, when you look at the history of human "civilization", there is no hard and fast rule that says a person must live at all. ;)
Can I call fuzzy numbers? Death is the most extreme form of debilitation. Why do we deprive the dead the right to live? It is illegial to kill yourself in most states. Is not your body's own self destruction violating that law?


Well, frankly, you did in fact say: people. My response didn't limit itself to one or two specific groups.
your response explicitly selected the people who elected the president as the group agreeing. And if you thought I was including chimps, thou art having much silly thoughts.
I merely state that it's really stretching credulity to assert that the president's position on the issue is going to trump all other sources of info a person has on this subject.
I stated for clarification that it did not trump all others. In fact any opinion or research only trumps others if a person chooses it over others. I stated it was a weighty opinion due to the prestige of his political position.
Presidential policies to "discourage" some formal school based system of sex-ed does not equal information blackout.
The president started a plan to offer 1 million dollars to any school that would teach abstinence ONLY. Which, a number of schools have turned down based on INFORMATION BLACKOUT of safe sex practices, and the fact that 1 million is diddily.
Anyone who looks to a president for learning about the birds and the bees is as stupid as the educated person who abuses narcotics thinking it won't happen to him/her. Don't know about you, but I've never heard anyone say "I'm not using prevention b/c the president says it's wrong".
Guess that's where we differ, I have. What can I say, I agree, but I have heard that assertion.

Actually, you're the one being a bit disingenuous here. You're imputing far too much value to the president's position on sex ed in the schools vis-a-vis people's behavior.
If you wish to look up the number of schools that teach abstinence only, and how many started AFTER Bush was elected, you are welcome to do so. As it is, I have only memories of newspaper articles which I cannot present here in any other form than "I remember...."

Not clear on your point here. Are you trying to assert that the president's policy is forcing everyone to abstain or be forced into abstaining? The "these people" I was referring to were the ones unduly influenced by the president's position on sex-ed (whoever they are).
That the people who are not unduly agreeing, but willfully agreeing, are using the fact that the president said it, as clout against those who disagree.

Consult the emboldened print above. The rest is cute, but irrelevant.

Perhaps you forgot to read. Go back and check. The only diff between the 2 is that I used bold print the 2nd time around.
ah, yes, it does appear I missed that, apologies. Still, in earlier times, the law said: "women must hold a place(the womb) for her husband's seed" and later less infringingly, that they couldn't get abortions in many places till after Roe v Wade.(though apparently she's changed her mind and is married to a radical anti-abortionist)

Now that's a quaint notion......educated minds are axiomatically stable ones.
My implication was only that educated minds are less prone to such self-inflictions, either because their minds are more stable or because they realize what's going on in their head before they act on it and get help.

Fascinating. You're implying that barring a formal school class, people don't have the sense to figure out that driving intoxicated is stupid. Do these people all live in a vacuum?
Barring a formal class, people find out drunk driving is bad by getting drunk, driving, and then killing others or being killed. Now, since drunk driving is still happening, I would glean that the classes that are supposed to dissuade you from driving drunk are not as effective as they should be. I certainly don't approve of the "guess and check" method when it comes to playing with lives.

You're leaving out a very big step here. They had to take the drugs (in most cases voluntarily) FIRST before an addiction could ever develop. They may need to be educated about how to get off of a particular substance after an addiction has formed, though.
Indeed, and other people in general need to be educated on how to help them do that. Working under the assumption that they took the drugs voluntarily likly means that any kind of information given to them regarding drugs and avoiding them was insufficient.

But what about all that education they had that was supposed to prevent them from engaging in the act (or at least in an "unprotected" state) in the first place? Oops, guess none of that learning took too well.
It's sad that we are only recently learning that all people learn differently. it seems so obvious. In any case, "education" is not limited to those who would do it, but also those who would propose to educate others. One cannot claim to be able to educate if those in their charge are not learning.

Sorry, that just smacks of extreme naivete`. You missed the point, though. There is an underlying and somewhat arrogant assumption that YOU can "educate" someone to do things YOUR way, when their goals are often contradictory to yours.
People convert to different religions all the time. While it is true that nobody changes your mind but yourself, you cannot even attempt to change your mind without first getting a new and different set of information regarding a subject. So, if one does not attempt to sit down with ones enemy, neither you nor your enemy could even being to see each others POV to even attempt to change your minds.

Totenkopf
02-13-2008, 03:56 AM
Rather than going on a point by point basis, I have a few questions:

1)What, for you, is the conclusive proof that something/one is human?

2)If a human female delivers a chimpanzee to term and it is born alive, is it now human?

2a)If society grants that chimp the same rights as a human being, it it now human also?

3)How did we get this far as a species before the invention of formal education?

4)Do you really believe that people who go to the "school of hard knocks" are too stupid to figure out that driving intoxicated/stoned is a bad idea?

5)Do I need a class to tell me that pointing a loaded gun at my head and pulling the trigger is suicidally dangerous, or will being told by my parents as a youth/ actually observing someone else do it suffice?

6)Does the fact that someone might try to classify another group of people as "subhuman" for political/economic reasons actually make them so?

7)Do you believe that your enemy/adversary is going to do what you want simply because you ask him to? Human history seems to say otherwise.

8)Why do you believe that b/c an administration wants to push abstinence only programs that that means there is an effective blackout on sex-ed info given the fact we are in the age of information(tv/mags/internet, etc..)?

9)Realizing, as you've noted already, that some people have an immortality complex, do you not see that very bright people will still make a slew of stupid decisions based on their own egos overriding their better judgement?

Darth InSidious
02-13-2008, 06:41 AM
Web Rider, there's a word for people you consider 'inferior': untermenschen.

Jae Onasi
02-13-2008, 11:05 AM
that sounds like really poor math IMO. I mean, I realize it's difficult to say " This fetus is EXACTLY X weeks along." But it sounds really iffy. I mean, if they know that they're generally about 2 weeks off, why don't they just adjust their weeks instead of totally throwing people off with flipping back and forth between "base 8" and "base 10".

Gestational dating is the most common convention used in pregnancy, and dating from the date of the last period is the easiest device for women and docs to work with for pregnancy dating purposes. I would use gestational dating exclusively, but there's been some confusion in this thread between gestational dating vs. embryo development age, so I tried to include both in the specific cases that were discussed here (date of first heartbeat in particular).

It's actually easy to determine fetal age through the first trimester--the growth in the fetal crown-to-rump length is nearly uniform from baby to baby for the first 12 weeks or so, and if you know the crown-to-rump length you can figure out the date of conception pretty much to the day.

Btw--ECG is the same as EKG--both measure cardiac activity. EEG is electroencephalogram, which measures brain activity, so I'll use that convention here.

Web Rider
02-13-2008, 12:50 PM
Rather than going on a point by point basis, I have a few questions:
1)What, for you, is the conclusive proof that something/one is human?
Keep in mind these are not the ONLY things, just some that come to mind. It needs to be born, it needs to not require constant(and by constant I mean every waking second, not every 6 hours or so), nourishment and protection, it needs to be able to survive outside a specially designed containment unit(ie: a womb) for an extended amount of time to a reasonable degree of success. it needs to be capable of at least minimal cognitive thought, and of course, contain human DNA and a human form.

2)If a human female delivers a chimpanzee to term and it is born alive, is it now human?
Since this is not possible, I shall not address it.

2a)If society grants that chimp the same rights as a human being, it it now human also?
in the same way that if society grants somebody under 18 the same rights as those over 18, yes. So....socially, yes, genetically, no.

3)How did we get this far as a species before the invention of formal education?
I have no idea. I wouldn't be surprised to learn of primitive hunters teaching other hunters good ways to throw rocks and sticks. "formal" in the past could appear very "informal" to us now. Humans are social creatures after all.

4)Do you really believe that people who go to the "school of hard knocks" are too stupid to figure out that driving intoxicated/stoned is a bad idea?
yeah, 'cause I met 'em. They didn't figure it out till they totaled their car or hurt somebody. My school had at least 1 person die annually from car accidents, often related to drunk driving.

5)Do I need a class to tell me that pointing a loaded gun at my head and pulling the trigger is suicidally dangerous, or will being told by my parents as a youth/ actually observing someone else do it suffice?
You still required somebody other than yourself to inform you what a gun was, and what it did, and why you shouldn't do it. I'm not proposing that the ONLY place to get an education is in a brick room. only that those attempting, those in that brick room, must be less than successful when looking at current drunk-driving rates.

