Abortion

[Raven]

With the passing of Roe v Wade a burden was placed upon the American people to to propel themselves towards a society without decadence. This burden has sadly been dropped for a more convenient route of quick sex and even quicker abortions. And understanding that a fetus is alive upon moment of conception, we must also understand that it has the basics rights of all living human beings. And among those basic rights is the right to life. But because of the unconsciecous PC politic throat holds of American political society, we must continue live with this debate hanging over our hands. Like a carrot being dangled in front of a wanting horse.

The rise of sexual activity could also be blamed upon the legalization of abortion. For with the legalization of abortion you garnered a society of people unwilling to utilize contraceptives, and more openly willing to have an abortion. With the existance of this society a taint is placed upon future generations, making it more understandable to have sex at an earlier age. And even with the existance of a more contraceptive aware society, the current status of legal abortions only furthers a growing problem. For a common turning point, should the contraceptives fail, is to have an abortion. And while it is unforseeable that making abortions illegal would instantly have an effect. It is plausible to believe that making them illegal would have a cataklysmic affect on future generations. Possibly even raising the age at which children become sexual activity, and decreasing the rate of teen pregnancy.

[ItalianStereotype]

I'm not sure how successful this will be, we have already had something like 10 mojillion abortion threads.

[Raven]

Yea but it was kinda the only thing I could think up on such short notice. Use to just jumping in topics, not starting them.

[Immortal Goat]

My God, Raven. I didn't think I would have to put up with these kinds of ramblings once I finished Religion class at school. But, whatever, if you want a fight, then HAVE AT YOU!

I believe that abortion is not a problem, up to a point. I think that after the first three months, it should be against the law, but before that point, anything goes. Before three months, the fetus has no human traits, and there is no proof that it can feel anything, so how is that human?

And what about pregnancies that are a result from rape? Why would it be wrong for someone to abort the baby for that reason? That could ruin the girl's life if she had to go through with it, and that wouldn't be fair to anyone. Sure, it isn't the baby's fault that she got pregnant, but it isn't her's, either.


Another thing that disturbs me is this. I heard that a while ago in Catholic hospitals, if there were complications during the pregnancy, they would still refuse to abort, even if it meant the girl would die, because, well, "she had a chance to live, the baby hasn't." That is just fucked up.

And trying to make abortion illeagal is just forcing religious beliefs on a society that has a freedon to choose one's beliefs. If those beliefs do not agree with other people, then a debate is inevitable, but religion has NO PLACE in government WHATSOEVER! If you don't believe that abortion is right, don't have one. But don't ruin other people's lives for the sake of your beliefs. We don't share them.

[Raven]

I'm scientific. I don't base my beliefs off of religion.

"I believe that abortion is not a problem, up to a point. I think that after the first three months, it should be against the law, but before that point, anything goes. Before three months, the fetus has no human traits, and there is no proof that it can feel anything, so how is that human?"

Are you basing that off religion or science?

"And what about pregnancies that are a result from rape? Why would it be wrong for someone to abort the baby for that reason? That could ruin the girl's life if she had to go through with it, and that wouldn't be fair to anyone. Sure, it isn't the baby's fault that she got pregnant, but it isn't her's, either."

This only requires abortions in the first three months to be legal. And does not require them to be open to public use. Only to those who fall within the realm of exception. Which is a rather small percentage I might add.

"Another thing that disturbs me is this. I heard that a while ago in Catholic hospitals, if there were complications during the pregnancy, they would still refuse to abort, even if it meant the girl would die, because, well, "she had a chance to live, the baby hasn't." That is just fucked up. "

Of course that is wrong. If the mother's life is at risk during any portion of the pregnancy and there is a good probability that the baby will kill her, and probably itself, than an abortion is called for. But just like rape this is a small percentage and does not require abortion to be open to the public.

I answered your last statement with my first, in this post.

[Zhukov]

"I believe that abortion is not a problem, up to a point. I think that after the first three months, it should be against the law, but before that point, anything goes. Before three months, the fetus has no human traits, and there is no proof that it can feel anything, so how is that human? "


NO HOLDS BARRED! ANYTHING GOES! Fuck, screw and hump to your hearts content - anything goes! Fetus' arent human at all, so fuck 'em. They don't feel a thing, kill them - they don't mind!


So what if the fetus has a chance at life. Its not *alive* yet, so it's not really killing, is it?


ABORT! ABORT!

The thread that is, not the children :(
No good can come from this!

[Immortal Goat]

When I said "anything goes", I didn't mean that it can be viewed as another form of contraception. I believe quite the opposite, actually. I think that in the case of accidental pregnancies where the quality of life for the mother is at risk, it should be permissible. Lets just say, for example, that there is a young couple in love and they decide to have sex before marriage. Knowing the risks, they buy condoms. They screw, and then find that the condom broke. They are afraid of telling thier parents, but more afraid of what this will mean for their lives. They are both still in High School, and having a child will ruin any chances of them graduating. Then the baby will be born and they can put it up for adoption, but the damage has been done. Many schools suspend or even expel teenage parents nowadays, so they have missed out on at least nine months of education. Their lives will never be the same again.

Now lets step back a moment. Back to when they found out the condom broke. The become scared, but the next day the go together to their local abortion clinic, make an appointment, have the abortion, and never have pre-marital sex again. Tell me how that can be viewed as a problem.

[Raven]

So we should allow for irresponsibility now? Allowing those who "need" an abortion to have it simple because of they're own impatience? They made a choice to act. And they acted. Whether it was an intelligent action or not does not matter. We do not allow things for safety nets. And do you deny that human beings have a right to life?

[Preechr]

*chuckles*

[Immortal Goat]

Yes, we have a right to life, but I believe that life starts as soon as you have a friggin central nervous system. If it doesn't know it is alive, then it isn't really living, is it? And yes, it is a problem that kids are aving sex earlier nowadays, but that is not, repeat IS NOT going to go away by banning abortion. The problem lies in the upbringing of the children. Me and my girlfriend will never have pre-marital sex because we think it is wrong. The kids that DO have it do NOT think that it is wrong. Simple as that. And what about people who ARE married but not in a situation that would allow them to financially carry the burden of children if they were put in the situation I described above? Answer THAT, you conservative fuck.

[Raven]

"Yes, we have a right to life, but I believe that life starts as soon as you have a friggin central nervous system. If it doesn't know it is alive, then it isn't really living, is it?"

Under that belief plants and bacterium are not alive. Since a plant is not alive is it perfectly fine to exterminate all of them? Or hell to just start clear cutting large amounts of trees? Something like 8 million abortions last year. Lets cut down 8 million trees. They do not know they are alive, so it is obviously perfectly fine. Am I right.

"And yes, it is a problem that kids are aving sex earlier nowadays, but that is not, repeat IS NOT going to go away by banning abortion. The problem lies in the upbringing of the children. Me and my girlfriend will never have pre-marital sex because we think it is wrong. The kids that DO have it do NOT think that it is wrong. Simple as that."

The kids that do not think it is wrong, do not think it is wrong, because the parents don't truly believe its wrong. They show this by the enviroments they allow their children to be in. These are the same parents that grew up during an era where free sex was perfectly with the older, not adult, society. This is the same society that reaped the fruits of Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade, which spawned the Summer of Love tour, and a widespread belief among a subculture populace that open sex and widespread sex was perfectly fine.

"And what about people who ARE married but not in a situation that would allow them to financially carry the burden of children if they were put in the situation I described above? Answer THAT, you conservative fuck."

No they should have watched they're child closer. You can't always watch your child, but you can keep a close enough tabs to understand what they are doing and who they are doing it with. And ask Preechr I'm not conservative.

[Immortal Goat]

You didnt understand what my thing about the adults was, did you? I meant if they had sex, AFTER marriage, and the condom broke, and they were not able to financially care for children, where would the problem for them to get an abortion lie?

And as for calling you a conservative fuck, I am sorry. You might not be conservative after all.

[Raven]

"You didnt understand what my thing about the adults was, did you? I meant if they had sex, AFTER marriage, and the condom broke, and they were not able to financially care for children, where would the problem for them to get an abortion lie?"

Either way I still wouldn't agree. There are many different types of conceptions. If you feel the need to have sex either use them and hope nothing happens, or find a different type of release. The condom breaks? Bad luck, you are going to have to deal with it. If you truly do not want the child, don't perform an act of reproduction.

And I realized I didn't address a question you asked earlier. So I'm going to address it.

"I believe that abortion is not a problem, up to a point. I think that after the first three months, it should be against the law, but before that point, anything goes. Before three months, the fetus has no human traits, and there is no proof that it can feel anything, so how is that human?"-Immortal Goat

How is that human. It has approximately 46 chromosomes for the proper cells doesn't it? It is human. And I state approximately to allow for the genetic mutation that cause less chromosomes, chromosome halves, and more chromosomes.

[Immortal Goat]

It is obvious that neither of us is going to sway the other on this subject. Nothing can change my position on this subject. I think it isn't a problem, you think it is. End of discussion.






Oh, and by the way, I don't think that it is human. It is a blob of genetic material. That is all.

[Raven]

I'm not exactly arguing it from my position. To argue abortion from personal beliefs is pointless. To argue abortion from mass necessity has point though. It can unite and create change.

You personally don't believe its human. I personally don't believe anyone is human. We are all just Homo sapien sapien. The question is how should abortion be argued as a whole?

[Immortal Goat]

The question is how should abortion be argued as a whole?


Simple. Live and let live. Do not take away other people's options just because you don't agree with it.

[Raven]

To repeal Roe v Wade does not take away other people's options. And should we just allow people to have their options open? What about revenge. That is an option. Should we live and let live and allow people the chance to choose that?

[Burned In Effigy]

Who cares, its just like killing dinner. Think of it as your dinner, and slaughter those pesty little buggers.

[Preechr]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH<wheeze>


</wheeze>


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAHA


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA






HAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

[Raven]

Heh damn Preechr that's screwing up the board.

[Preechr]

oOps...

Sorry. I have a tendancy to screw things up.

[Protoclown]

Not anymore, I fixed it.

Maybe now people will actually bother to read this thread, though it has been discussed ad nauseum on the old boards.

I'll jump into this tomorrow, I have to be up for work in five hours. For now I'll simply say that I used to be adamantly pro-life, whereas now I am pro-choice, at least from a political standpoint. More on that later.

[Raven]

"Oh, I don't know. Maybe a girl's right if she wants to terminate the life growing with her or SHOOT IT PAINFULLY OUT OF HER CUNT WHEN SHE CAN'T AFFORD TO RAISE IT ASSHOLE!"-Grazzt.

This statement alone shows you have an opinion on this Grazzt. Now show me your greater quanity of intelligence, and destroy my points.

[AChimp]

Man, we've had this discussion so many times before I've lost count.

Arguing that if we ban abortions, people will change the way they have sex is overly optimistic. People love to fuck, plain and simple. How will the lack of access to abortions decrease teenage pregnancy? Recent surveys have shown that most teenage girls who are sexually active are of the opinion "that it won't happen to them" (at least, here in Canada those are what polls are showing, I'm sure that it's similar in the U.S.)

I agree that if a couple creates a child, then it's their own fault: his for not keeping it in his pants, and hers for not keeping her knees together. However, that does not invalidate abortions, but neither side can be kept happy.

I think that, as Immortal Goat stated, a set limit has to be created after which abortions are no longer available. The first trimester is the span that I came up with last time we argued this.

IMO, blobs of cells are not human. With the proper manipulation, it could become anything. Just because it can grow into a human doesn't make it a human at that point. Using that logic, I could scrape off a few cells from here and there and call that human because, if allowed to grow properly, they'd turn into a clone of me.

Once a fetus has a somewhat functioning brain, though, the line becomes fuzzy, and it's better to give it the benefit of the doubt and not perform any abortions. If the couple really doesn't want the child, well, there's always adoption.

[The One and Only...]

The question is how should abortion be argued as a whole?

Simple. Live and let live.
Do not take away other people's options just because you don't agree with it.

In my opinion, killing people is fine. Therefore, by your argument, I can kill you.

See the similarities between this an abortion? If not, I pity you.

As for financial cirumstances: Hello. I'd like you to meet my good friend adoption, the solution to your point.

[Raven]

Man, we've had this discussion so many times before I've lost count.

Arguing that if we ban abortions, people will change the way they have sex is overly optimistic. People love to fuck, plain and simple. How will the lack of access to abortions decrease teenage pregnancy? Recent surveys have shown that most teenage girls who are sexually active are of the opinion "that it won't happen to them" (at least, here in Canada those are what polls are showing, I'm sure that it's similar in the U.S.)

With the existance of abortion though, it removes from line of sight the consequences of having sex. And with the removed from sight, it also removes understanding of the probability of the effect. If more people were to have "unwanted" children and actually show that sex does have a dangerous and probable consequence, than it is possible for teenagers to begin taking safer measures. Whether this be using a large(r) amount of contraceptives, or not having sex is undeterminable.