6)Does the fact that someone might try to classify another group of people as "subhuman" for political/economic reasons actually make them so?
Genetically? no. Socially? yes. This has pretty much been the way it's worked for thousands of years. If people are willing to buy it, well, then I guess it's true enough for them.

7)Do you believe that your enemy/adversary is going to do what you want simply because you ask him to? Human history seems to say otherwise.
I believe my enemy may question his motivation when he sees I'd rather talk things out than just kill him. The only outcome from violence is more violence.

8)Why do you believe that b/c an administration wants to push abstinence only programs that that means there is an effective blackout on sex-ed info given the fact we are in the age of information(tv/mags/internet, etc..)?
Because they've said so. Bush has said it in his speeches.

9)Realizing, as you've noted already, that some people have an immortality complex, do you not see that very bright people will still make a slew of stupid decisions based on their own egos overriding their better judgement?
Quite possibly. They are only human. No amount of anything currently available can change that. Of course, I find egotistical intelligent people to be somewhat contradictory.

Web Rider, there's a word for people you consider 'inferior': untermenschen.

ooooo, a Nazi comparason. You wound me....oh, wait, no you don't, since I know all you're doing is going: "OMG! You think some people are less human! You teh Nazi!!11! lol"

Totenkopf
02-13-2008, 06:17 PM
So, where exactly do you stand on what makes a human actually human? I see you include a partial list, but then revert to this duality argument about cultural/social vs genetic. This is part of the kind of reasoning that gave us things like anti-semitism, racism, anti-religious bigotry. It seems to me that if you qualify as "genetically" (ie the byproduct of human conception between two other humans) human, your membership in the human race is assured. The fact that some political power doesn't see fit to give you certain rights and privileges doesn't make you any less human. Frankly, using some of your reasoning, if a "robot" attains a degree of self awareness in it's programing and has a chip that incorporates some human DNA, as well as having a human form, it is not merely a sentient being, but human as well. If all it took to rob someone of their humanity was a government proclamation, there'd be no need for outfits like human rights watch or amnesty international b/c it wouldn't be human beings that were being tortured or discriminated against......thus there be nothing for them to protest in their current forms. ;)

Also, you demonstrate throughout that people don't actually need formal education on a lot of subjects b/c they can get it through personal observation, friends, family, etc.. The fact that an administration decides not to use federal funds for a certain type of sex-ed program DOES NOT equal an effective info blackout b/c the administration is only one of a myriad of sources of information. People are still free to organize and give their own presentations, advertise their services via the media, etc.. to get the word out. What you're showing me is that people just get more and more adept at blaming others for their own personal behaviors and failures.

@Jae--good catch, should have corrected that myself in an earlier post (esp given the # of med professionals in my family).

Web Rider
02-13-2008, 08:19 PM
So, where exactly do you stand on what makes a human actually human? I see you include a partial list...
What I gave you were the best things I could think of that combined made something a human. Given those things, I am more than likly to say that the thing with those is a human.

but then revert to this duality argument about cultural/social vs genetic. This is part of the kind of reasoning that gave us things like anti-semitism, racism, anti-religious bigotry.
Such cannot be helped. There is no way to accurately define humanity, even based on DNA, because each person's DNA is unique. How can we say that X strand of human DNA is a good base for humanity? It must also be socially defined. Yes, socially defined things don't always produce GOOD results, but "good" is a relative term and as long as humans do human things, society will continue to produce "bad" things.

It seems to me that if you qualify as "genetically" (ie the byproduct of human conception between two other humans) human, your membership in the human race is assured. The fact that some political power doesn't see fit to give you certain rights and privileges doesn't make you any less human.
As part of the human species? yes, but laws are not part of our biology. one cannot claim that we should outlaw abortion because some marker in our DNA says so. "Humanity" in our current debated context is also assigned through social customs and norms, if we were to follow your rules, we could not say that people have the right to free speech, and then say schools can mandate what kids can and cannot say because they are younger humans. While the hypothetical government in question cannot strip you of your genetic connection to the human race, many government have historically be rather effective at doing so anyway.

Frankly, using some of your reasoning, if a "robot" attains a degree of self awareness in it's programing and has a chip that incorporates some human DNA, as well as having a human form, it is not merely a sentient being, but human as well.
I would agree that due to those factors, said robot has a good argument for claiming to be human. Lets take the robot girl in the Alien Resurrection movie, she looked human, acted human, and had human biological components, she was self aware and sentient. I would say she had a strong case for being human. Even if she was not 100% human. But, as I already said, though some of our DNA says "this being is human", some of it also denotes that we are all different, even if very slightly, therefore, it is impossible to say that one particular, complete strand of DNA is a base for humanity.

If all it took to rob someone of their humanity was a government proclamation, there'd be no need for outfits like human rights watch or amnesty international b/c it wouldn't be human beings that were being tortured or discriminated against......thus there be nothing for them to protest in their current forms. ;)
That is all it takes, is a government proclamantion. Conter to your point however, such statements are only true if people accept them to be. You or I or a government can CLAIM anything we want, and it will only become truth, even if it's a lie, it will only become truth with people accept it as such. Until then it's just an opinion.
And human rights groups exist because they do not subscribe to that particular opinion.

Also, you demonstrate throughout that people don't actually need formal education on a lot of subjects b/c they can get it through personal observation, friends, family, etc..

The fact that an administration decides not to use federal funds for a certain type of sex-ed program DOES NOT equal an effective info blackout b/c the administration is only one of a myriad of sources of information.
in the area where it is being taught, and not being learned of ones own volition it does. But yes, it does not equal and information blackout EVERYWHERE, but it does equal one in a place that is supposed to be about teaching information, not censoring it.

People are still free to organize and give their own presentations, advertise their services via the media, etc.. to get the word out. What you're showing me is that people just get more and more adept at blaming others for their own personal behaviors and failures.
You are welcome to demonstrate to me a K-12 institution that teaches abstinence only but allows for the hand outs of sexual-protection devices or information on campus.

Totenkopf
02-13-2008, 09:51 PM
I almost hate to say this, but you're a bit confused. Something is true or not. The # of people who say something is true does not change that fact. It only shows a new truth: that people are willing to suspend their own good judgement b/c someone told them to or forced them to. Green is green, even if 65% of the people say it's blue. The only possible exception to this is to change green and blue by their very definitions to match your new "reality".

Using your apparent definitions of what constitutues humanity allows for people to robbed of their "rights" simply b/c they are declared subhuman/untermenschen or undesirables. The fact that someone will relegate you to a lesser status does not in fact MAKE you less human, it just allows for you to be treated as such on whimsy. If I take over your town, throw you in a dungeon and leave you to rot....are you truly less human in fact or just treated as though you were? People talk about perception being reality, but if your neighbors think you're a pedaphile, are you now? If one takes your approach, the answer is resoundingly yes.

if we were to follow your rules, we could not say that people have the right to free speech, and then say schools can mandate what kids can and cannot say because they are younger humans.
Perhaps you can clarify this statement.

Frankly, you've already conceded that an administration policy is not the final say on access to information and confirmed my assertion that people who fail to learn will always find a way to blame others. It is you that is hung up on the idea that all learning must somehow be channeled through the school system. Are you an education major, perchance?

I'd be a little careful about buying too much into relativism. The commies and nazis used the same tactics. Hitler and Goebbels were big on propogating the big lie as truth. If I can convince enough people that jews, gays, gypsies and slavs are subhuman, then now they are. :tsk:

Web Rider
02-13-2008, 09:58 PM
I almost hate to say this, but you're a bit confused. Something is true or not. The # of people who say something is true does not change that fact. It only shows a new truth: that people are willing to suspend their own good judgement b/c someone told them to or forced them to. Green is green, even if 65% of the people say it's blue. The only possible exception to this is to change green and blue by their very definitions to match your new "reality".
Truth is only objective because you believe it to be. Which makes your take on truth a subjective one. If people say the color green is to be named blue, it is blue. While it does not change the color, the color will henceforth be known as "blue".

Using your apparent definitions of what constitutues humanity allows for people to robbed of their "rights" simply b/c they are declared subhuman/untermenschen or undesirables. The fact that someone will relegate you to a lesser status does not in fact MAKE you less human, it just allows for you to be treated as such on whimsy. If I take over your town, throw you in a dungeon and leave you to rot....are you truly less human in fact or just treated as though you were? People talk about perception being reality, but if your neighbors think you're a pedaphile, are you now? If one takes your approach, the answer is resoundingly yes.
quite correct, and that's nothing new.


Frankly, you've already conceded that an administration policy is not the final say on access to information and confirmed my assertion that people who fail to learn will always find a way to blame others. It is you that is hung up on the idea that all learning must somehow be channeled through the school system. Are you an education major, perchance?
no, but I don't honestly trust people to learn themselves, I think most people must be taught. Formal or otherwise, the desire to learn of ones own volition is not universal.

I'd be a little careful about buying too much into relativism. The commies and nazis used the same tactics. Hitler and Goebbels were big on propogating the big lie as truth. If I can convince enough people that jews, gays, gypsies and slavs are subhuman, then now they are. :tsk:
And is that not what we do when we argue abortion? Argue shades of truth in order to get more people to agree with us so that we can use that weight to legislate our POV?

Totenkopf
02-13-2008, 10:09 PM
Truth is not relative, except to the relativist. ;)

You do realize that you only confirmed my point about green/blue, as I already said it would require a redefining of the "truth" for your pov to make any sense.

Are you saying that if people think your a pedophile, you are or just the first part of that block?

Well, how do you account for all the lack of learning going on in the school system currently? How many people graduate from schools and still behave like blithering idiots? A person will only learn what they want to learn, regardless of the source.

And is that not what we do when we argue abortion? Argue shades of truth in order to get more people to agree with us so that we can use that weight to legislate our POV?

Perhaps you do.

Web Rider
02-13-2008, 10:42 PM
Truth is not relative, except to the relativist. ;)

You do realize that you only confirmed my point about green/blue, as I already said it would require a redefining of the "truth" for your pov to make any sense.
which I said several times throughout my posts. We have redefined 'science' in some schools, we have changed the definition of a 'child' to change the definition of 'life', all in order for a certain POV to make sense.

Are you saying that if people think your a pedophile, you are or just the first part of that block?
If enough people think you are a pedophile, then just like the Communist Witch-hunts, people will treat you like one, regardless of the fact that you are not. That fact is unsupported by the people, and therefor ignored.

Well, how do you account for all the lack of learning going on in the school system currently? How many people graduate from schools and still behave like blithering idiots? A person will only learn what they want to learn, regardless of the source.
I attribute it to parents, society, and governments that do not encourage the learning and education of others. I attribute it to teachers who don't care, administration who treat students like criminals, and a myriad of societal issues.

Perhaps you do.
Have not you been presenting your beliefs and facts to support them in order for I an others to see your POV, and possibly agree with it?

Corinthian
02-13-2008, 10:50 PM
So, essentially, there is no truth, only what society believes? And the left like to consider themselves the scientific ones as opposed to the religious right-wingers.

Web Rider
02-13-2008, 11:00 PM
So, essentially, there is no truth, only what society believes? And the left like to consider themselves the scientific ones as opposed to the religious right-wingers.

and if I were left, that might concern me, or even be remotely accurate. You and I have different truths, is that not evidence? China and the US have different truths, Saudi Arabia and England have different truths.

While you may present your opinion that claims there is an objective truth, but the fact that millions would likely take at least one claim against it would be evidence enough that truth is relative.

Corinthian
02-13-2008, 11:20 PM
There is one truth. Everything else is false. The world is round. The sky is blue. 150 degrees Fahrenheit is way too bloody hot for humans, and 150 celsius is even worse. Blood is red. Staring directly into the sun will eventually cause damage to your eyes. The heart is rather important. And a lobotomy will definitely impede mental function.

None of these matter whether you're American, English, Dutch, Spanish, Arabian, Israeli, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Ukrainian, Swiss, Swedish, Brazilian, Canadian, Madagascarian (?), New Zealand...ese...

6,499,999,999 or so people took the opposite opinion of Timothy Clydesdale here, who, let's say, believes that the Earth is round as opposed to flat, that would not make the larger group more correct. There are objective truths. The idea that Truth is different for everyone is a lie. No matter how many people say the wrong thing, the right thing remains right.

You confuse 'truth' with opinion. I can hold a belief that is not true. I cannot hold a truth that is not true, because of the very nature of truth. For example, there either is or there is not a God. People overstate the shades of grey.

Web Rider
02-13-2008, 11:22 PM
There is one truth. Everything else is false. The world is round. The sky is blue. 150 degrees Fahrenheit is way too bloody hot for humans, and 150 celsius is even worse. Blood is red. Staring directly into the sun will eventually cause damage to your eyes. The heart is rather important. And a lobotomy will definitely impede mental function.

None of these matter whether you're American, English, Dutch, Spanish, Arabian, Israeli, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Ukrainian, Swiss, Swedish, Brazilian, Canadian, Madagascarian (?), New Zealand...ese...

6,499,999,999 or so people took the opposite opinion of Timothy Clydesdale here, who, let's say, believes that the Earth is round as opposed to flat, that would not make the larger group more correct. There are objective truths. The idea that Truth is different for everyone is a lie. No matter how many people say the wrong thing, the right thing remains right.

You confuse 'truth' with opinion. I can hold a belief that is not true. I cannot hold a truth that is not true, because of the very nature of truth. For example, there either is or there is not a God. People overstate the shades of grey.

"facts" and "truths" are not always the same things.

Totenkopf
02-13-2008, 11:23 PM
which I said several times throughout my posts. We have redefined 'science' in some schools, we have changed the definition of a 'child' to change the definition of 'life', all in order for a certain POV to make sense.

Seems to me that it's not the definition of life that's at stake, but rather a matter of when it starts (more for social than medical reasons). Afterall, we all know that an inseminated human ovum will only develop into a human being and no a cat or other animal.



If enough people think you are a pedophile, then just like the Communist Witch-hunts, people will treat you like one, regardless of the fact that you are not. That fact is unsupported by the people, and therefor ignored.
But your logic dictates that if they believe you are, you are. Not merely that you will be treated like that. An important distinction that you keep ignoring.


I attribute it to parents, society, and governments that do not encourage the learning and education of others. I attribute it to teachers who don't care, administration who treat students like criminals, and a myriad of societal issues.

But what about the students who don't want to be bothered learning? Don't they carry a lion's share of the responsibility? You can give a child a book, but you can't actually force him to learn something if he won't cooperate.


Have not you been presenting your beliefs and facts to support them in order for I an others to see your POV, and possibly agree with it?

Difference is that, unlike you, I don't buy into the relativist distinction of "yours"/"mine" when it comes to the facts. They are or are not.

Corinthian
02-13-2008, 11:25 PM
My thesaurus disagrees with you, Web Rider.

Web Rider
02-13-2008, 11:30 PM
Seems to me that it's not the definition of life that's at stake, but rather a matter of when it starts (more for social than medical reasons). Afterall, we all know that an inseminated human ovum will only develop into a human being and no a cat or other animal.
it may also die, or be seriously deformed. IF a correctly developed sperm inseminates a correctly developed ovum, that ovum MAY attach itsself to the utirine lining and MAY develop into a fetus posessing human DNA and then MAY continue to develop into a correctly formed human male, female, or "other".

But your logic dictates that if they believe you are, you are. Not merely that you will be treated like that. An important distinction that you keep ignoring.
Americans are so quick to ignore the group for the individual. What does your personal truth matter if nobody believes you?

But what about the students who don't want to be bothered learning? Don't they carry a lion's share of the responsibility? You can give a child a book, but you can't actually force him to learn something if he won't cooperate.
When a child does not want to learn, we must address why. Rare to never is the reason "I don't like learning."

Difference is that, unlike you, I don't buy into the relativist distinction of "yours"/"mine" when it comes to the facts. They are or are not.
Proof only, that your opinion, not the facts, differer from me.

My thesaurus disagrees with you, Web Rider.

Your thesaurus was written by people, who are part of society, which regularly changes the definition and meaning of words. In short: your thesaurus means nothing because it's definition is only accurate for the here and now.

Samuel Dravis
02-13-2008, 11:31 PM
There is one truth. Everything else is false. The world is round. The sky is blue. 150 degrees Fahrenheit is way too bloody hot for humans, and 150 celsius is even worse. Blood is red. Staring directly into the sun will eventually cause damage to your eyes. The heart is rather important. And a lobotomy will definitely impede mental function.

None of these matter whether you're American, English, Dutch, Spanish, Arabian, Israeli, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, Ukrainian, Swiss, Swedish, Brazilian, Canadian, Madagascarian (?), New Zealand...ese...