I agree that if a couple creates a child, then it's their own fault: his for not keeping it in his pants, and hers for not keeping her knees together. However, that does not invalidate abortions, but neither side can be kept happy.

Neither does it validate abortion. That is a double-edged sword. Forcing it to cut both sides.

think that, as Immortal Goat stated, a set limit has to be created after which abortions are no longer available. The first trimester is the span that I came up with last time we argued this.

IMO, blobs of cells are not human. With the proper manipulation, it could become anything. Just because it can grow into a human doesn't make it a human at that point. Using that logic, I could scrape off a few cells from here and there and call that human because, if allowed to grow properly, they'd turn into a clone of me.

But you yourself could become anything with the right manipulation. Under such a premise it is possible to invalidate all beings as what they are under their classification. And this is also including manipulation that doesn't exist as a technology yet. We haven't even created a new organism yet, while there is work into that currently I believe. So you are basing a belief that it is not human, from possible manipulation of technology that hasn't been invented?

Once a fetus has a somewhat functioning brain, though, the line becomes fuzzy, and it's better to give it the benefit of the doubt and not perform any abortions. If the couple really doesn't want the child, well, there's always adoption.

That I do agree with. But in truth from the beginning the line is already fuzzy. I mean we are asked questions of whether it is human or not. We are asked questions of whether it is living or not. So why simple choose the point of which the brain functions? And what determination of function is being used. Fully functioning, or partially. Is it sentient when the brain is partially functioning? Are we to allow possible "human" beings to be "murdered" because we haven't split the hairs correctly?

I just wanna say sorry if the quotes are fucked up, but I generally don't use them.

[Helm]

Yes, I'm afraid I'll have to go with "NOT AGAIN!" too.

If anyone's counting oppinions, however, I'm pro-choice. I do not consider anything to be human if it's not self-aware, on more than an instinctual level.

[ranxer]

i agree with anybody that says its a womans right to chose up till three months. after that there needs to be another circumstance like the life of the mother is threatened.

the law as it stands is fine with me..

those that want to make abortion completely illegal make me want to propose free abortions..

and the fundamentalists that carry the fetus signs make me think of worse propositions.. how bout mandatory sterilization!?
i think we should have at least free vasectomys, why should only the well to do afford sterilization.. $300 for a vasectomy? thats one program i'd like to see recieve federal funds =)

how bout we have a test that people take before they can have kids.. ie a test(yea i know it is problematic to come up with such a test) to show that the person would be a decent parent before they can walk around with fertile sperm.. i'm suggesting this for men only at the moment, for i feel that men are more of a problem when it comes to baby makin, heeh.

[The One and Only...]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=human

And...

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=fetus.

Just from combining the two definitions, I think a reasonable argument can be made to show that a human fetus is indeed a human.

[AChimp]

If more people were to have "unwanted" children and actually show that sex does have a dangerous and probable consequence, than it is possible for teenagers to begin taking safer measures.
Yeah, but having many unwanted children would just cause tonnes of problems for those kids. Why should we have a glut of unappreciated, unwanted children in society just to prove that you should consider the consequences of rolling in the hay? Better education in schools is one solution, I think, and making contraceptives cheaper and more available.

Neither does it validate abortion. That is a double-edged sword. Forcing it to cut both sides.
Yeah, neither side will ever be happy, so that's why I believe in the three month compromise. Being in the middle is the best place to be. "ABORTIONS FOR SOME!" ;)

So why simple choose the point of which the brain functions? And what determination of function is being used. Fully functioning, or partially. Is it sentient when the brain is partially functioning?
There's no question of whether or not it's alive, perse, because the cells are functioning like cells and reproducing, etc. You use plants as an example (I think it was you), and no one questions whether or not plants are alive.

I think I read somewhere that something is sentient when it becomes self-aware, so it's hard to define and more research would have to be done. I think that fetuses can be considered brain dead, except in reverse (going from nothing to something over time, rather than degrading).

Using specific functions of the brain is also hard to define. Motor ability is hardly a good judge of sentience, because animals can all move and we consider very few of them to be sentient beings. Random nerve impulses aren't a good measure, either, because at that stage, it could just as easily be the system jump-starting itself.

[Raven]

If anyone's counting oppinions, however, I'm pro-choice. I do not consider anything to be human if it's not self-aware, on more than an instinctual level.

That is a personal belief. It doesn't work for the mass populace. As what is given to the mass populace by the government, in terms of laws and such, should be based around logic and need.

i think we should have at least free vasectomys, why should only the well to do afford sterilization.. $300 for a vasectomy? thats one program i'd like to see recieve federal funds =)

Or perhaps we could cook up the unadopted children and feed them to the homeless?

[Raven]

There's no question of whether or not it's alive, perse, because the cells are functioning like cells and reproducing, etc. You use plants as an example (I think it was you), and no one questions whether or not plants are alive.

I think I read somewhere that something is sentient when it becomes self-aware, so it's hard to define and more research would have to be done. I think that fetuses can be considered brain dead, except in reverse (going from nothing to something over time, rather than degrading).

Using specific functions of the brain is also hard to define. Motor ability is hardly a good judge of sentience, because animals can all move and we consider very few of them to be sentient beings. Random nerve impulses aren't a good measure, either, because at that stage, it could just as easily be the system jump-starting itself.

So we have obviously determined that it is living. But we haven't found a determination for it being human yet correct? Now you have stated several ways to possible determine when it becomes human, but all of these ways are rather fishy at best. So the question lies how do we determine if it is human? The only way that seems apparent to me would be to utilize what every human has. DNA. But it is currently improbable to test the DNA of a fetus. Thus we must utilize the next best thing. The chromosome pair set. All normal humans have 46 pairs of chromosomes, thus it is logical to assume that if a defect hasn't been detected in the child during pregnancy the fetus has a 46 chromosome pair set. This would in essence make it human. And give it the rights of all humans.

Yeah, but having many unwanted children would just cause tonnes of problems for those kids. Why should we have a glut of unappreciated, unwanted children in society just to prove that you should consider the consequences of rolling in the hay? Better education in schools is one solution, I think, and making contraceptives cheaper and more available.

Of course education would be a better solution. But even with education you still maintain a sense of arrogance. And without something shattering that illusion of control, you are likely to only gain better educated pregnant teens.

[ranxer]

Or perhaps we could cook up the unadopted children and feed them to the homeless?

good idea raven.. but id prefer you use fetuses, oh and just make sure you give the homeless a choice!

[VinceZeb]

The more "enlightened" we get, the less respect we have for the weakest among us. Funny how the liberals talk about how much of a champion they are for the defenseless.......

[Helm]

That is a personal belief. It doesn't work for the mass populace. As what is given to the mass populace by the government, in terms of laws and such, should be based around logic and need.

I appreciate you for going for any other angle than the "WHAT? YOU WILL BURN IN HELL HEATHEN!!111" Raven, but still, what you just posted is a bit silly. Of course it's personal belief. Why cant a belief be based on quantifiable reasoning, however, I do not see. You have no point.

[AChimp]

The more "enlightened" we get, the less respect we have for the weakest among us. Funny how the liberals talk about how much of a champion they are for the defenseless.......
Like you and the poor, huh, Vinth?

But it is currently improbable to test the DNA of a fetus.
It's very probable to test DNA, so I'm going to assume you meant impractical. Sure, it's impractical: why bother checking each person before performing an abortion?

"Yep, that's a couple a human cells in there, alright." :blah

All normal humans have 46 pairs of chromosomes, thus it is logical to assume that if a defect hasn't been detected in the child during pregnancy the fetus has a 46 chromosome pair set. This would in essence make it human. And give it the rights of all humans.
So someone with 47 chromosomes or other defect isn't essentially human and therefore can be aborted no matter what?

By using genetics as a basis, you can only define physically what is human and what is not. And, the end result is dependant on the conditions that the cell has to grow in.

Again, look at my cells from here and there example. They've got human DNA chromosomes in them, so do they count as human too? We can keep organs alive in machines, so because they have chromosomes and DNA, should they be granted rights? "In essence" they are human, too.

And without something shattering that illusion of control, you are likely to only gain better educated pregnant teens.
I think you might have misunderstood me; I meant better education about the risks involved in unprotected sex, not better education overall, although that couldn't hurt.

Regardless, though, I didn't meet a single person in high school with an average above 80% that got pregnant themselves or got someone pregnant. Better educated people tend to evaluate the consequences more.

[kellychaos]

Just a point, not an argument ... so far.

The existence of the abortion is here ... duh, right? What I mean is that now that the idea of an "out" is out there, people with an unwanted pregnancy (for whatever reason) will seek them whether they're illegal or not. This is NOT a statement for against the government paying for abortions. I'll set that aside. What I'm saying is that if an abortion is illegal, then people will find some nasty, back alley, unsterile, unqualified place to get them anyway. I'd rather it be legal, sterile, and out in the open. It's not something I'd prefer for myself should I be in the situation but I'd at least like to leave the decision open to anyone who has to face this dilemma.

[Helm]

The public can be conditioned to do or not do all sorts of things. Just because an option exists doesn't mean people will select it. It's a matter of social programming, education all sorts of things.

[theapportioner]

Increasing the availability of morning-after pills, and sufficiently educating the populace about them, will hopefully render this intractable issue moot.

More later.

[El Blanco]

Personally, I hate the terms pro-choice and pro-life. Stop sugar coating it. Pro-abortion and anti-abortion. There is nothing else involved.

Anyway, I am anti-abortion. ITs more than a lump of cells. ITs a human being. It won't become anything else without interference.

In the case of rape: We execute the child (a victim of this crime) and let the animal off on a plea bargain? What kind of justice is that?

And that part about Catholic hospitals not aorting to save the mother: thats bullshit. My sister-in-law is a maternity nurse and she says its the only time catholic hospitals do abort.


As for the legal issue: The Supreme Court should have never touched it. Abortion is a state issue. The Constitution doesn't say a damn thing about it.

[Protoclown]

I have stood on both sides of this issue, it has been argued ad nauseum here, and frankly the topic bores me now. I will throw my two cents in the bucket though, because I said I would.

I agree with Kellychaos, who said pretty much the same thing I was going to say. Personally, I am against abortion as far as an after-the-fact method of birth control. But there are plenty of other situations where abortion is not only a viable option (in cases of rape or incest, or if the child will be so deformed that they will never have much chance of a real life), but sometimes even necessary (life of the mother threatened by the pregnancy). Because of these exceptions to the rule, you cannot outright make abortion illegal. I'd rather see a normal child adopted than aborted, but it's not my place to make someone else's moral decisions for them.

That said, limits certainly do need to be maintained as far as a cut-off date where abortion is no longer allowed in the pregnancy, when the fetus is developed past a certain point. Agreeing on when exactly life begins is a difficult matter however, since both sides seem to differ in their definition and criteria somewhat.

I would rather see abortions performed in a safe, clean, clinical environment than in a back alley with a clothes hanger. Keep it legal, there's no other way. This is America, we should have the freedom to make our own choices.

[ranxer]

i dont like sugar coating it either.

you can consider me pro-abortion through choice :)

though i don't usually tell people that.. ill stick with pissing people off with my anti-corporate anti-war politics.

despite my pro-abortion feelings i still wouldnt vote/campaign/support anything that is pro-abortion without giving people the choice to abort.

[AChimp]

The Supreme Court should have never touched it. Abortion is a state issue. The Constitution doesn't say a damn thing about it.
Oh, for fuck's sake, don't get your panties in a bunch over a little bit of centralization; abortion should be everyone's issue.

What's to stop one state from legalizing abortions and not others? Everyone who wanted one would just go there, then go back home.

[Preechr]

As for the legal issue: The Supreme Court should have never touched it. Abortion is a state issue. The Constitution doesn't say a damn thing about it.

The heart of the matter. It's pretty damn obvious that one law will never make every American happy. True, there are some die-hards in both camps that will only be happy when everyone has to live by their rules, but those folks are assholes and we don't need to cater to them.

Either side has a moral stance. The act of imposing morality of any kind upon your society is an effort made to make it better for all. If states were given back the authority to devise their own regional moralities on this issue, then, either the Pro- or Anti-Abortion states would flourish for their choices. Those states that chose the incorrect moral path, whichever that may be, would suffer for it.

You could still live in your state and get an abortion in the next state, were it to be illegal at home. That protection would fall under the Interstate Commerce Clause, which is Federal. Interested parties would surely form supply services for those in need who live in anti-abortion states, just as those people provide abortions now at no cost to those that cannot afford them.

Blah.

I agree with ProtoClown. I'm glad abortion got you guys warmed up a bit, but there is no more tired a topic of discussion.

[El Blanco]

Its called seperation of powers and was the biggest sticking point when we started out writing our Constitution.

Our states do have their own identities. Its important to us.

And if everyone is so big about choice (by the way, the guy who came up with that term has admitted its bullshit), why not give the victim a choice?

[The One and Only...]