6,499,999,999 or so people took the opposite opinion of Timothy Clydesdale here, who, let's say, believes that the Earth is round as opposed to flat, that would not make the larger group more correct. There are objective truths. The idea that Truth is different for everyone is a lie. No matter how many people say the wrong thing, the right thing remains right. It is interesting how all of your examples are 1) objective and 2) material. I do agree with that, by the way, but I am curious whether you find whether something without a material component can be assigned truth-values (demons' existence, etc).

Totenkopf
02-13-2008, 11:45 PM
it may also die, or be seriously deformed. IF a correctly developed sperm inseminates a correctly developed ovum, that ovum MAY attach itsself to the utirine lining and MAY develop into a fetus posessing human DNA and then MAY continue to develop into a correctly formed human male, female, or "other".

Relevance?

Americans are so quick to ignore the group for the individual. What does your personal truth matter if nobody believes you?

What difference does this make? A rock is a rock, by any other name b/c of it's composition. You can change the word you use to describe it, but its composition is unaffected by your linguistic gymnastics.


When a child does not want to learn, we must address why. Rare to never is the reason "I don't like learning."

Yes, and we've already shown that you can learn info from a variety of sources.


Proof only, that your opinion, not the facts, differer from me.

Actually, only proof that you're a relativist and I'm not. ;)

Web Rider
02-14-2008, 12:57 AM
Relevance?
that the birth of what society and genetics would deem a "human" is not the only, and as you seemed to imply, inevtiable outcome of conception.


What difference does this make? A rock is a rock, by any other name b/c of it's composition. You can change the word you use to describe it, but its composition is unaffected by your linguistic gymnastics.
A rock yes. What about morality? Or god? or laws? or the value of trees? or the taste of fish? If "facts" were all that mattered in the universe, the Spanish Inquisition would never have happened. Hitler would never have murdered millions, and so on. I think it is beyond evident that "facts" are not the ONLY source for "truth".

Yes, and we've already shown that you can learn info from a variety of sources.
since you have obviously failed to get my point which I have emphaticlly stated many times, I'm not going to continue this particular line.

Actually, only proof that you're a relativist and I'm not. ;)
Proof that your "truth" about life, the universe, and everything, differs from mine because of your stance as a non-relativist.

Totenkopf
02-14-2008, 03:46 AM
Unfortunately, you miss on a lot of points yourself. I never asserted that all pregnancies carry to term, only that the end product would only be human in composition. Also, you get too hung up on one example. Concepts like morality may change, but objects don't change just because you seek to redefine them for the sake of your own convenience. If I'm in charge and choose to say that all people with red hair are pedaphiles, and the vast majority of my subjects agree, that still doesn't make it true. You still have to change the meaning of that word and then it loses its original impact.

I got your original point about education, which you've refined somewhat along the course of this discussion. People have to learn things to be able to make good/better decisions. Education, though, is not restricted to merely one venue and that's what invalidated your original point (which was that an abstinence based education program by an administration was going to effectively become an info blackout......very overstated, unfortunately).

Truth, to have any meaning, must be based in facts. Anything else is just opinion or sheer unsubstantiated speculation. The only truth in them being that you believe them no matter the evidence. If my "truth" is that women have no virtues, that does not make my "truth" remotely realistic, even though I might cling to it and insist otherwise. You'd be more accurate to say "views" in this semantic dance than to fall back on choosing "truth" as your operative phrase.

Darth InSidious
02-14-2008, 07:18 AM
ooooo, a Nazi comparason. You wound me....oh, wait, no you don't, since I know all you're doing is going: "OMG! You think some people are less human! You teh Nazi!!11! lol"
Funny.

And yet, somehow, amidst all that rhetoric, you completely failed to offer a rebuttal of my point. :)

Also, it's "comparison". :)

Ray Jones
02-14-2008, 12:09 PM
There is one truth. Everything else is false. Is that so?

The world is round.Really? Was it 100000000000000 years ago? What's in 5000000000000 years? Is the 'world' round then?

The sky is blue.Night sky ain't. Mars' sky ain't. etc

150 degrees Fahrenheit is way too bloody hot for humans, and 150 celsius is even worse.Too hot for what? There's like 6 million °C within the sun, and I like that.

Blood is red.Well not exactly.
Hemoglobin

Hemoglobin is the principal determinant of the color of blood in vertebrates. Each molecule has four heme groups, and their interaction with various molecules alters the exact color. In vertebrates and other hemoglobin-using creatures, arterial blood and capillary blood are bright red as oxygen impacts a strong red color to the heme group. Deoxygenated blood is a darker shade of red with a bluish hue; this is present in veins, and can be seen during blood donation and when venous blood samples are taken. Blood in carbon monoxide poisoning is bright red, because carbon monoxide causes the formation of carboxyhemoglobin. In cyanide poisoning, the body cannot utilize oxygen, so the venous blood remains oxygenated, increasing the redness. While hemoglobin containing blood is never blue, there are several conditions and diseases where the color of the heme groups make the skin appear blue. If the heme is oxidized, methemoglobin, which is more brownish and cannot transport oxygen, is formed. In the rare condition sulfhemoglobinemia, arterial hemoglobin is partially oxygenated, and appears dark-red with a bluish hue (cyanosis), but not quite as blueish as venous blood.

Veins in the skin appear blue for a variety of reasons only weakly dependent on the color of the blood. Light scattering in the skin, and the visual processing of color play roles as well.

Skinks in the genus Prasinohaema have green blood due to a buildup of the waste product biliverdin.

Hemocyanin

The blood of most molluscs, including cephalopods and gastropods, as well as some arthropods such as horseshoe crabs contains the copper-containing protein hemocyanin at concentrations of about 50 grams per litre. Hemocyanin is colourless when deoxygenated and dark blue when oxygenated. The blood in the circulation of these creatures, which generally live in cold environments with low oxygen tensions, is grey-white to pale yellow, and it turns dark blue when exposed to the oxygen in the air, as seen when they bleed. This is due to change in color of hemocyanin when is it oxidized. Hemocyanin carries oxygen in extracellular fluid, which is in contrast to the intracellular oxygen transport in mammals by hemoglobin in RBCs.
What would you like, white, green, red, blue, yellow, colourless?

Staring directly into the sun will eventually cause damage to your eyes.Depends on how long you stare, and what's before our eyes.

The heart is rather important.When it's not beating?

And a lobotomy will definitely impede mental function.Not when that part of the brain wasn't functional to the begin with, for instance.


There is no truth at all. There is space, time, and causality.

Corinthian
02-14-2008, 12:12 PM
The extermination of Jews was based around that they were less human than the Aryans. So...yeah.

Yes, the world was round then, or the world did not exist, in which case the question is moot. Before the world was round it WAS NOT A PLANET and thus not a world. *Price is right failure music*

Actually, the night sky IS blue, just a very dark blue that the stars shine through. You'll notice it's not black if you look very closely. Also, failing to use context to determine what I'm referring to is simply being a pain, it's not clever or amusing in any way, shape, or form. It doesn't matter that Mar's sky isn't blue, because I wasn't referring to Mars.

Alright, you go to the sun. When the flesh runs off your bones like wax, lights on fire, turns to ash, and is then sucked into the gravity well and becomes raw carbon within the sun, we'll talk again.

Again, ignoring context. When I say Blood is Red, It's readily apparent that I'm referring to healthy human blood. Stop ~snipped~.
And stop deliberately flame-baiting. --Jae

I said eventually. And staring directly. *Price is right failure music. Again.*

Yes, it is. Because when it's not beating, it means someone is dead or close to it. *Price is right failure music...again.*

Name one part of the brain that is completely non-functional.

Jae Onasi
02-14-2008, 12:26 PM
I've noticed a trend lately with people correcting others' spelling. If you need to do something tacky like that, please do it in PM--it's off-topic when you do it in a post.

Also, for those of you whose spelling could be better, try writing your longer posts in Office Writer or Word and using the spellcheck feature. This will make it much easier to understand the points you're trying to make. There are also some Firefox extensions that have spellcheck features built in (e.g. BBCodeXtra). I'm sure other browsers have something similar.

Rogue Nine
02-14-2008, 12:40 PM
And how about keeping to the topic at hand? Now there's a novel idea!