Okay, I think a summary is needed:

So far, the main arguments that has anything behind it for abortion is that some people were raped, some cannot financially afford it, kids will still have sex anyway, and some will die if it isn't done.

Rape Issue: Proper education on morning after pills in health classes should reduce the issue. As the last straw, adoption is the answer for an unwanted child.

Financial Problems: Same as rape, except adoption will be much more frequent than the use of pills.

Still Have Sex: Some will, but that falls only on them. There are many alternatives to intercourse that do not induce pregnancy: oral sex, hand jobs, leg jobs, toys, etc. Even if one does get pregnant, it is all too possible to give the baby up for adoption.

Harm to the Mother: The exception to the rule. If it is believed that the mother has a probable chance of dying, she may decide whether or not she wants an abortion.

The arguments on whether or not fetuses are human are not are irrelevant to the posters point. The point is that if adoption practices were banned or limited, fewer minor offences would occur. That is something I agree with.

[Immortal Goat]

Personally, I hate the terms pro-choice and pro-life. Stop sugar coating it. Pro-abortion and anti-abortion. There is nothing else involved.

Wrong, El Blanco. There is a difference between pro-abortion and pro-choice. I am pro choice, but I myself would not particip[ate in an abortion, therefor I am NOT pro abortion.

[El Blanco]

But you support someone else's right to do so? That makes you pro-abortion.

There is no other issue discussed by either camp. Its all about abortion.

And, you can look at it this way:

Many "pro-lifers" support the death penalty, so how are they pro-life?

Many "pro-choicers" support strict gun control (and the outright banning) and cigarette laws etc so how are they pro-choice?

[Anonymous]

I AGREE WITH EVERYONE :picklehat

[theapportioner]

re: Blanco: Stupid semantic quibbling.

[AChimp]

Um... Blanco, buddy... "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are only terms used in the abortion ballpark. They don't extend to other issues.

[Anonymous]

http://popndeth.chambergates.com/imock/HOT%20LIMIT.png

YO SAY. Summer love will stimulate my heart tonight
Mysterious mermaid barefoot all alone
Wishing revealing it's the fruit I want to eat
Precious love is always eating up my heart

Uncheatable her shapely line
A convict of her lithe crime
Save me and wrap around one more time
Make a change and turn around under a wave
Back on ground holding scolding the darker side

The summer is burning a hole in my heart
Stripping me down to hot temptation
It's OK to give in be beaten by lust, summer wind,
Burning air a scandal affair

Fairies, summer folk will stimulate my fantasies
Mysterious mermaid barefoot all alone
Wishing revealing it's the fruit I want to eat
Precious love is always eating up my heart

Fagged out that's you and me, gave you the better side of me
This town is gloomy nothing to be found
Don't wanna stop or cool down, go forever not hang around
Don't wanna hear a boring joke in my open mind
The sky is burning a firework delight
Painting colour through the night
Holding me tightly I grab the light, summer wind,
Burning fire, getting me high

Fairies, summer love will burn up my fantasies
Hurricane in my heart whirling desire
I wanna say what's on my mind give you all I have to give
You and me freely taking all night

The city is burning a hole in my soul
It's making me drunk cold wine kiss
I want to feel the touch of the sea, summer spray,
Refreshing air, taking me where

Fairies, summer folk will stimulate my heart tonight
Belly button mermaid barefoot all alone
Daisuke is telling me it's the only place to be
There's no problem take a chance and you'll be there

YO SAY. I say who do you wanna do it with
You can say goodbye to a night on your own
If you want precious love I can give it anytime
Revealing stealing never getting dry

[UnDeath]

My point is nearly identical to Proto's. The age limit should be longer than 3 months, imho, since Ive heared of cases where women didnt know that they were pregnant up untill 5+ months. They even had a bloody... discharge... every month which was equivilant to a light period.
And on to the case of other contraceptives, they can fail. I know that you all have heared of cases where someone gets pregnant using the Pill and a condom (if I have, you most likely have, I rarely pay attention to current events). And if that happens, those involved would think that they are in the clear, and not take the Morning After Pill. Let alone, from what I hear, the side effects of the pills are quite unpleasant, so very few people would take them "just in case".
As for adoption, pregnancy can alter ones life almost as much as actually having a kid, albeit only for a few months. Then theres the case of the kid becoming the equivalent of an orphan, due to nobody wanting to adopt, but rather having their own damn kids.
Then theres the cases of people dumping their kids in the dumpster.
And making those responsible take care of the kid, uh... no. Babies end your life as you know it. Period. How many people what their lives to change entirely because of an accident? Hmm..?
Let abortion be up to the individual, not everyone has to do it. Morals are just a matter of opinion. Many people think its also morally wrong for a white girl to be dating a black man, for example.

well, Ive written way to fucking much, and Ill be supprised if anyone reads this long winded rant.

[Protoclown]

Exactly. To all those people who are strongly against abortion, here is my advice to you: DON'T FUCKING HAVE ONE.

Problem solved. It's just that simple. Now, on to the next issue.

[El Blanco]

Um... Blanco, buddy... "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are only terms used in the abortion ballpark. They don't extend to other issues.

I know. Thats my point. I just want to dump the misleading terms.

[UnDeath]

Exactly. To all those people who are strongly against abortion, here is my advice to you: DON'T FUCKING HAVE ONE.

Problem solved. It's just that simple. Now, on to the next issue.

SMARTAST CLOWN EVAR. Couldnt have said it better myself. :)

[El Blanco]

So, if you don't want to bomb Iraq, DON'T JOIN THE ARMY.

[Protoclown]

Riiiiiight. Cause that's a parallel that makes sense.

[HickMan]

I don't understand how abortion is a great debate for the majority anyway. Most of us are males from the ages of 14 to 30. How does this pertain to most of us anyway? Yeah Proto, you're the person that makes the most sense on these boards. If you dont want abortion, dont fuck around. This isn't much of a debate if you ask me. Abortion? What a lame-ass topic.

[Burned In Effigy]

Riiiiiight. Cause that's a parallel that makes sense.

Explain how it doesn't.

[UnDeath]

do you want responsibility of my kid if I accidentaly knock my girlfriend up? Im serious.

[ranxer]

yes yes if you don't like abortion dont get one! i third that statement. may it forever be your choice!

So, if you don't want to bomb Iraq, DON'T JOIN THE ARMY.

sheesh, that doesnt fit one bit!

my taxes don't pay for abortions but my taxes DO pay for fucking BOMBS!! my taxes pay to subsidize oil, lockheed martin, and the thousands of subsidiaries that make money on militarily stealing oil rights from other countries! that's a pathetic comparison. >:

[Preechr]

So far, in my admittedly limited experience here, it seems ProtoClown's job here is to discourage discussion. All I'm hearing is "Stop Talking! Stop Talking!"

He seems to be akin to our Gator (which is a tremendous compliment, BTW) but just a little too worried about newbies.

WE DON'T BITE! :D

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Um... Blanco, buddy... "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are only terms used in the abortion ballpark. They don't extend to other issues.

I know. Thats my point. I just want to dump the misleading terms.

Heh, yeah, it's interesting how "pro-life" often has little to do with the sole preservation of life. For example, besides (from personal experience) Catholics, how many bible thumpers calling for the end of abortion can likewise justify the State taking it upon itself to be judge/jury/and executioner of another life...?

[El Blanco]

Kevin, I pointed that out.

The reason for my Iraq statement was because those people dont' affect me, so what do I care? I am part of the first generation to be mowed down by Roe v Wade. Obviously, I have a little stake in its status.

my taxes don't pay for abortions

Yes, they do. They subsidize the clinics, the doctors, Planned Parenthood, and tons of other people who profit off abortion. And since when did you care about the money?

And what does me being in my 20s and possesing a penis have to do with whether or not I can opine on abortion? Thats just retarded. I'm not black, does that mean I can't vote on a civil rights bill? Or that I can't have some insight on the matter?

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Kevin, I pointed that out.

Sorry, sir! :eek

[El Blanco]

Sorry, didn't mean to come off like a dick there.

[Burned In Effigy]

Kevin, I pointed that out.

The reason for my Iraq statement was because those people dont' affect me, so what do I care? I am part of the first generation to be mowed down by Roe v Wade. Obviously, I have a little stake in its status.

my taxes don't pay for abortions

Yes, they do. They subsidize the clinics, the doctors, Planned Parenthood, and tons of other people who profit off abortion. And since when did you care about the money?

And what does me being in my 20s and possesing a penis have to do with whether or not I can opine on abortion? Thats just retarded. I'm not black, does that mean I can't vote on a civil rights bill? Or that I can't have some insight on the matter?

Point, Match, Game.

[Raven]

I screwed up so this is going to be out of order.

aos]The existence of the abortion is here ... duh, right? What I mean is that now that the idea of an "out" is out there, people with an unwanted pregnancy (for whatever reason) will seek them whether they're illegal or not. This is NOT a statement for against the government paying for abortions. I'll set that aside. What I'm saying is that if an abortion is illegal, then people will find some nasty, back alley, unsterile, unqualified place to get them anyway. I'd rather it be legal, sterile, and out in the open. It's not something I'd prefer for myself should I be in the situation but I'd at least like to leave the decision open to anyone who has to face this dilemma.

This was actually one of the points utilized during the Roe v Wade case. The Roe camp had stated that if the Courts were not going to legalize abortions, woman would in essence be forced to go to back alleyways and have them performed in unsterile conditions. Now if anyone understands the nature of an abortion, they realize that it is an invasive procedure. Thus infection in those types of conditions is highly probable. And if such a large quanity of people were having back alley abortions, than a large quanity of people would be required to see a docter over vaginal and uteral infections. With such an existance of an epidimec, it would have been of great importance. Thus it is plausible to believe that the same deterances that affected the number of back alley abortions before 1976, would affect them now.

I appreciate you for going for any other angle than the "WHAT? YOU WILL BURN IN HELL HEATHEN!!111" Raven, but still, what you just posted is a bit silly. Of course it's personal belief. Why cant a belief be based on quantifiable reasoning, however, I do not see. You have no point.

I'm gonna have to make this one quicker than it was before. Sorry about that. Sentience is essentially an undeterminable variable. It is based upon the belief that a being has to be self-aware, without fully understanding exactly what makes a being self-aware. Thus it can not be based upon reason. It is based upon faith. Much like the utilization of the soul for determination of life.

So someone with 47 chromosomes or other defect isn't essentially human and therefore can be aborted no matter what?

By using genetics as a basis, you can only define physically what is human and what is not. And, the end result is dependant on the conditions that the cell has to grow in.

Again, look at my cells from here and there example. They've got human DNA chromosomes in them, so do they count as human too? We can keep organs alive in machines, so because they have chromosomes and DNA, should they be granted rights? "In essence" they are human, too.

I think you might have misunderstood me; I meant better education about the risks involved in unprotected sex, not better education overall, although that couldn't hurt.

Regardless, though, I didn't meet a single person in high school with an average above 80% that got pregnant themselves or got someone pregnant. Better educated people tend to evaluate the consequences more.

Alright lets try this again. Under a chromosome method they would not be considered human, that is why utilizing DNA would be better. But that is, as you stated impractical.

But the end result will always come out to be human. No matter the manner of conditions you place it under. For the DNA is inherently human. Thus the being is inherently human.

Is the cell "alive" or is it just a part of a living organism? Is the organ "alive" or merely functioning?

I meant the same thing you did. But simple teaching them the use of contraceptives, and the consequences of sex isn't enough of a deterent. Or at the very least a complete deterent. For without being forced to view the risks it has outside of the realm of 4th or 5th person, teenagers will continue to foolishly believe it won't happen to them.

That said, limits certainly do need to be maintained as far as a cut-off date where abortion is no longer allowed in the pregnancy, when the fetus is developed past a certain point. Agreeing on when exactly life begins is a difficult matter however, since both sides seem to differ in their definition and criteria somewhat.

I would rather see abortions performed in a safe, clean, clinical environment than in a back alley with a clothes hanger. Keep it legal, there's no other way. This is America, we should have the freedom to make our own choices.

I would touch on your other point, but Immortal Goat and myself have already touched on it. And I have admitted that certain exclusions would be needed. Agreeing on when life begins though is a simple matter of determining a method for which to answer that question. Do we use religion? No any law based around religion is in essence state sponsering a religion. This leaves logic and science. How about we utilize those.

But to make abortion illegal doesn't remove that choice. It merely creates a deterent. As does making murder illegal. I can still choose to murder someone, but because of the law against it I have a reason to choose not too.