Arcesious
02-15-2008, 02:58 AM
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2007/01/22/roe-v-wade-memorial-day/

So... 50,000,000 abortions since 1973, and 5,000,000 abortions since the Iraq war began. Yeah... Abortion IS out of hand. It must end, or at least be resricted considerably. However, whoever invented condoms was a genius. Imagine what would happen if condoms weren't ever invented. We'd be talking about 100's of millions of abortions then.

To quote soemthing from the site i linked: "Yeah, let all the children cry- if they could."

How's that for guilt for all this out of control abortion? Huh?
Or have we humans lost our morality and don't feel guilty for murder anymore? :disaprove

Totenkopf
02-15-2008, 03:20 AM
The problem is that the abortionists and their confederates refuse to see the the victims of their slaughter as human. No humans being killed, no murder. It is for them a simple equation.

mur'phon
02-15-2008, 03:57 AM
The problem is that the abortionists and their confederates refuse to see the the victims of their slaughter as human. No humans being killed, no murder. It is for them a simple equation.

For some, that might be true, others think only the (relativley) few late abortions can be considered murder.

Achilles
02-15-2008, 05:10 AM
How's that for guilt for all this out of control abortion? Huh? "Out of control" compared to what?
Or have we humans lost our morality and don't feel guilty for murder anymore? :disaprove By what arguments should we consider the death of non-living things "murder"?

Corinthian
02-15-2008, 09:42 AM
I'd say 50 million murders is out of control. *Whistle* We make Hitler and Stalin look tame, at least they weren't carving babies up exclusively.

Arcesious
02-15-2008, 10:03 AM
The babies are living beings. One thing no scientist seems to take into equation is this: Where does the soul come from? We are killing living beings.
The abortion rate may be dropping, very slowly, but just how many more deaths will it take before abortioners finally admit their wrongdoing? Ten million? A hundred million? A billion? We must regain our morality. Science is not the answer to everything. You can't put sentient life, a soul, into a equation. It exists, but you don't know how it works. It is murder, and things like this should be treated morally. Where is the conscience of the Human race anymore? I repeat: 50,000,000 deaths and climbing. Hitler and Stalin would be proud.

mur'phon
02-15-2008, 11:44 AM
Where does the soul come from?

Does it need to exist at all?

We are killing living beings.

Yes, just as we kill other living beings like cows, pigs, etc

but just how many more deaths will it take before abortioners finally admit their wrongdoing?

It's not about the number of deaths, you just need to convince us we are killing "persons", and abortion will for the most part end.

We must regain our morality.

Asuming we have lost it, sure.

Science is not the answer to everything. You can't put sentient life, a soul, into a equation. It exists, but you don't know how it works

Funny, I tend to consider things that aren't proven to exist to, you know, not exist.

It is murder, and things like this should be treated morally.

Then what is the morall way?

Where is the conscience of the Human race anymore?

Where it has always been?

Hitler and Stalin would be proud

Stalin probably wouldn't mind, Hitler would probably be rather pissed as long as some of those aborted are "aryans".

Ray Jones
02-15-2008, 12:07 PM
Yes, the world was round then, or the world did not exist, in which case the question is moot.It is not, because, the world that not is, is not round.

Actually, the night sky IS blue, just a very dark blue that the stars shine through. You'll notice it's not black if you look very closely.Question, how do you look at the sky very closely? Then, actually, when there is no light shining through the air, it is black, because, no light, no color. PLUS, with like tons of red shining stars out there, I doubt those will produce blue light ever.

Also, failing to use context to determine what I'm referring to is simply being a pain, it's not clever or amusing in any way, shape, or form. It doesn't matter that Mar's sky isn't blue, because I wasn't referring to Mars."The sky is blue" stands to context in Earth how?

Alright, you go to the sun. When the flesh runs off your bones like wax, lights on fire, turns to ash, and is then sucked into the gravity well and becomes raw carbon within the sun, we'll talk again.Actually my atomic parts would be fused to iron, but on the other hand, who said something about going to the sun?

Again, ignoring context. When I say Blood is Red, It's readily apparent that I'm referring to healthy human blood.Is it? It is not. Could be whale blood as well.

I said eventually. And staring directly.last week I stared into the sun for 1 second. Directly. Nothing.

Yes, it is. Because when it's not beating, it means someone is dead or close to it.A not beating heart is in no way important to the dead person.

Name one part of the brain that is completely non-functional.Why? Lobotomy takes always care of the same part of the brain being cut. Now if that part wasn't functional because of whatever reasons, accident, intoxication, brain tumor, it won't change a bit.


*feels the cold steel of Niner's gun on his neck*

<_<;;;;

ON TO THE TOPIC AT HAND:


Firstly, who would argue that a human fetus is not human? :dozey:

Plus, what we have here in this thread is comparison with murder of who knows what - underage, adult, very old, ill, handicapped, disabled, 6 million dollar man and untermenschen people. We got discussion about rights and whatnot. Why is that even relevant to the topic of abortion? All those kinds of humans have already breathed more or less fresh air, fetuses have not. "Comparison" ended.

Then there are attempts to declare a fetus as non-living whatever thing, aiming towards that something non-living cannot be killed.
??? Of course, abortion *does* kill life. At least the life of the cells making up the fetus. But again, why is that relevant?

Last but not least there is the issue about the person/non-person status due to beating hearts and working brains or lack thereof. All philosophic and linguistic poppycock. Humans are persons from the begin with. Fertilised cell - fetus - baby - child - adult - old - bug yum yum, that's the way they go. Of course, there are differences between them. In age, size, growing rate, personality, abilities, experience. This was also brought up in this thread, but with a rather incomplete train of thought behind it.

However, we cannot separate those attributes. The difference is not just that a fetus is usually smaller than an adult. Or that they have less abilities, or that they are inside a womb. The difference between a fetus and a child is *all that*. A fetus cannot speak, walk, grows at different rate, is way smaller, eats different etc. All this is directly tied to but one attribute: age. And according to a persons age we can make certain whether a human is fetus, child, or grown up.

Also, the "purpose" or "main focus" of a human person changes with their age, something like children learn, adults work, old teach. I realise there are no clear lines between those things, but while one may never stop learning, the rate at which he is doing so decreases with increasing age. So at the end of the day, it pretty much is like this. Does that mean something? -- It does. It means, that with increasing age, the importance of one human regarding the forthcome of the whole species is changing. Simple example, the older humans are the more risky are their pregnancies, up to the point where old people can't create offspring anymore. While that *does not* mean that old are useless in any way, it simply means that children are more important to the forthcome of species than adults are, even if they are not yet sexual mature. Another point is that children (from a certain age on), despite a definite lack of experience, knowledge, or even strength, have good chances to survive, even if there are no elderly humans to help them out, also due to the fact that a certain level of knowledge and strength comes on its own.

What does that mean concerning the unborn fetus? -- Obviously that the unborn fetus offers almost *zero* possibility to make the human species survive on its own. Means, despite being the ultimate essence of surviving of human life, it is utterly use-/helpless on its own. This also means, that it makes no sense to protect that unborn life before all born life under all circumstances. Thus protecting the unborn fetus causing the mother to die makes no sense, even more, it means risking that this mother organism will never be able to add anything regarding human offspring (like caring for her other baby, etc), and thus it is a risk to the whole forthcome of humanity.

Okay, turtle eggs? Turtle eggs usually never see their mother again, their "content" *is supposed* to survive on its own, this cannot compared to a human fertilised egg.

It simply is illogical to say that the unborn human life has to be treated the same way born life is. There are so many differences, it seems impossible from whatever perspective.

Hm. Now what is abortion anyway? It is not a contraceptive, nor murder, nor the invention of irresponsible teens who just want to **** their brains out of their behinds.

It is but one thing: termination of a pregnancy on purpose.

Nature does that all the time. Most women trying to get pregnant have at least one miscarriage without even noticing it because they simply have their "time of the month" or it's like one of those months where they are overdue a couple of days. Then there are all kinds of pregnancies that end who knows when up to the point where the babies die during the birth. What "reasons" might nature have for those "natural abortions"? Even more, what reasons might nature have for animals that kill their own or other's offspring?

So is it right to end a pregnancy for whatever reasons, even for nature?

Where is the difference, when a raped woman miscarriages due to the stress or even her injuries even if she wanted the child, or if she actively decides to end that pregnancy?

Where is the difference between the miscarriage of the 50 year old married woman who "accidentally" got pregnant, or her possible decision to not risk her or the babies health/life due to being too old for a "no risk pregnancy"?

At the end of the day, the only difference is one decision is made consciously the other unconsciously.