My point is nearly identical to Proto's. The age limit should be longer than 3 months, imho, since Ive heared of cases where women didnt know that they were pregnant up untill 5+ months. They even had a bloody... discharge... every month which was equivilant to a light period.
And on to the case of other contraceptives, they can fail. I know that you all have heared of cases where someone gets pregnant using the Pill and a condom (if I have, you most likely have, I rarely pay attention to current events). And if that happens, those involved would think that they are in the clear, and not take the Morning After Pill. Let alone, from what I hear, the side effects of the pills are quite unpleasant, so very few people would take them "just in case".
As for adoption, pregnancy can alter ones life almost as much as actually having a kid, albeit only for a few months. Then theres the case of the kid becoming the equivalent of an orphan, due to nobody wanting to adopt, but rather having their own damn kids.
Then theres the cases of people dumping their kids in the dumpster.
And making those responsible take care of the kid, uh... no. Babies end your life as you know it. Period. How many people what their lives to change entirely because of an accident? Hmm..?
Let abortion be up to the individual, not everyone has to do it. Morals are just a matter of opinion. Many people think its also morally wrong for a white girl to be dating a black man, for example.

So we should allow for the victimization of a human being solely for the gain of someone to irresponsible to take proper measures? Or being willing to have a child?

There are far more than two types of contraceptives in existance. I have a friend who uses double condom and spermacide.

Unwanted children are a tragedy. And if I were running the adoption agency I wouldn't allow them to put the child up. But thankfully a large number of babies are adopted. They are picked up quickly, and willingly.

Anyone dumping their child in a dumpster is committing a crime and should be treated as the criminal they are. And yes it is tragic that the irresponsible people had their lives alter. Sorry if this sounds condescending didn't really intend it to sound that way.

I'm also not basing this on morals. I'm basing it off science, logic, and the rights of all human beings.

[ranxer]

alright, my bad.. we do subsidise planned parenthood

the arguement if you dont support bombing iraq don't join the service still doesnt make sense to me. our taxes are spent by our government.. we only have a tiny say about what they do with them.

i guess i do support my taxes going to kill fetuses but that doesnt mean i should support my taxes going to kill iraqis, afghanis etc.
fetuses dont retaliate >: fetuses arent a country, a people, or a religion.

i wish we could choose what we want our taxes to pay for individually.. but damn the beurocracy that would create would be monstrous. :miffed

[theapportioner]

Again, MORNING AFTER PILLS. Maybe this will shut you all up.

I've said this before, but we should first be more concerned with the people who are living NOW, rather than potential people who have no perception, much less self-understanding, that they exist at all. Only once we've solved these problems, should we then worry about the embryos.

[The One and Only...]

*Ahem*

Okay, I think a summary is needed:

So far, the main arguments that has anything behind it for abortion is that some people were raped, some cannot financially afford it, kids will still have sex anyway, and some will die if it isn't done.

Rape Issue: Proper education on morning after pills in health classes should reduce the issue. As the last straw, adoption is the answer for an unwanted child.

Financial Problems: Same as rape, except adoption will be much more frequent than the use of pills.

Still Have Sex: Some will, but that falls only on them. There are many alternatives to intercourse that do not induce pregnancy: oral sex, hand jobs, leg jobs, toys, etc. Even if one does get pregnant, it is all too possible to give the baby up for adoption.

Harm to the Mother: The exception to the rule. If it is believed that the mother has a probable chance of dying, she may decide whether or not she wants an abortion.

The arguments on whether or not fetuses are human are not are irrelevant to the posters point. The point is that if adoption practices were banned or limited, fewer minor offences would occur. That is something I agree with.

I think we have lost sight of the original point, and as such, you have forced me to repost my previous summary.

[Raven]

Again, MORNING AFTER PILLS. Maybe this will shut you all up.

I've said this before, but we should first be more concerned with the people who are living NOW, rather than potential people who have no perception, much less self-understanding, that they exist at all. Only once we've solved these problems, should we then worry about the embryos.

So I'm guessing your against technology right? And are all for mass population reduction. Correct?

[UnDeath]

It all boils down to wether or not the fetus is "alive" or not. I believe that it isnt. Even if it was, isnt it more "humane" to put something out of its misery, rather than let it have a prolong existance in misery? bah, whatever. This is a lot like arguing about drug laws. Illegal or not, people would still do them, so why punish em?

[Raven]

It all boils down to wether or not the fetus is "alive" or not. I believe that it isnt. Even if it was, isnt it more "humane" to put something out of its misery, rather than let it have a prolong existance in misery? bah, whatever. This is a lot like arguing about drug laws. Illegal or not, people would still do them, so why punish em?

The same applies for homicide.

[Anonymous]

SO FAR I HAVE MADE THE BEST POINT IN THIS THREAD :<

[The_voice_of_reason]

It all boils down to wether or not the fetus is "alive" or not. I believe that it isnt. Even if it was, isnt it more "humane" to put something out of its misery, rather than let it have a prolong existance in misery? bah, whatever. This is a lot like arguing about drug laws. Illegal or not, people would still do them, so why punish em?

The same applies for homicide.


No because homicide hurts other people, drugs and abortion only hurt the user.

[Anonymous]

A good point was actually raised in that tax money goes to abortions as well as war. But the analogy fails when you consider that it's our government killing foreign people, not our government killing natives; The only government involvement in abortion lies in setting the table for homocide, rather than serving up a 13-course banquet.

I have no problem with abortion and furthermore do not see the first-trimester-fetus as a living person. I personally would like the option open to me if need be because I am a whore. The end.

[AChimp]

HOW MUCH? :love

[Anonymous]

it's usually free :(

[El Blanco]

i guess i do support my taxes going to kill fetuses but that doesnt mean i should support my taxes going to kill iraqis, afghanis etc.
fetuses dont retaliate >: fetuses arent a country, a people, or a religion.



So, its OK to kill someone as long as they can't go on TV and cry for help? Basically, you support the extermination of the utterly defensless.

i wish we could choose what we want our taxes to pay for individually.. but damn the beurocracy that would create would be monstrous. :miffed

then all the vitl programs that most people don't know about or understand get cut because no one wants to pend money on it.

[Raven]

It all boils down to wether or not the fetus is "alive" or not. I believe that it isnt. Even if it was, isnt it more "humane" to put something out of its misery, rather than let it have a prolong existance in misery? bah, whatever. This is a lot like arguing about drug laws. Illegal or not, people would still do them, so why punish em?

The same applies for homicide.


No because homicide hurts other people, drugs and abortion only hurt the user.

But no one has proven to me that it is not hurting another person. I mean what you believe and what is fact are two different things, not saying what you believe is wrong merely stating that there has currently been placed a lack of evidence for it being right. Just because someone believes that they are the only thing that truly exists, G-d bless the existintinalist, does not mean they are correct. It is a belief based solely on faith. I am speaking in terms of mass government "control". You can't base such things upon faith. To do so restricts the natural freedom of the citizens. So please explain to me how it is not hurting another person.

[Protoclown]

To say that drugs and abortion only hurt the "user" is an oversimplification. I think it's a bit of a stretch anyway to make that point as far as abortions go, since when you have an abortion you are directly affecting your will on what would otherwise probably become another person.

And drugs, in a sense, are capable of emotionally hurting those who care about the abuser, albeit indirectly.

I don't really have much of an agenda here in saying this, I just thought this would be something to consider. It all depends on how you look at it. Hell, someone who takes the "abortion interferes with the natural course of events that would eventually create a baby" line of thought could potentially even see the morning after pill as completely unacceptable.

[Raven]

I don't really have much of an agenda here in saying this, I just thought this would be something to consider. It all depends on how you look at it. Hell, someone who takes the "abortion interferes with the natural course of events that would eventually create a baby" line of thought could potentially even see the morning after pill as completely unacceptable.

Yes but they would also see most things as unacceptable. Including contraceptive. As that also interferes with the natural course of events.

[Protoclown]

So in short, someone who takes it that far is insane anyway...

[Raven]

Probably so. Either way that's no where near what I'm arguing. Not even in the same ball park.

[UnDeath]

hmm. Those who are anti abortion, whats your views on aborting a child that would be born into the world with a severe mental handicap? For example, say someone needs to take pills to more or less keep him/herself sane, yet these pills would cause severe brain damage to the fetus. Is it still wrong?

Also, out of curiosity, how many of you who are against abortions still live with your parents/gaurdians? How many of you are religious?

[Raven]

hmm. Those who are anti abortion, whats your views on aborting a child that would be born into the world with a severe mental handicap? For example, say someone needs to take pills to more or less keep him/herself sane, yet these pills would cause severe brain damage to the fetus. Is it still wrong?

Also, out of curiosity, how many of you who are against abortions still live with your parents/gaurdians? How many of you are religious?

I have already stated that I am willing to allow for exclusions. Such as rape, severe mental handicap, incest, or endangering of mother's life.

I currently am living with a parent. I also am not religious.

[Anonymous]

Well, duh. You're like 5.

[Raven]

Yes I am 5. And you have no gender.

[Anonymous]

It was an exaggeration, obviously. But seriously, stating that you live with your parents is in the same ballpark as listing yourself as occupation: student on forms. Those aren't meant for you, silly, they're meant for colleges.

Besides, if I had no gender, I couldn't put my penis into all the girls and boys of the land :<

[Raven]

As was mine. Obviously. And wow I'm in college so does that mean I can finally list student on forms. Man am I glad to clear that up. And here I was all worried.

Are you sure that's a penis, and not just an oversized clitoris?

[The_voice_of_reason]

There is unfortunatly no way yet to prove when a fetus becomes alive, alive is losely defined any way. Viruses are not "alive" acorrding to some people (myself included) but yet they can move and reproduce and perform several "life" functions. So the question is when does a fetus stop being a virus.

[Raven]

There is unfortunatly no way yet to prove when a fetus becomes alive, alive is losely defined any way. Viruses are not "alive" acorrding to some people (myself included) but yet they can move and reproduce and perform several "life" functions. So the question is when does a fetus stop being a virus.

Or perhaps when did it ever become a virus? For the fetus does fit all the criteria for the 7 basic biology principles of a living organism. While a virus must utilize a outside source in order to reproduce. To compare a fetus to a virus is a bad analogy. As the fetus has the protential to reproduce. A virus is still in question as to whether it actually reproduces or simple duplicates.

[The_voice_of_reason]

As the fetus has the protential to reproduce


Becareful with words like potential, after all the sperm that were recieved into one of my socks about two hours ago had the potential to become part of a human.

By the way, do you know what the 7 princeples of a living organism are, i can't remember them or find them using a search engine.

[Raven]

This is a nice edit since you fixed that.

Becareful with words like potential, after all the sperm that were recieved into one of my socks about two hours ago had the potential to become part of a human.

By the way, do you know what the 7 princeples of a living organism are, i can't remember them or find them using a search engine.

Yes it has the potential to create a human, but the sperm cell isn't a living organism.

I feel the same dilemma. I use to have them memorized. But I haven't used them in a while. I will list the ones I do know though. And hopefully someone will be kind enough to fill in the gaps.

Potential to reproduce.
Reacts to stimuli in the environment.

And sadly that's all I can remember.

[UnDeath]

Yes. Congradulations. You have discerned that a fetus is made up of living cells, much like, say, a leech.

[Raven]

Yes. Congradulations. You have discerned that a fetus is made up of living cells, much like, say, a leech.

Yes but a leech isn't composed of human DNA is it. Thus it doesn't garner the human proclaimed right to life.

[UnDeath]

Back to the human DNA. So is this scab I just picked off. Still going into the trash, tho. And who says that humans have the right to live? We're just another animal, and we have no qualms about a nice juicy steak, do we? The cow killed to get said steak most likely had more self awareness than a still developing fetus.

[Raven]

So than what is happening to the arab prisoners is perfectly fine?

[UnDeath]

are they more developed than something that doesnt have a vertabre(sp?)?

[Raven]

are they more developed than something that doesnt have a vertabre(sp?)?

I believe its spell vertebre. But you stated that who is to say we have a right to life. It is on a universal basis. If one living human has a right to life all living humans must have a right to life. It is the only way equality is truly achieved. So tell me do they have a right to life?

[UnDeath]

I dont know each and everyone of them. Some do, some may not. Something that doesnt even have a consiousness is quite irrelevent compared to something that is undoubtably human. What about those people whose "twin" is just a growth with hair and teeth on their back? are these growths any different from barely formed zygotes? are they nore "human"? They sure as hell have human DNA, even teeth and hair at times. Do you think its "humane" to remove and destroy these growths? Or do we gently remove them and find a loving home? Hmm?

[Raven]

I dont know each and everyone of them. Some do, some may not. Something that doesnt even have a consiousness is quite irrelevent compared to something that is undoubtably human. What about those people whose "twin" is just a growth with hair and teeth on their back? are these growths any different from barely formed zygotes? are they nore "human"? They sure as hell have human DNA, even teeth and hair at times. Do you think its "humane" to remove and destroy these growths? Or do we gently remove them and find a loving home? Hmm?

But how are you able to determine it doesn't have a consciousness? If this is waltzing back to the self-aware belief, than let me state again. You can not use being self-aware as a determination of life. It is much the same as using a soul for determination of life. It you can not make an accurate determination for when such a thing occures, you can not utilize it for any basis of law. For it is solely on faith.

Is the growth alive?

[UnDeath]

its as alive as an undeveloped fetus. Which it once was, I might add.

[Raven]

I personally have never heard of the growths living after birth. And it is especially improbable that they would live very long after birth. But as such on the unlikely chance that they do, if it risks the life of the fully developed child destroy it. Otherwise live with the being till it dies.

[Anonymous]

So in short, someone who takes it that far is insane anyway...

my parents are insane!

[kellychaos]

Women must be homicidal serial killers, then. They're destroying human DNA monthly. Stop the violence!

[AChimp]

Alright lets try this again. Under a chromosome method they would not be considered human, that is why utilizing DNA would be better. But that is, as you stated impractical.
Huh? First you said DNA is the bad way, so go to chromosomes. Now chromosomes are bad to your point of view in certain cases, so let's go back to DNA. Make up your mind before you start talking, buddy. When you say "let's use logic!" that doesn't mean resort to fuzzy logic or changing your story when the debate goes against you.

But the end result will always come out to be human. No matter the manner of conditions you place it under. For the DNA is inherently human. Thus the being is inherently human.
The being is human in appearance, and shares the physical properties of humans, nothing more. Sentience and self-awareness and intellect to separate humans from any other animal, which we have no qualms about killing regularly.

There is no scientific proof that a fetus in the first stages of development has any kind of higher brain activity whatsoever that could be construed as part of sentience.

Is the cell "alive" or is it just a part of a living organism? Is the organ "alive" or merely functioning?
In the first stages of development, the cells in a blastocyst are all operating on their own, merely replicating themselves. They are not operating in tandem. They're simply doing what all cells do.

I meant the same thing you did. But simple teaching them the use of contraceptives, and the consequences of sex isn't enough of a deterent. Or at the very least a complete deterent. For without being forced to view the risks it has outside of the realm of 4th or 5th person, teenagers will continue to foolishly believe it won't happen to them.
Again, why should we allow all these unwanted children to enter the world just because you feel it's a good way to prove a point? You said it youself a few lines later, "unwanted children are a tragedy."

No shit people are still gonna fuck all the time no matter what we tell them. We tell people that it's wrong to commit murder, and yet it still happens.

Knock knock? We live in a free society, so there's no such thing as a complete deterent.

[FS]

Damn! I must kill 15 million people a day. Sometimes twice!

Whenever I try to put down my thoughts on abortion, I always end up with hypocrisy and explanations that go nowhere. Simply put, I consider abortion the lesser of two evils, the other being exposing a child to a world that doesn't want it. Brief pain, of which the child is hopefully unaware, compared to a myriad of possible traumatic lives. Don't get me wrong, this doesn't still my conscience. And I pray that I will never be the cause of need for an abortion.

Some time ago, I watched some brief interviews with kids at school aged around 14, talking about sexual protection. Several of the girls mentioned abortion as a perfectly viable solution in case no protection was around, or failed. That greatly disturbed me. Perhaps the procedure of abortion should be described into length of detail in sex ed, or biology classes. Maybe it wouldn't help, but I doubt it would hurt.

It's too bad that making life is so easy.

[Raven]

Huh? First you said DNA is the bad way, so go to chromosomes. Now chromosomes are bad to your point of view in certain cases, so let's go back to DNA. Make up your mind before you start talking, buddy. When you say "let's use logic!" that doesn't mean resort to fuzzy logic or changing your story when the debate goes against you.

No first I said DNA was the improbable way. Than you rightly corrected me and said it was the impractical way. This does not make it bad. Merely unusable. So perhaps we should my "fuzzy" logic, verses your "twist" of logic?

The being is human in appearance, and shares the physical properties of humans, nothing more. Sentience and self-awareness and intellect to separate humans from any other animal, which we have no qualms about killing regularly.

There is no scientific proof that a fetus in the first stages of development has any kind of higher brain activity whatsoever that could be construed as part of sentience.

As such neither is there evidence towards it actually existance. Or is it nothing more than a glossy coating developed to express are higher evolutionary stand-point? For every theory in science a mathematical equation can always be draw somehow. Show me how sentience can have one. Or is sentience nothing more than a battle of semantics?

In the first stages of development, the cells in a blastocyst are all operating on their own, merely replicating themselves. They are not operating in tandem. They're simply doing what all cells do.

And if I'm correct the blastocyst actually becomes part of the fetus.

Again, why should we allow all these unwanted children to enter the world just because you feel it's a good way to prove a point? You said it youself a few lines later, "unwanted children are a tragedy."

No shit people are still gonna fuck all the time no matter what we tell them. We tell people that it's wrong to commit murder, and yet it still happens.

Knock knock? We live in a free society, so there's no such thing as a complete deterent.

Because do not bring the children into this world would be denying them their basic human rights. Of course they are going to fuck, but maybe they will actually use intelligence and be more careful. Or better yet gain responsibility and take care of their foolish mistakes. I never said it would be a complete deterent.

Whenever I try to put down my thoughts on abortion, I always end up with hypocrisy and explanations that go nowhere. Simply put, I consider abortion the lesser of two evils, the other being exposing a child to a world that doesn't want it. Brief pain, of which the child is hopefully unaware, compared to a myriad of possible traumatic lives. Don't get me wrong, this doesn't still my conscience. And I pray that I will never be the cause of need for an abortion.

But these myriad of tragic lives could also as easily include quite a bit of happiness. Or they could as easily be mostly happiness. It is all in essence speculation. As I have known, and I'm sure you have as well, people who were put in such situations. Some adopted, some taken care of by their actually parents. Some turned out well, others did not. Its all a matter of circumstance.

Damn! I must kill 15 million people a day. Sometimes twice!

If that's all you're killing, than I think you should get it checked out. That's a very low sperm count.

[FS]

Ah, I never count em afterwards.

[AChimp]

No first I said DNA was the improbable way. Than you rightly corrected me and said it was the impractical way. This does not make it bad. Merely unusable. So perhaps we should my "fuzzy" logic, verses your "twist" of logic
Right, so since we can't use DNA since it's impractical to make sure everything is human. :blah

And we can't use chromosomes, because horror-of-horrors, if there's a mutation then it won't even remotely count as human "in essence" since the numbers don't match up.

Dude, if you are going somewhere with this train of thought, speak up because the track just keeps going round and round and round...

As such neither is there evidence towards it actually existance. Or is it nothing more than a glossy coating developed to express are higher evolutionary stand-point? For every theory in science a mathematical equation can always be draw somehow. Show me how sentience can have one. Or is sentience nothing more than a battle of semantics?
No proof of sentience? There are whole branches of science that rely on positivism for the most part, like pschology, and these areas are the ones where we don't have the technology or knowledge to make precise measurements.

When you're typing your response, think about what you're doing? Can you feel the keyboard? Are you aware that your fingers are moving? That's sentience.

And where are all these thoughts taking place? In your brain, and I assume you have one, which brings me to my next point...

And if I'm correct the blastocyst actually becomes part of the fetus.
Yeah, and in the first 8 weeks of pregnancy THERE IS NO BRAIN. The cells are still differentiating themselves. Some are turning into heart cells, kidney cells, nerve cells, but there's still no chunk of cells that can be positively identified as a brain.

In fact, scientists can only measure the beginnings of a recognizable brain in Week 3 of the embryonic stages... 11 weeks after conception! Even then, the level of sophistication in the brain isn't much more than basic nerve centre. Plenty of animals just have brains that can be defined this way, and we don't grant them any special rights based on whether or not they are sentient, because evidently they are not.

It's not until Week 5 when various lobes begin to become apparent in the brain, but add them up... 11 + 2 = 13 weeks... The first trimester ends at Week 12.

Because do not bring the children into this world would be denying them their basic human rights. Of course they are going to fuck, but maybe they will actually use intelligence and be more careful. Or better yet gain responsibility and take care of their foolish mistakes. I never said it would be a complete deterent.
Tut tut, Raven, don't jump to conclusions. We still haven't proved what it means to be human. Since there's very little to no brain in the first trimester, there's no thought. You know what they say: no brain, no pain. There's no basis for ascribing rights willy-nilly.

However, I am still disturbed by your desire to use unwanted children as an example for others. What kind of quality of life would they enjoy? And what is to prevent the unwanted children from not caring (just look around, there's tons of 'em) and not fucking and having even MORE unwanted children? There are too many Ifs and Maybes and optimism in your plan.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Again, MORNING AFTER PILLS. Maybe this will shut you all up.

I've said this before, but we should first be more concerned with the people who are living NOW, rather than potential people who have no perception, much less self-understanding, that they exist at all. Only once we've solved these problems, should we then worry about the embryos.

So I'm guessing your against technology right? And are all for mass population reduction. Correct?

Ah! Here comes the part where he/she calls you an insensitive Malthusian!! :lol

[UnDeath]

I also recoleect that you, Raven, also said that abortion is ok if it would be mentaly handicapped. How would this fit in with your human rights defense? are retards not human? do they not have a right to live?

[theapportioner]

Raven: So I'm guessing your against technology right? And are all for mass population reduction. Correct?

You are a fucking imbecile. Die.

[Raven]

Right, so since we can't use DNA since it's impractical to make sure everything is human.

And we can't use chromosomes, because horror-of-horrors, if there's a mutation then it won't even remotely count as human "in essence" since the numbers don't match up.

Dude, if you are going somewhere with this train of thought, speak up because the track just keeps going round and round and round...

I never said we couldn't use chromosomes. I said it would be better to use DNA. If all we could use, were chromosomes, than far be it for me to state not to. For any reason.

No proof of sentience? There are whole branches of science that rely on positivism for the most part, like pschology, and these areas are the ones where we don't have the technology or knowledge to make precise measurements.

When you're typing your response, think about what you're doing? Can you feel the keyboard? Are you aware that your fingers are moving? That's sentience.

And where are all these thoughts taking place? In your brain, and I assume you have one, which brings me to my next point...

Psychology is not a science. It is a pathetic attempt at being a science. Looking for a metaphysical existance within the physical.

Yeah, and in the first 8 weeks of pregnancy THERE IS NO BRAIN. The cells are still differentiating themselves. Some are turning into heart cells, kidney cells, nerve cells, but there's still no chunk of cells that can be positively identified as a brain.

In fact, scientists can only measure the beginnings of a recognizable brain in Week 3 of the embryonic stages... 11 weeks after conception! Even then, the level of sophistication in the brain isn't much more than basic nerve centre. Plenty of animals just have brains that can be defined this way, and we don't grant them any special rights based on whether or not they are sentient, because evidently they are not.

It's not until Week 5 when various lobes begin to become apparent in the brain, but add them up... 11 + 2 = 13 weeks... The first trimester ends at Week 12.

So there is no sentience? Does sentience even exist? Bacterium have a functioning brain. Just because it is not similar to ours does not mean it is not a brain. Does the bacterium feel its prey? Does it choose to engulf its prey? Or is that simple conditioning? Now answer me this question. Lets assume for a moment that sentience actually exists. How does the existance, or lack there of, of sentience prevent something from being human?

Tut tut, Raven, don't jump to conclusions. We still haven't proved what it means to be human. Since there's very little to no brain in the first trimester, there's no thought. You know what they say: no brain, no pain. There's no basis for ascribing rights willy-nilly.

However, I am still disturbed by your desire to use unwanted children as an example for others. What kind of quality of life would they enjoy? And what is to prevent the unwanted children from not caring (just look around, there's tons of 'em) and not fucking and having even MORE unwanted children? There are too many Ifs and Maybes and optimism in your plan.

Than my dear friend what is the basis for ascribing rights to humans walking around? How are they so different?

There quality of life truly doesn't matter. For if we were to base what the possible quality of life would be like, than it would be plausible to simple say that our current orphans should be exterminated. What is to cause them to do so? As I said this entire portion of our arguments is based solely on speculation.

Ah! Here comes the part where he/she calls you an insensitive Malthusian!!

Sensitivity is for those who do not understand the value of practical measures.

I also recoleect that you, Raven, also said that abortion is ok if it would be mentaly handicapped. How would this fit in with your human rights defense? are retards not human? do they not have a right to live?

Everything debate I argue, I argue in a way that it could be turned into law, or used as a viable source for that subject. Whether it is right or wrong, a good argument or a bad one, does not matter. I will argue it that way. As such I am not foolish enough to believe that you could outlaw abortions without containing some exclusions to the rule. Without the exclusions it would be shot down eventually.

[Raven]

You are a fucking imbecile. Die.

Your response is pathetic. Please tell your family to take you off life support. Your brain might actually restart itself.

[theapportioner]

So there is no sentience? Does sentience even exist? Bacterium have a functioning brain. Just because it is not similar to ours does not mean it is not a brain. Does the bacterium feel its prey? Does it choose to engulf its prey? Or is that simple conditioning? Now answer me this question. Lets assume for a moment that sentience actually exists. How does the existance, or lack there of, of sentience prevent something from being human?

1) learn to spell.

2) learn the appropriate usage of bacteria versus bacterium.

3) you are stupid to ascribe "feeling" and "choice" to bacteria.