Corinthian
02-15-2008, 12:40 PM
I've had enough of this. If you're going to be deliberately obtuse, I'm just going to ignore you.

Achilles
02-15-2008, 12:48 PM
The babies are living beings.Indeed they are. Abortion deals with embryos and fetuses though.

One thing no scientist seems to take into equation is this: Where does the soul come from? Science cannot take into account that for which there is no evidence. In other words: please provide evidence for this "soul".

We are killing living beings. Only after a certain point in gestation. Existing laws ensure that this is only done with good reason. Prior to that point however, we are not.

The abortion rate may be dropping, very slowly, but just how many more deaths will it take before abortioners finally admit their wrongdoing? Ten million? A hundred million? A billion? And if what they are doing isn't "wrong"? Doesn't seem that there would be much to "admit" in that case, does there?

Science is not the answer to everything. The process of finding answers is not an answer? Okay.

You can't put sentient life, a soul, into a equation. It exists, but you don't know how it works.Since you appear to know quite a bit about "souls", perhaps you can answer some questions for me:

At what point does the soul enter the body?
In those rare instances in which a zygote splits and becomes twins, does that soul split as well? Is each twin born with half a soul? Or is a second soul provided? Who provides it and which twin gets it?
In those rare instances in which one or more fertilized egg is absorbed, is the resulting chimera born with two souls? If not what happens to the second soul?
If the soul enters the body after the point when zygotes can split or fuse, would abortion be "immoral" prior to that point?

I look forward to reading your answers.

It is murder, and things like this should be treated morally. Indeed it should. Hence why is pleases me greatly to know that we already have existing laws for abortions that take place after the fetus is unequivocally a living thing.

Take care.

Totenkopf
02-15-2008, 02:20 PM
Only after a certain point in gestation. Existing laws ensure that this is only done with good reason. Prior to that point however, we are not....Indeed it should. Hence why is pleases me greatly to know that we already have existing laws for abortions that take place after the fetus is unequivocally a living thing.

It might help if you can provide a clear definition of "living". I was unaware that the fetus was apparently a necrotic mass of tissue. At what arbitrary point are you supporting the notion that a fetus morphs magically from living tissue into a "being"? Is a child in the third trimester a "living being" or is that only conveniently conditional for you as well?

Web Rider
02-15-2008, 02:56 PM
It might help if you can provide a clear definition of "living". I was unaware that the fetus was apparently a necrotic mass of tissue. At what arbitrary point are you supporting the notion that a fetus morphs magically from living tissue into a "being"? Is a child in the third trimester a "living being" or is that only conveniently conditional for you as well?

"living" tissue and a "living" being are not the same thing.

Arcesious
02-15-2008, 07:51 PM
We are the only sentient species we know of. Why isn't any other species sentient? Why has the human race remained the only sentient species? What is the difference? Evolution? Can evolution explain how we became more intelligent, developed morals, complex languages, and much more? I don't think it really does. Every other animal species theoretically can have th epotential to evolve to a sentient, level, but none have. When does instinct bred from evolution reach it's limit? Humanity. Humanity is beyond instinct. Advanced survival instincts is not what made us humans sentient. is must have been soemthing more. We can;'t explain it, but what about people who have had otu of body experiences, or near death experiences, where many people have claimed that very odd things have happened to them? how do we explain that? do we flag them as trying to get attention and just makign things up, or are most of them really telling the truth? What would cause this, except for a soul, a spirit beyond their physical body? What about shows like ghost hunters? Thigns like this shouldn't be dismissed as false, but shoudl taken into account. Just because we can't understand it doesn't mean it's not real. To say something like a soul is not real is arrogance, as we are pathetic human beings, with very limited perceptual capabilities. We should not ignore and flag as false that which we do not understand. The soul is one of those things. And even a single fertilized ovule is humanity, whether it be sentient or not, it (he or she) is a form of life, a form of life that shoudl be allowed to grow, and becoem a complete human being, and gain intelligence. Who are we to dictate who can and can't live? for example: If the mother of einstein could have decided to have an abortion, which she wouldn't, but if it had turned out that she die , where would we be? For all we know, we could be killing humans who could have been the next einstein, or mozart, or da vinci!
We must allow these lives to be allowed to live, and reach the potential they could reach. No person should have the right to decide if soemone unborn lives or dies, after all that person could turn out to be the next mozart or einstein if we let them live!
We must allow living beings that can become human beings if they were allowed to live to reach the potential they rightly deserve!

Web Rider
02-15-2008, 08:05 PM
We are the only sentient species we know of. Why isn't any other species sentient? Why has the human race remained the only sentient species? What is the difference? Evolution? Can evolution explain how we became more intelligent, developed morals, complex languages, and much more? I don't think it really does.

Can it? I'd say yes. Does it? I don't know. I'm not familiar with all the info on the current embodiment of The Theory of Evolution. Could it in the future? Possibly. Science is about getting the answers, not about having them NOW.

Every other animal species theoretically can have th epotential to evolve to a sentient, level, but none have.
Says the arrogant human being. If nothing else, humans are naturally arrogant, can you go out to a cow and tell me it's not sentient? How did you determine that? Or did you read a science book that says so?

When does instinct bred from evolution reach it's limit? Humanity. Humanity is beyond instinct. Advanced survival instincts is not what made us humans sentient. is must have been soemthing more.
prove it.

We can;'t explain it, but what about people who have had otu of body experiences, or near death experiences, where many people have claimed that very odd things have happened to them?
The mind is very powerful. There, I explained it in a non-psudeo-religious way. Am I right? Maybe. Am I wrong? maybe. I have no proof either way.

how do we explain that? do we flag them as trying to get attention and just makign things up, or are most of them really telling the truth? What would cause this, except for a soul, a spirit beyond their physical body? What about shows like ghost hunters? Thigns like this shouldn't be dismissed as false, but shoudl taken into account. Just because we can't understand it doesn't mean it's not real.
Not understanding something means we have proof of it's existance. I don't understand the purpose of the duck-billed platipus. But we have proof it exists, so I don't deny that.

To say something like a soul is not real is arrogance, as we are pathetic human beings, with very limited perceptual capabilities. We should not ignore and flag as false that which we do not understand. The soul is one of those things.
Lack of proof of existance is not the same as not understanding.
If I don't understand your position, I do not deny it's existance. If you do not argue a position, and then claim I don't understand you, it is because there's no proof you made an argument.

And even a single fertilized ovule is humanity, whether it be sentient or not, it (he or she) is a form of life, a form of life that shoudl be allowed to grow, and becoem a complete human being, and gain intelligence. Who are we to dictate who can and can't live? for example: If the mother of einstein could have decided to have an abortion, which she wouldn't, but if it had turned out that she die , where would we be? For all we know, we could be killing humans who could have been the next einstein, or mozart, or da vinci!
WHAT IF! WHAT IF!! WHAT IF!!!
The world is not built on "what if", "what if" is a logical fallacy. In short, it means arguing on the basis of "what if!" makes you wrong.

We must allow these lives to be allowed to live, and reach the potential they could reach. No person should have the right to decide if soemone unborn lives or dies, after all that person could turn out to be the next mozart or einstein if we let them live!
We must allow living beings that can become human beings if they were allowed to live to reach the potential they rightly deserve!
Why? Other than saying this unborn child might be the next Hitler, the next Stalin, or the next BinLaden, you made no argument as to WHY they should be allowed to live.

Your argument can be summed up as follows: "The Unborn are alive and have souls and they could be great people so they should live."

Arcesious
02-15-2008, 08:33 PM
I repeat: We have no right to decide whether or not a living being capable of human sentience and great potential lives or dies. It's inhumane to do so, and we shoudl be ashamed of all these abortions.

Totenkopf
02-15-2008, 09:01 PM
Why? Other than saying this unborn child might be the next Hitler, the next Stalin, or the next BinLaden, you made no argument as to WHY they should be allowed to live.

Existentially, b/c they exist. Pretty much the reason you'd grant someone who just left (or perhaps is now ready to leave) the "birthing canal".

Achilles
02-15-2008, 09:27 PM
We are the only sentient species we know of.Really? (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061030183310.htm)

What is the difference? Evolution? Can evolution explain how we became more intelligent, developed morals, complex languages, and much more? I don't think it really does. Sure it can. Are you saying that intelligence, morality, language, and "much more" would not demonstrate a competitive advantage in social animals?

When does instinct bred from evolution reach it's limit? Humanity. Humanity is beyond instinct. Really? Please expand upon this.

Just because we can't understand it doesn't mean it's not real. Neither does that mean that it is real. It just means that it's possible. And the degree to which we accept or reject an idea should be directly proportional to the amount of evidence that we have for our arguments. Without evidence for a "soul" it is not reasonable to accept that such a thing exists.

To say something like a soul is not real is arrogance, as we are pathetic human beings, with very limited perceptual capabilities.To say something like invisible pink unicorns are not real is arrogance, as we are pathetic human beings, with very limited perceptual capabilities. Should we all blindly accept the existence of invisible pink unicorns also?

for example: If the mother of einstein could have decided to have an abortion, which she wouldn't, but if it had turned out that she die , where would we be? For all we know, we could be killing humans who could have been the next einstein, or mozart, or da vinci! We must allow these lives to be allowed to live, and reach the potential they could reach.Every fertile egg that is purged from the female body each month is a potential "einstein, mozart, or da vinci". Every moment that a woman spends doing something other than trying to conceive is another chance wasted. Should we argue that doing anything other than trying to get preggers is immoral too?

Do you feel the same way when you consider that every embryo aborted could be the next Stalin, or Hitler, or Pol Pot?

Web Rider
02-15-2008, 10:45 PM
I repeat: We have no right to decide whether or not a living being capable of human sentience and great potential lives or dies. It's inhumane to do so, and we shoudl be ashamed of all these abortions.

Then why are you OK with the meat industry? We have no proof that one of these cows may develop sentience, we have evidence that it is highly unlikely, but no proof that it is impossible. In fact, they could be sentient and we just aren't measuring it right.

Existentially, b/c they exist. Pretty much the reason you'd grant someone who just left (or perhaps is now ready to leave) the "birthing canal".
The same reason I suppose, but existance does not stop us from killing in war, killing animals, or breaking rocks. Rocks exist. Why is it OK to destroy them? Oil exists, why is it OK to burn it? That sounds rather painful to me.

Arcesious
02-16-2008, 01:10 AM
I see your point, but with a poiny liek that, you're only sayign we shoudl stop killing everything. Oil and rocks are not living things. they have no living matter in which to think. But with animals, I see your point. Humanity was given dominance over most of the animals by a superior level of senience, and adaptability, such as having apposeable thumbs... We require the meat of the animals to live, and we he no proof that they are or aren't sentient, except that our brains are more complex than any other animal's brain, and able to carry out more complex equations. If cows are sentient, oh well, but accordign to the law of nature, the strong must prey on the weak. But in the case of our own kind, we need to protect those of our kind who are weak and unable to speak for themselves, such as our young. It is natural for a species to try to preserve itself from extinction, as mentioned in the Way the world dies thread, and we are defying nature by murdering our own kind. the strong may prey over the weak, but the strogn of the same species must also protect the weak of their same species, usually. There are a few exceptions to this in the animal kingdom, but the biggest thing is that we must look after and protect the lives of our own young, which deserve to live. Frankly I don't care if cows or squirrels or whales or whatever are sentient, I only really care for my own species' welfare, and that is natural. We must protect the lives of our own unborn kind.

Totenkopf
02-16-2008, 02:02 AM
The same reason I suppose, but existance does not stop us from killing in war, killing animals, or breaking rocks. Rocks exist. Why is it OK to destroy them? Oil exists, why is it OK to burn it? That sounds rather painful to me.

Well, if we're going to be silly........perhaps you should never walk on grass, eat fruits and vegetables or even breath. Afterall, we "burn" oxygen too. ;)

Web Rider
02-16-2008, 05:42 AM
I see your point, but with a poiny liek that, you're only sayign we shoudl stop killing everything. Oil and rocks are not living things.
So, in order to fall into the "don't kill" category, they have to "living".

they have no living matter in which to think. But with animals, I see your point. Humanity was given dominance over most of the animals by a superior level of senience, and adaptability, such as having apposeable thumbs...
So survival of the fittest. This is a supporting argument to abortion. Under "survival of the fittest" those who are stronger have the right to do as they please to those who are weaker.

We require the meat of the animals to live, and we he no proof that they are or aren't sentient, except that our brains are more complex than any other animal's brain, and able to carry out more complex equations.
Some studies report Dolphins to be more intellgient and having just as great a capability to learn as us, we simply don't teach them things humanity has arbitrarily defined as "intelligent". And we don't require meat persay. We require proteins in the meat, which can be provided in many non-meat ways currently.

If cows are sentient, oh well, but accordign to the law of nature, the strong must prey on the weak. But in the case of our own kind, we need to protect those of our kind who are weak and unable to speak for themselves, such as our young.
We are under no threat of extinction, with 6.X billion people in the world and that number increasing to 9 billion in a short 50 yearsish, the human race is NOT anywhere close to going extinct from not birthing more babies.

It is natural for a species to try to preserve itself from extinction, as mentioned in the Way the world dies thread, and we are defying nature by murdering our own kind. the strong may prey over the weak, but the strogn of the same species must also protect the weak of their same species, usually.
Many animals destroy their young, Rabbits will kill their young if the colony cannot support them. Lions kill the young of other males they have just defeated. While they are preserving their own genes, they are not preserving their species.

So now your argument is: "we must because nature says so". Well, last I checked, nature didn't say computers were OK. And if you are arguing that we should do it because the rest of the animal kingdom does it, or at least parts of the animal kingdom we know about, consider my example above.

Male lions after the defeat of a rival, will kill any offspring of the defeated lion. Is it OK to have abortions if your girl gets pregnant by a rapist or another man? Could you kill the children of your wife's previous husband?

Arcesious
02-16-2008, 12:34 PM
I see your point. So then we have to do this:

We have to work harder to stop crime. We need more severe punishments for sexual offenses, to greater deter people from committing such crimes. We need to make drugs much less avaiable to people, so that means we need to beef up hospital security and limit what can be sold in drugstores and pharmacies. We tighter protocols. And we also need to work on making much better adoption systems than we have now, which includes making more and better refugee centers/daycares for homeless people and adoptable children.
We need to make these commercials advertising sexual enhancement drugs illegal, and we need programs on TV meant to teach stupid people morals and common sense.

It would be very hard, yes, and probably wouldn't fix everything, but it would certainly help to lower the abortion rate, and give those children a chance at life. I also see your point about rape victims, I think an exception in abortion should be kept for them. But for people who went off and weren't careful, and got pregnant, they shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion. People who do stupid things like that should be forced to wait and have the baby, and at least give the baby to an adoption center, unless if there are medical issues that could cause the mother to die giving birth.

Rev7
02-16-2008, 03:02 PM
Size
Level of development
Environment
Dependancy

I heard this on the radio one day, and I thought that I should share it.

What makes these fetuses any different than us? They are only at a different 'stage' so to say than we are. IMO, it is like killing a regular human being.

EDIT: I read the first post, and realized that that Rob said was the same as what I said. Eh, I guess I should read the first post...

Arcesious
02-16-2008, 03:22 PM
I think there's no difference. The Fetus is a Human being, not as developed as us, but with the potential become a complete human being if not murdered.
We are taking away people's lives with abortion. Remember what I said about unborn babies having the potential to be very successful human beings if we let them live? I think we should make an amendment to the Constitution about Human rights due to this fact. If an unborn being has the potential to become sentient like any other Human being, he/she must be allowed to live. Because the baby will achieve sentience if allowed to live, we must let he/she live.
"Speak up those who cannot speak up for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute." -Proverbs 31:8
And that's exactly what I'm doing. Not just because of my beliefs, but also because it is morally right and just to do so. Right now I'm thinking of joining an anti-abortion march if I get the chance. The injustice of abortion must end.

Rev7
02-16-2008, 03:34 PM
I agree, but unfortunatly so many others don't agree with us. I would probably do the same, if given the chance to. These fetuses could be great people, bad people, your average joe, but IMO we should let them have that chance to become themselves. No single person is the same.

Web Rider
02-16-2008, 03:49 PM
I see your point. So then we have to do this:

We have to work harder to stop crime. We need more severe punishments for sexual offenses, to greater deter people from committing such crimes. We need to make drugs much less avaiable to people, so that means we need to beef up hospital security and limit what can be sold in drugstores and pharmacies. We tighter protocols. And we also need to work on makign much better adoption systems than we have now, which includes makign more and better refugee centers/daycares for homeless people and adoptable children.
We need to make these commercials advertising sexual enhancement drugs illegal, and we need programs on TV meant to teach stupid people morals and common sense.
Morality has done very little as some of the most "moral" people, ie: Catholic preists, have turned out to be child molesters. Sexual enhancement drugs are fine for people with actual problems. But I do agree they're far too advertized and not used by people who need them. What I would also like to see, in addition to your points, is more emphasis on adopting grown children in the foster system. Everyone in the system needs parents, not just babies.