4) choice is an illusion, but that is an aside.

5) science by itself cannot define the boundaries of what is "human". you can appeal to it to set boundaries, but the boundaries are ultimately not scientific.

6) rejecting abortion based on our status as homo sapiens is arbitrary.

7) rejecting abortion based on our status as "human" is unfounded, because an embryo or a fetus is not "human".

[UnDeath]

Everything debate I argue, I argue in a way that it could be turned into law, or used as a viable source for that subject. Whether it is right or wrong, a good argument or a bad one, does not matter. I will argue it that way. As such I am not foolish enough to believe that you could outlaw abortions without containing some exclusions to the rule. Without the exclusions it would be shot down eventually.
then dont use points that dont pretain to what you're arguing for. (ie, the human rights bullshit)

[Raven]

1) learn to spell.

2) learn the appropriate usage of bacteria versus bacterium.

3) you are stupid to ascribe "feeling" and "choice" to bacteria.

4) choice is an illusion, but that is an aside.

5) science by itself cannot define the boundaries of what is "human". you can appeal to it to set boundaries, but the boundaries are ultimately not scientific.

6) rejecting abortion based on our status as homo sapiens is arbitrary.

7) rejecting abortion based on our status as "human" is unfounded, because an embryo or a fetus is not "human".

1.) Don't like my spelling ability? Than spell the words for me, or shut the fuck up.

2.) And where was my usage incorrect? Please be so kind as to point that at?

3.) Humanity is stupid for ascribing feelings to themselves. And if you would like reread what I said. It was a different type of feelings, that I was ascribing.

4.) Of course choice is an illusion. I am a determinist. But it is easier to utilize the word choice when arguing with those who are not.

5.) Science can define that which is Homo sapien sapien. And that which is H. sapien is human by definition.

6.) It is dismissed based upon our status as H. sapiens. It is dismissed based upon the belief that human beings have inherent rights. One of which is a right to life.

7.) In what way is it not "human"? No one has showed me they aren't "human" yet.

[Raven]

then dont use points that dont pretain to what you're arguing for. (ie, the human rights bullshit)

So I'm guessing exclusions are no longer allowed as part of an argument? Should that argument in theory become a bill, and as such become law. Which it won't. But that is the way I desire to argue it.

[UnDeath]

then dont use points that dont pretain to what you're arguing for. (ie, the human rights bullshit)

So I'm guessing exclusions are no longer allowed as part of an argument? Should that argument in theory become a bill, and as such become law. Which it won't. But that is the way I desire to argue it.
Then why use points that are irrelevent to your side of the debate?

[Baalzamon]

Bacterium have a functioning brain.

Speaking froma purely professional point of view as someone who is majoring in microbiology, you Raven, have just made the most idiotic statement in the history of my field of study, and every single one of my fellow students will laugh untill they die when I tell them what you have said.

[AChimp]

Psychology is not a science. It is a pathetic attempt at being a science. Looking for a metaphysical existance within the physical.
Dude, you are like, soooo Age of Elightenment. Just because you can't make an equation out of it, or measure it exactly doesn't invalidate it. Psychology is able to make some pretty damn accurate predictions based on it's "pathetic attempts."

So there is no sentience? Does sentience even exist? Bacterium have a functioning brain. Just because it is not similar to ours does not mean it is not a brain. Does the bacterium feel its prey? Does it choose to engulf its prey? Or is that simple conditioning?
:lol

So you're going to turn into one of those lame existentialists who whines that he or she is the only thing that they are sure of in the universe? You are actually going to argue the existence of sentience?

Bacteria DO NOT have a functioning brain because they are ONE cell. I can pull up any diagram of a bacteria you want, and I challenge you to point out the brain... or are you refering to the nucleus? That controls cell functions, moron, and is purely based on reactions to various proteins and chemicals. It is a physical and chemical reaction. There is no "conditioning" involved. Cells are not "trained" to do specific things; there's no Raven's School Gifted Bacteria.

Secondly, bacteria don't exactly "engulf their prey," since they are merely self-replication machines. I believe you're thinking of protozoa, and in that case, there's still no brain!

There's a difference between "brain" and "nerve centre." Nerve centres say, "Hey, my flagella on that side was brushed so I'm gonna move in that direction now." Pure instinct. Have you ever watched an amoeba through a microscope? I have many times. There is no predictable pattern of movement like you would see if the amoeba was making any logical "choices," so to start BSing your way around claiming protozoic organisms can make decisions is crap, even for the sake of playing devil's advocate. Even philosophy has a point at which the wisemen say it's retarded.

Brains are even't that much different, since most animals operate on pure instinct. Why doesn't the deer chose to run away from the headlights? It has a brain. Oh wait! D'oh! Instinct tells the deer to stay still when it gets scared... right.

If brains that could make free choices were that simple to create, trust me, as a computer science major, creating neural nets would be a walk in the park and we'd already have true AI.

Now answer me this question. Lets assume for a moment that sentience actually exists. How does the existance, or lack there of, of sentience prevent something from being human?
You know, your arguments are getting dangerously close to proclaiming that imaginary souls are what defines us as humans, and nothing more.

If you were to create a clone of yourself, minus the brain, would you start giving it rights? Would your clone care if you started harvesting its organs? Would it have sensory perception? The answers to the latter two questions are no. Sensory perception requires at least a nerve centre, and caring requires thought.

Since I have just shown that during the first trimester, there is NO brain, and any tiny little nerve cells DO NOT constitute consciousness allowing choice, there is no reason to assume that the embryo would be aware of its surroundings or care what happens to it. Caring requires thought, remember? The only reason why we ASSUME that it would care is because we assign our own beliefs to it when we imagine ourselves in its shoes. That's called the self-reference criterion; you can read any psychology book about it.

If we were to decide that there's no such thing as sentience, which is the idea you appear to have, why not assume EVERYTHING is human? Oh wait... they don't have the same DNA! Well, now, you see, we're back to defining stuff solely on it's physical properties. :blah

Humanity is stupid for ascribing feelings to themselves.
Okay, dude, you're not even talking science anymore. You're in the realm of philosophy, which according to the belief structure you outlined above, is just as pathetic as pschology.

You've probably got one of those "famous quotes" desk calendars, and it just happens to be Philosopher Month.

[Raven]

Then why use points that are irrelevent to your side of the debate?

Well the point actually isn't irrelevent. As those with some form of severe handcap are most likely defective on the chromosome level. Thus they most likely have more, or less, than the proper amount. Either way the exclusions are there only for the sake of promoting a delusion that it is worth arguing to the US Congress.

[The_voice_of_reason]

Why does the lack of chromosomes, resulting in defects, automaticaly make some one not human?

[Raven]

Speaking froma purely professional point of view as someone who is majoring in microbiology, you Raven, have just made the most idiotic statement in the history of my field of study, and every single one of my fellow students will laugh untill they die when I tell them what you have said.

The nuclei works like a brain, and thus could in essence be called a brain. If you do not understand what that means perhaps you should leave your microbiology classes and return to basic cellular construction. You might need to remember what the Golgi Aparatus does.

[AChimp]

Why does the lack of chromosomes, resulting in defects, automaticaly make some one not human?
Because it provides the "exclusion" that would be required to prevent any abortion law from being "shot down." :rolleyes

[AChimp]

The nuclei works like a brain, and thus could in essence be called a brain.
Shit dawg, what's with you and your "in essence"s? You claim you want to follow logic and science, so start showing some scientific proof that a nucleus is a brain (which it is not).

[Preechr]

"There is no predictable pattern of movement like you would see if the amoeba was making any logical 'choices,'"

I don't remember him actually saying things had to be observed to be swimming in easily predicatble patterns to be considered to be practicing some sort of thought. It would seem his argument kinda includes the concept that what passes as thought for you just might not be the least complicated process that exists that could still be called "thought." That's why he said what he did about retards in general.

Additionally, but in a more general sense, Science can tell the difference between a homo sapien and a duck, but not that between a homosexual duck and a regular duck. Psychiatry is not Science, but it does measure patterns. The easiest way to completely fuck up Psychiatry (or Psychology, for that matter) is to make your own damn decisions.

You can ask him what being a "determinist" means, cause I don't know... it seems important to understanding how he's kicking your asses right now, though...

[Preechr]

Why does the lack of chromosomes, resulting in defects, automaticaly make some one not human?

At some point, it might make you less worthy of life than that of a regular human. Less viable.

[The_voice_of_reason]

At some point, it might make you less worthy of life than that of a regular human. Less viable.

So many conditions make you less viable, that does not make you less human. So should we consider people with cancer inhuman? After all they are less viable. Hell lets follow this logic out and now children are inhuman because they couldn't survive on their own.

[AChimp]

At some point, it might make you less worthy of life than that of a regular human. Less viable.
If that's sarcasm, then out with it! We tolerate obfustication of meanings even less than using a thesaurus to do your talking on this board. >:

If it's not, then I can finally claim to have been in contact with a more disgusting person than myself. :)

[Raven]

Dude, you are like, soooo Age of Elightenment. Just because you can't make an equation out of it, or measure it exactly doesn't invalidate it. Psychology is able to make some pretty damn accurate predictions based on it's "pathetic attempts."

That is the same argument used against abortion as well. Or must we forget about the continously reference of a soul from the majority of the "pro-life" side of the camp. They utilize scientific methods, but this does not make them a science. Construction also utilizes scientific methods, are they are science as well?

you're going to turn into one of those lame existentialists who whines that he or she is the only thing that they are sure of in the universe? You are actually going to argue the existence of sentience?

The very existance of sentience is existentialism. Sentient being is a being that is self-aware. Self-awareness can not be determined or prescribed for any being. The only being that can truly tell if its self-aware or not is the sole being able to comprehend it. And that being is simple put, you. There is no way to determine whether anyone is self-aware or not. As being self-aware is based upon a determinition that requires you to experience it. Thus the very existance of sentience is nothing more than mass existentialism. But this is completely off subject.

Bacteria DO NOT have a functioning brain because they are ONE cell. I can pull up any diagram of a bacteria you want, and I challenge you to point out the brain... or are you refering to the nucleus? That controls cell functions, moron, and is purely based on reactions to various proteins and chemicals. It is a physical and chemical reaction. There is no "conditioning" involved. Cells are not "trained" to do specific things; there's no Raven's School Gifted Bacteria.

The human brain works in the same respect. It merely responds to chemical, protein, and hormone stimuli. Than generates nerve reaction channeling potassium ions through the nervous system. Simple because the system is more complex and efficient does not mean they are two different systems. Is a computer from the 1970s no longer a computer because of the ones we currently have running today?

There's a difference between "brain" and "nerve centre." Nerve centres say, "Hey, my flagella on that side was brushed so I'm gonna move in that direction now." Pure instinct. Have you ever watched an amoeba through a microscope? I have many times. There is no predictable pattern of movement like you would see if the amoeba was making any logical "choices," so to start BSing your way around claiming protozoic organisms can make decisions is crap, even for the sake of playing devil's advocate. Even philosophy has a point at which the wisemen say it's retarded.

I have watched both an amoeba and a human. Neither have predictable patterns. That's called the Chaos Theory. I said they choose to engulf their prey. They choose to move. You are automatically assuming I'm saying they are making logical decisions. There isn't a creature yet that can make a decision based upon logic. They are all essentially determined ahead of time.

Brains are even't that much different, since most animals operate on pure instinct. Why doesn't the deer chose to run away from the headlights? It has a brain. Oh wait! D'oh! Instinct tells the deer to stay still when it gets scared... right.

Since humans have a brain, why do most humans choose not to kill their neighbors over owning a pet they don't like? They have brains. Oh wait! D'oh! Conditioning tells the humans not to. Oh ya and the Sympathetic nervous system dictates fight or flight. They aren't scared. I don't quite know what they are. But if they were scared they would have run.

If brains that could make free choices were that simple to create, trust me, as a computer science major, creating neural nets would be a walk in the park and we'd already have true AI.

Tell me how many variables do you include for the AI? Thousands? Millions? Well as many as you use I highly doubt you are using enough to actually create an AI close to the human brain. You would need billions of variables. From the minute reaction to a tempature of .01, to the reaction of getting stabbed. This is of course to create one that is exactly like a human. Now if you are simple making a true AI you still need a large quanity of variables, of which I could not begin to comprehend what they would be based upon.

If you were to create a clone of yourself, minus the brain, would you start giving it rights? Would your clone care if you started harvesting its organs? Would it have sensory perception? The answers to the latter two questions are no. Sensory perception requires at least a nerve centre, and caring requires thought.

If it was living than it is deserves the same rights you and I have. But it is completely unlikely that it would be alive. Or even if it was "living" it would be unlikely that you could count it as a living being. As it would require a brain to react to stimuli within one's environment.

Since I have just shown that during the first trimester, there is NO brain, and any tiny little nerve cells DO NOT constitute consciousness allowing choice, there is no reason to assume that the embryo would be aware of its surroundings or care what happens to it. Caring requires thought, remember? The only reason why we ASSUME that it would care is because we assign our own beliefs to it when we imagine ourselves in its shoes. That's called the self-reference criterion; you can read any psychology book about it.

Caring is nothing more than chemical signals sent from one portion of the brain to the other, causing a reaction. Now you have already said that the nucleous reacts to proteins and chemicals. Much the same way the brain reacts to proteins and chemicals. So a cell that lyses itself to protect the rest of the fetus, obviously "cares" about the its surroundings does it not? Consciousness is metaphysical.

If we were to decide that there's no such thing as sentience, which is the idea you appear to have, why not assume EVERYTHING is human? Oh wait... they don't have the same DNA! Well, now, you see, we're back to defining stuff solely on it's physical properties.

Instead of defining them by what has a soul and what doesn't?

Okay, dude, you're not even talking science anymore. You're in the realm of philosophy, which according to the belief structure you outlined above, is just as pathetic as pschology.

I never said psychology was a pathetic attempt at a science. I never said it was pathetic. And he made a statement, thus I responded.

[FS]

The human brain works in the same respect. It merely responds to chemical, protein, and hormone stimuli. Than generates nerve reaction channeling potassium ions through the nervous system. Simple because the system is more complex and efficient does not mean they are two different systems. Is a computer from the 1970s no longer a computer because of the ones we currently have running today?

By that logic, most if not all of the human organs would qualify as brains.

They aren't scared. I don't quite know what they are. But if they were scared they would have run.

That's not necessarily true. I don't know what makes a deer stand still when 'caught' in headlights, but many animals who live in the same environments as snakes instinctually freeze when they encounter one. Perhaps the headlights of a car make a similar situation.

I'm not scientist but I'm pretty sure there is more to the brain than just chemical and hormonal reactions. After all, it's not as if science can tell us exactly how it works yet.

[Raven]

By that logic, most if not all of the human organs would qualify as brains.

Only if they work as the center of control for the organism. That is essentially what a brain is.

at's not necessarily true. I don't know what makes a deer stand still when 'caught' in headlights, but many animals who live in the same environments as snakes instinctually freeze when they encounter one. Perhaps the headlights of a car make a similar situation.

Actually I believe you are right in this aspect. As the first reaction from the sympathetic nervous system is to remain still and evaluate the threat. Than they either choose to fight or run.

I'm not scientist but I'm pretty sure there is more to the brain than just chemical and hormonal reactions. After all, it's not as if science can tell us exactly how it works yet.

I will not say that there isn't a possibility that the human brain has more to it than hormonal and chemical reactions. But from the current understanding of the human brain it is unlikely that the brain functions on any level greater than the movement of potassium and sodium ions, as well as hormone receptors. As these are the generators of the current functions we know of as higher functions.

[Helm]

I'm gonna have to make this one quicker than it was before. Sorry about that. Sentience is essentially an undeterminable variable. It is based upon the belief that a being has to be self-aware, without fully understanding exactly what makes a being self-aware. Thus it can not be based upon reason. It is based upon faith. Much like the utilization of the soul for determination of life.

As long as one can make the (abstract, I agree) distinction between enviroment and self, and not only can but wants to communicate this distinction, there's no need for faith of any sort. This is an interesting conversation, which I'm afraid is not suited to this thread. If you wish to continue this, by all means post a new thread.

[AChimp]

If it was living than it is deserves the same rights you and I have. But it is completely unlikely that it would be alive. Or even if it was "living" it would be unlikely that you could count it as a living being. As it would require a brain to react to stimuli within one's environment.
You have just proven my point with your own words.

The cells in your clone would be alive, they would be active and replicating, but there's no central control. No brain means it can't react and has no thought, and therefore doesn't care and isn't aware of what is happening to it.

Oh, but all the little cells have nuclei, so they must be aware and therefore have rights! Yes they do, but no they're not. No brain to react to external stimuli means it's not a living being, according to you, and since the fetus has no brain in the first trimester, it's therefore not a human.

You can't argue that a fetus is special just because it has human DNA since it's just a smaller clump of cells when compared to the brainless clone.

As the first reaction from the sympathetic nervous system is to remain still and evaluate the threat. Than they either choose to fight or run.
Herbivores will freeze in position when frightened because the vast majority of predators operate on visual cues. Why do you think rabbits just sit there when you walk by? By remaining still, it's more likely to blend in with the background, especially since most predators are colour blind.

Most insects will stop dead in their tracks when a frog is within view, and the reverse is true: frogs can get easy meals by just staying still themselves.

The deer and rabbit will run away on instinct when a threat makes a move towards it. I've faked out dozens of deer by standing still and then making an abrupt movement and standing perfectly still again. The deer will bound away for a few steps and then stop and remain still again. If it was *actually* making a choice to run away, why wouldn't it do so for more than a few steps?

I do get what you're saying about "choice," though, but it's not as awesome and prevalent as you're making it seem. The choice is "Do I follow instinct A or instinct B?"

Is a computer from the 1970s no longer a computer because of the ones we currently have running today?
You are generalizing, and any good lawmaker knows that's not a good thing to do. The computers of today and computers from the '70s are still computers, yes, but chip architecture is completely different in a lot of aspects. Sure, they all operate with transistors on silicon waffers and are run by electricity, but they run in a very different manner.

Perhaps its the differences in our brain functions compared to animals', etc., that provides the basis for sentience.

Construction also utilizes scientific methods, are they are science as well?
There's a difference between lab science and applied science.

So a cell that lyses itself to protect the rest of the fetus, obviously "cares" about the its surroundings does it not?
That's a built in self-destruct that occurs when an internal fault is detected. The cell could only "care" about its neigbours if it was communicating with all the cells around it and asking them if they minded if it grew all shitty.

I never said psychology was a pathetic attempt at a science. I never said it was pathetic. And he made a statement, thus I responded.
Oh? "Psychology is not a science. It is a pathetic attempt at being a science. Looking for a metaphysical existance within the physical."

Since humans have a brain, why do most humans choose not to kill their neighbors over owning a pet they don't like? They have brains. Oh wait! D'oh! Conditioning tells the humans not to.
Pray tell, then, why do some people actually go over the fence and kill the neighbour if they've been conditioned not to? Aw shit. There must be some sort of metaphysical reason in their head, and that means using pschology. Mental conditioning is completely abstract, and it's impossible to provide the physical proof that you're demanding for something that's not concrete, since none exists! :O

Horror! We must turn to positivist sciences!

[mburbank]

I think one of the major problems here lies in semantics. Change our terms and we might change some minds. Suppose instead of 'abortion' we were to think in terms of 'fetal eviction'? Certainly a woman owns the property that is her womb. It is private property. If te fetus is unwanted, this makes it a squatter, an univited tenant who is not paying rent. Surely the law allows for the removal of an unwanted, illegal tenant from ones property. If I found a homeless person had taken shelter in my closet, could I not have the police forciby evict him? Is this homeless persons health and well being my concern, should the government be able to force me to care for him, shelter him? If harm comes to the homeless person as a direct consequence of my having him removed, this is of course tragic, but certainly not my fault.

The homless persons choice to take up residence in my closet (as opposed to the fetus' lack of choice) is immaterial. The law recognizes my property rights . If the homless person were insane and did not activelt choose my closet, would this make me responsible?

I think if Pro Choice folks focused on the concept of Fetal eviction, it would be very hard for at least Republican Pro life forces to disagree.

[Preechr]

At some point, it might make you less worthy of life than that of a regular human. Less viable.
If that's sarcasm, then out with it! We tolerate obfustication of meanings even less than using a thesaurus to do your talking on this board. >:

If it's not, then I can finally claim to have been in contact with a more disgusting person than myself. :)

No No... it's the process of value judgement that I'm talking about. You guys have already used the tactic of valuation when you started talking about a fucked up baby that could kill it's mother were it to be born... stuff like that...

I guess I should have said that differently. How about: At some point, it (being impaired) might make you less worthy of life than a regular human, were we only able to select one of you to live.

That's actually a very simple point. I wasn't expecting to make waves there... :D

[AChimp]

:lol @ Max

You should write an article about that. :)

[mburbank]

I actually sold that joke concept to a Lesbian comedian about decade ago. She may well still use it, but the 50 clams I made is Loooooong gone.

I should have asked her to pay me in money.


Frowny emoticon.

[Protoclown]

Max is the only thing saving this thread from turning into a boring tragedy. Ah well, at least this one is still more interesting than the "Healthcare in the US" thread.

[ItalianStereotype]

it's all these newsfilter people. you could rape them with a joke and they still wouldn't get it. hell, they have made me not want to post in an abortion thread.

[Raven]

You have just proven my point with your own words.

The cells in your clone would be alive, they would be active and replicating, but there's no central control. No brain means it can't react and has no thought, and therefore doesn't care and isn't aware of what is happening to it.

Oh, but all the little cells have nuclei, so they must be aware and therefore have rights! Yes they do, but no they're not. No brain to react to external stimuli means it's not a living being, according to you, and since the fetus has no brain in the first trimester, it's therefore not a human.

You can't argue that a fetus is special just because it has human DNA since it's just a smaller clump of cells when compared to the brainless clone.

Ah but it can react. Infect an embryo with a virus and you will get a reaction. Infect a cloned human without a brain with a virus and you won't. Not unless you force the same reaction. You see the problem was your analogy was flawed from the very beginning. You were comparing a fully adult, fully developed human vs embryotic cells that were developing. Now tell me how is it possible to essentially compare something that already has setup the brain as its center of control. Verses something that has yet to do so? The very existance of your cloned human would have been based solely upon the existance of the brain. While the very existance of the embryonic fetus is not. It doesn't even need the brain to do what it is doing. In fact it is dividing independantly of the mother. Reacting independantly of the mother. The only thing it requires is immunities and nurishment. And if you wish to use nurishment against me, don't bother. It is still gaining its food for energy. The requirement doesn't actually demand that the being hunt its own food.

Herbivores will freeze in position when frightened because the vast majority of predators operate on visual cues. Why do you think rabbits just sit there when you walk by? By remaining still, it's more likely to blend in with the background, especially since most predators are colour blind.

That's exactly what I said, but as the predator moves closer, since the predator's hunting ability isn't based solely upon eyesight alone. The prey runs as to escape the predator. This is completely off subject though. So I'm going to end it here.

You also don't understand what it means to be a determinist. I'm going to explain so you realize my position. After explaining I'm going to drop it. It is completely off topic. I am a determinist. Thus I do not believe in choice. It doesn't exist. I have seen no proof to its existance. What humanity views as choice is nothing more than a reaction to the millions of variables around them. Cause and effect. The Chaos Theory. All essentially important parts of determinism. We don't choose what we do. We merely react to what the variables dictated are reaction to be. Thus choice is irrelevent, since it doesn't exist. Without choice there is no way to define self-awareness, thus it is also irrelevent.

You are generalizing, and any good lawmaker knows that's not a good thing to do. The computers of today and computers from the '70s are still computers, yes, but chip architecture is completely different in a lot of aspects. Sure, they all operate with transistors on silicon waffers and are run by electricity, but they run in a very different manner.

Perhaps its the differences in our brain functions compared to animals', etc., that provides the basis for sentience.

Off topic again, but I will answer. Only swiftly. We have a higher evolved brain than animals. Nothing more.

There's a difference between lab science and applied science.

Psychology is neither. It does both at times, but doesn't actually surround itself around one or the other. And it is also the wrong type of science to use. As the basis of psychology is upon those who are already developed, thus it can't be used to determine anything about those who aren't. As not to put up another quote I'm just going to state that was a typo. It was meant to read "I said Psychology was a pathetic attempt at a science."

Pray tell, then, why do some people actually go over the fence and kill the neighbour if they've been conditioned not to? Aw shit. There must be some sort of metaphysical reason in their head, and that means using pschology. Mental conditioning is completely abstract, and it's impossible to provide the physical proof that you're demanding for something that's not concrete, since none exists!

Because other variables involved dictated that they do such a thing. When I speak of mental conditioning. I am talking about these variables.

I think one of the major problems here lies in semantics. Change our terms and we might change some minds. Suppose instead of 'abortion' we were to think in terms of 'fetal eviction'? Certainly a woman owns the property that is her womb. It is private property. If te fetus is unwanted, this makes it a squatter, an univited tenant who is not paying rent. Surely the law allows for the removal of an unwanted, illegal tenant from ones property. If I found a homeless person had taken shelter in my closet, could I not have the police forciby evict him? Is this homeless persons health and well being my concern, should the government be able to force me to care for him, shelter him? If harm comes to the homeless person as a direct consequence of my having him removed, this is of course tragic, but certainly not my fault.

The homless persons choice to take up residence in my closet (as opposed to the fetus' lack of choice) is immaterial. The law recognizes my property rights . If the homless person were insane and did not activelt choose my closet, would this make me responsible?

I think if Pro Choice folks focused on the concept of Fetal eviction, it would be very hard for at least Republican Pro life forces to disagree.