It would be very hard, yes, and probably wouldn't fix everything, but it would certainly help to lower the abortion rate, and give those children a chance at life. I also see your poitn about rape victims, i think an exception in abortion shoudl be kept for them. But for people who went off and weren't careful, and got pregnant, they shouldn't be allowed to have an abortion. People who do stupid thigns like that should be forced to wait and have the baby, and at least give the baby to an adoption center, unless if there are medical issues that could cause the mother to die giving birth.
My biggest gripe with limitation is simply that how do you prove she didn't consent? I mean all we've got is his, and her testimony, and remember, the Roe V Wade case was over rape, and it took them MORE than the 9 months to prove she wasn't raped. I think a 3 strikes system is the way I'd go. 3 abortions for whatever, then for medical emergencies only.

Now, if some woman is having 3 abortions, I can assure you she's going to have more pregnancies.

IMO, it is like killing a regular human being.

then I would have to ask why it's OK to give people under 18 no rights save through their parents or other adults?

We are takign away people's lives with abortion. Remember what i said about unborn babies having the potential to be very successful human beings if we let them live? I think we should make an amendment to the Consitution about Human rights due to this fact. If an unborn being has the potential to become sentient like any other Human being, he/she must be allowed to live. Because the baby will achieve sentience if allowed to live, we must let he/she live.

So, you would also ban masturbation and periods right? Since each time a woman has her time of the month, we're losing at least one possible life. And each time a man masturbates, millions upon millions of sperm are lost that could be millions and millions of babies, and of course we can't use protection either, since that prevents more babies from possibly being made.

Arcesious
02-16-2008, 03:58 PM
A baby isn't formed as a possible life unless if the sperm and ovule unite, otherwise, it's not a human being, even if it is life, because a baby requies the sperm and the ovule in order to have the potential to become a human being. It doesn't fully have that potential unless both the sperm and ovule unite.

The right to life however should apply to every human being, including unborn babies. The right to life already exists for every human being being, even under 18, except for babies. But humans that are convicted of first degree murder, they are sentenced to death. That does not violate that right though, as they murdered another human being. not giving babies the right to life is like convicting them of first degree murder that they never committed.

Basically we're going to keep having this problem until sexual crimes are much better controlled and further punished, and people learn common sense.

Rev7
02-16-2008, 04:01 PM
then I would have to ask why it's OK to give people under 18 no rights save through their parents or other adults?
Because the government says that we are not of age to have those sort of responsibilities that accompany being an adult.
So, you would also ban masturbation and periods right? Since each time a woman has her time of the month, we're losing at least one possible life. And each time a man masturbates, millions upon millions of sperm are lost that could be millions and millions of babies, and of course we can't use protection either, since that prevents more babies from possibly being made.
Periods are a natural thing. Masturbation on the other hand...
Now, if some woman is having 3 abortions, I can assure you she's going to have more pregnancies.
Yes, that is most likely what is going to happen. With what you are implying, and the circumstances that you have stated above, a person like that is using abortion as a way not to end up as a mother. That, IMO, is the wrong thing to do.

Web Rider
02-16-2008, 04:21 PM
Because the government says that we are not of age to have those sort of responsibilities that accompany being an adult.
Many people start working under the age of 18, paying bills, owning cars, some even own homes. I'd say those are the responsibilities of an adult. Yet they are not given those rights. But you're argument is "the government says so". So, the government is infallible, and therefore, I ask why you are protecting abortion laws? The Government has said "it's OK". Why are you questioning their judgement on some issues and not others?

Periods are a natural thing. Masturbation on the other hand...
Would that be the left hand or the right? It's just as natural, self stimulation is healthy and has been around for thousands of years.

Yes, that is most likely what is going to happen. With what you are implying, and the circumstances that you have stated above, a person like that is using abortion as a way not to end up as a mother. That, IMO, is the wrong thing to do.
I agree that the way in which people often use abortions is bad. But people who use abortion in such a manner are more than likly to go to the clothes-hangar method rather than stop having sex.

A baby isn't formed as a possible life unless if the sperm and ovule unites, otherwise, it's not a human beings, even if it is life, because a baby requies the sperm and the ovule in order to have the potential to become a human being. It doesn't fully have that potential unless both the sperm and ovule unite.
So masturbation and periods are OK because they're not killing possible life. In order to have possible life, it must have....a complete set of genes? Be a combination of a sperm and egg?

The right to life however should apply to every human being, including unborn babies. The right to life already exists for every human being being, even under 18, except for babies.
Babes and the unborn are not the same.

Basically we're goign to keep havign this problem until sexual crimes are much better controlled and further punished, and people learn common sense.
And how do we get people to learn common sense?

Arcesious
02-16-2008, 06:50 PM
Babies, unborn babies, pretty much same thing, in the context I was referring to them in. Humans are humans, never anything more or less. Yes, a complete set of genes is what is required to give the life of the sperm and egg the potential of attaining sentience. Apart, they are human life, but they are incapable of sentience apart from one another.

I guess people never will learn common sense no matter how hard we try, but the point stands that unborn babies deserve a chance at life, denying them life is like accusing them of first degree murder, and sentencing them to death. It's injustice. The only thing we can really do is try to teach our dumb species common sense. It may not fully work, but we have to at least try as hard as we can.

Totenkopf
02-16-2008, 07:45 PM
..Masturbation on the other hand...

What if it's on the original hand? :xp:

So, you would also ban masturbation and periods right? Since each time a woman has her time of the month, we're losing at least one possible life. And each time a man masturbates, millions upon millions of sperm are lost that could be millions and millions of babies, and of course we can't use protection either, since that prevents more babies from possibly being made.

Seriously, though, to say that that route (or menstruation) is seriously akin to abortion is nonsensical. You might as well be saying that spitting will automatically cause you to die of dehydration. Abortion (via the pill or other means) only applies to a fertilized egg. :rolleyes:

Rev7
02-16-2008, 09:36 PM
Many people start working under the age of 18, paying bills, owning cars, some even own homes. I'd say those are the responsibilities of an adult. Yet they are not given those rights. But you're argument is "the government says so". So, the government is infallible, and therefore, I ask why you are protecting abortion laws? The Government has said "it's OK". Why are you questioning their judgement on some issues and not others?
Well, yes that is very true. But, as far as I know, people who buy cars, houses and have jobs under the age of 18 are still considered minors. Legally we cannot vote, and several other things. I question abortion because I think that people who use abortion are murdering innocents. I think that it is a very wrong thing. I don't agree with a lot of what the government says yes, but we all have to follow the rules that authority figures have set. That is just the way it is, and if we break those rules, we get punished. I question certain things because I know for myself what is right and wrong. I say this again, FOR MYSELF.
So masturbation and periods are OK because they're not killing possible life. In order to have possible life, it must have....a complete set of genes? Be a combination of a sperm and egg?
Are we not talking about how right or wrong killing the unborn is?
Babes and the unborn are not the same.
Okay... please tell me how. Just for clarifacation.

Might I ask a simple question. What about babies delivered through C-section? Are you not saying that they have the right to live, and be humans? I might have stated this question wrong though... I will have to think on it...

Jae Onasi
02-16-2008, 10:46 PM
Discussing masturbation is moving into dangerous territory as far as this forum is concerned....

Arcesious
02-17-2008, 09:13 PM
It's been a couple days. Don't tell me Jae scared you off. It's not that hard to talk about abortion without directly mentioning the M word Jae said is going off past the PG-13 rule.

So... Anybody got any opinions left on abortion? Or shoudl we just leave this thread to die?

Totenkopf
02-18-2008, 01:06 AM
No, I doubt people were scared off, just probably bored with the topic (till next time ;) ). This subject has reared its ugly head at least 4-6 times in one form or another since I joined. Rest assured, it will surface again.

Rev7
02-18-2008, 01:17 AM
Well of course. I didn't reply mainly because I was the last to well, reply. I guess that this topic has died down for the moment.

Web Rider
02-18-2008, 05:40 AM
I've just been too busy. I'll take it up next time it shows up, just no time....