You're right that is a good argument for a Republican Pro Life force. As such it is not very good here. No offense of course, I highly doubt you've been paying attention to the thread and thus do not know my position.

You are allowed to evict unwanted people from your private property. And I am more than willing to concede that the womb is the property of the woman. But, to utilize your analogy, you could not have the police actually exterminate the homeless person within your closet. And to intentionally evict someone from your private property with the full knowledge that such an eviction would indoubtly lead to their death, or even intending for such an eviction leading to their death. Is culpable murder or manslaughter. As such it is still a crime. Now taking what I just said you would be forced to care for and keep the baby alive upon the eviction. And thus you could never evict a fetus/embryo before the point at which current modern medicine dictates the baby has a chance of survival. And even than you could still be charged with manslaughter, for you would already have know the chances at which the baby had at survival.

I'm rather happy you decided to jump into this.

[AChimp]

Ah but it can react. Infect an embryo with a virus and you will get a reaction. Infect a cloned human without a brain with a virus and you won't. Not unless you force the same reaction.
Your brain does not tell your white blood cells to fight infection. They do it themselves when the baddies are detected by a whole system of other things. Infect the embryo and infect the clone, you will get a reaction in both, regardless. You see, the mother is what is keeping the fetus alive (pumping blood, providing oxygen, etc), and we would have to run the clone with machines to simulate that, since there's NO BRAIN in my example.

You see the problem was your analogy was flawed from the very beginning. You were comparing a fully adult, fully developed human vs embryotic cells that were developing. Now tell me how is it possible to essentially compare something that already has setup the brain as its center of control. Verses something that has yet to do so?
As I restated above, NO BRAIN. Please, read the analogies before you start claiming they are flawed, because it makes you look like an ass. Should I say it again? I proposed that THE CLONE HAS NO BRAIN.

The very existance of your cloned human would have been based solely upon the existance of the brain. While the very existance of the embryonic fetus is not. It doesn't even need the brain to do what it is doing.
Whoops! We've still forgotten about the NO BRAIN clause. Regardless, I'm sure you're aware of the autonomic nervous system which operates without any input from the brain at all. That's why your heart beats on it's own, you know. The human body CAN function without a brain under the right conditions.

In fact it is dividing independantly of the mother. Reacting independantly of the mother. The only thing it requires is immunities and nurishment. And if you wish to use nurishment against me, don't bother. It is still gaining its food for energy. The requirement doesn't actually demand that the being hunt its own food.
Right, so it is developing independently from, yet relying on, the mother? Maybe I'm still flabbergasted at your "bacteria have brains" comment, but can you explain to me how something can be independent from and reliant on the same thing, especially when, if you were to remove the mother from this equation and not replace it with anything, the fetus would die?

[Raven]

Your brain does not tell your white blood cells to fight infection. They do it themselves when the baddies are detected by a whole system of other things. Infect the embryo and infect the clone, you will get a reaction in both, regardless. You see, the mother is what is keeping the fetus alive (pumping blood, providing oxygen, etc), and we would have to run the clone with machines to simulate that, since there's NO BRAIN in my example.

It would actually depend how the cloned body would react. Are you keeping it alive by electrical impulses? Or is it merely lying there?

Whoops! We've still forgotten about the NO BRAIN clause. Regardless, I'm sure you're aware of the autonomic nervous system which operates without any input from the brain at all. That's why your heart beats on it's own, you know. The human body CAN function without a brain under the right conditions.

The autonomic nervous system is involuntary. It is controlled by the thalumus and the hypothalumus. The heart has a pacemaker. Its own form of nervous system. That is why the heart beats for sometime after death. It is the only system in the entire body that is not dependant on the brain to function.

Right, so it is developing independently from, yet relying on, the mother? Maybe I'm still flabbergasted at your "bacteria have brains" comment, but can you explain to me how something can be independent from and reliant on the same thing, especially when, if you were to remove the mother from this equation and not replace it with anything, the fetus would die?

Easy remove the mother and guardians from the equation of a 6 month old baby. Is the baby not essentially independant? Does it not also rely on those taking care of it?

[Raven]

I was wrong. There aren't 7 criteria for life. Only 4. Here they are.

1.) Metabolism.
2.) Growth.
3.) Reaction to Stimuli.
4.) Reproduction of the species.

[The_voice_of_reason]

I was wrong. There aren't 7 criteria for life. Only 4. Here they are.

1.) Metabolism.
2.) Growth.
3.) Reaction to Stimuli.
4.) Reproduction of the species.


A fetus wouldn't qualify as being alive under these criteria. It doesn't have an indipendent metabolism, it depends on the mother to produce energy. Sure it could, given the right conditions, develop into a being with a metabolism, but so could cells taken from my skin.

[AChimp]

Easy remove the mother and guardians from the equation of a 6 month old baby. Is the baby not essentially independant? Does it not also rely on those taking care of it?
How do you justify talking about fetuses in one post and changing it to babies in another?

You're grasping at straws now that you've already proved me right by your own words, and are trying to squirm out of your position on technicalities.

[Raven]

A fetus wouldn't qualify as being alive under these criteria. It doesn't have an indipendent metabolism, it depends on the mother to produce energy. Sure it could, given the right conditions, develop into a being with a metabolism, but so could cells taken from my skin.

I'm sorry to say this in such a manner that is appears rude and is improperly blunt. But it is the only manner I can think of how to say it. You are wrong. The fetus gains the nutriants from the mother, this is true. But the criteria of metabolism doesn't dictate how a living being gains the nutriants. Merely in whether they utilize them in a method of metabolism. Living cells do such a thing. As they utilize cellular respiration to use the nutriants. And cellular respiration is nothing more than metabolism.

How do you justify talking about fetuses in one post and changing it to babies in another?

You're grasping at straws now that you've already proved me right by your own words, and are trying to squirm out of your position on technicalities.

Now under the burden of proof method, which I am forced to enact as this has become redundant, I am going to have to ask you, to prove that I proved you right. Now with that said the analogy was only flawed in that it is comparing a being that requires and utilizes the mother's blood to survive. Verses a being that has a closed circulatory system. And even this isn't a major flaw, as it was examining the dependance of independant beings not the body structure. Fact: The embryo is performing cellular actions independant of the mother. Thus the embryo is independant. Fact: The embryo must receive certain basic needs from the mother. Thus the embryo is reliant. As such the embryo is an independant being separate from the mother, but still reliant on the mother.

[AChimp]

You still haven't explained why you switched from fetuses to babies. :blah

Anyways, since you asked for it, I'll requote your response to my no-brain clone analogy:

If it was living than it is deserves the same rights you and I have. But it is completely unlikely that it would be alive. Or even if it was "living" it would be unlikely that you could count it as a living being. As it would require a brain to react to stimuli within one's environment.

I will even make it easy for you and break it down.

1) The cells of the clone are living, and will remain so as long as the conditions of a fully functioning human body can be upkept. That means food, oxygen, etc., and all of these things can be recreated easily using machines (heart-lung, IV, and so forth) and ARE recreated quite regularly in surgical operations... or did you just expect the clone to start breathing on it's own?

These cells will go on dividing and growing and dying just like they would anywhere else. Except in this case, there is NO BRAIN.

2.) This is the same condition that an embryo in the first trimester is in. The cells of the embryo are living, and will remain so as long as the proper conditions are met (nourishment, oxygen, etc), all of which are provided by the mother, another living being that just happens to be all of our machines wrapped up into one package.

... Except THERE IS NO BRAIN. The brain doesn't start to develop until late in the embryonic stage, and only begins to resemble a human brain when the first trimester is already complete.

I would like to remind you at this point that my recommended cut-off point for abortions is the end of the first trimester.

3.) You said that, while the clone might be "alive," it wouldn't count as a living being because it would have to have a brain so it could "react to stimuli." Well, what kind of reaction are we talking about? Do you mean that you'd expect the clone to defend itself if I started attacking it with a stick? No, it won't because that kind of reaction would require a brain to coordinate things. An embryo certainly won't fight back if I hit it with a stick.

Then you bring up the point of "injecting a virus" to provoke a reactions. Well, you've admitted it yourself, that the embryo relies on the mother for immunities, so any immune system that would be fighting off the virus would belong to the mother, since it's the mother's blood and antibodies flowing through the embryo at this stage. In fact, during the entire time a baby is in the womb, it's hooked up to the mother's circulator system! Your "embryo reaction" isn't really the embryo's reaction afterall; it is the mother's. The embryo is renting those blood cells, dude. (Here's a good link for some more detailed information: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus).

Anyways, the embryo will fight the virus using the mother's borrowed immune system, and since the clone is hooked up to all the shizzy, it's blood is pumping fine and it's getting all the energy and nourishment it needs, so its immune system is working. Remember, a lot of organs are controlled by the autonomic nervous system, too, and that all operates independent of the brain (Want proof? Command your kidneys to stop working... can't do it, huh?)

So, where does that leave us... we have two clumps of cells with NO BRAINS relying on something else to keep them alive. They can react to internal events, but there's nothing that happens externally.

4.) Now we have arrived at the rights issue. If the clone were alive, then you said it would have rights... but you say that it's unlikely the clone itself counts as alive, so therefore there are no rights. There's no brain for thought to occur in, and therefore, no caring (which you define as "nothing more than chemical signals sent from one portion of the brain to the other, causing a reaction") so we can harvest the organs for our own uses all we want and no one will accuse us of murdering anyone because the clone was never truly alive to be violated to begin with.

Now how is this any different from an embryo in the first trimester? It is just a smaller clump of cells with human DNA, and there's no brain for thoughts or caring.

"Oh! But the individual cells have brains and those brains might care!"
Well, Raven, that's an interesting theory and I encourage you to conduct research in that area of science, but since there is no scientific evidence to corroborate your theory, it remains unproven and you must rely purely on philosophy and abstractions to explain it.

Fact: The embryo is performing cellular actions independant of the mother. Thus the embryo is independant. Fact: The embryo must receive certain basic needs from the mother. Thus the embryo is reliant. As such the embryo is an independant being separate from the mother, but still reliant on the mother.
FACT: Where I come from, if you remove one element (mommy) from a system and that causes some other element (cell growth) to stop, those elements are hardly independent. It is a symbiotic relationship.

And even then, assuming your argument is correct for a moment, do you consider you skin to be an independent part of you? It's really growing independently (you can't tell your skin to grow or not grow) and its just getting nourishment from you. :blah

Besides, you fail to explain how a fetus's reliance on the mother makes it more alive than the clone with no brain.

[The_voice_of_reason]

Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


metabolism

\Me*tab"o*lism\, n. (Physiol.) The act or process, by which living tissues or cells take up and convert into their own proper substance the nutritive material brought to them by the blood, or by which they transform their cell protoplasm into simpler substances, which are fitted either for excretion or for some special purpose, as in the manufacture of the digestive ferments. Hence, metabolism may be either constructive (anabolism), or destructive (katabolism).


Since the fetus needs the mother to bring it the nutrients it doesn't have and independent metabolism. Just because it can utilize nutrients doesn't mean it has an independent metabolism.

[Raven]

Source: Merriam-Webster Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


metabolism

\Me*tab"o*lism\, n. (Physiol.) The act or process, by which living tissues or cells take up and convert into their own proper substance the nutritive material brought to them by the blood, or by which they transform their cell protoplasm into simpler substances, which are fitted either for excretion or for some special purpose, as in the manufacture of the digestive ferments. Hence, metabolism may be either constructive (anabolism), or destructive (katabolism).


Since the fetus needs the mother to bring it the nutrients it doesn't have and independent metabolism. Just because it can utilize nutrients doesn't mean it has an independent metabolism.

The embryo/fetus absorbs the nutrients into its cells. It than utilizes anabolic and metabolic methods in creating ATP and in producing stored energy. Albeit the energy isn't stored very long. Thus it has an independent metabolism. This is even by your own definition.

[Raven]

Remember, a lot of organs are controlled by the autonomic nervous system, too, and that all operates independent of the brain (Want proof? Command your kidneys to stop working... can't do it, huh?)

Wrong. As I have already stated, the autonomic nervous system controls INVOLUNTARY functions within the body, not independent. The brain still forces the involuntary systems to work. Endocrine system is one of these. The Endocrine system is controlled by the hypothalumus. The Endocrine system includes metabolism;i.e. digestion, ect. This is how metabolism works in adults. As such we can not control digestion.

Then you bring up the point of "injecting a virus" to provoke a reactions. Well, you've admitted it yourself, that the embryo relies on the mother for immunities, so any immune system that would be fighting off the virus would belong to the mother, since it's the mother's blood and antibodies flowing through the embryo at this stage. In fact, during the entire time a baby is in the womb, it's hooked up to the mother's circulator system! Your "embryo reaction" isn't really the embryo's reaction afterall; it is the mother's. The embryo is renting those blood cells, dude. (Here's a good link for some more detailed information: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus).

I don't really feel like explaining the entire immune system, it is far to complex to do so in such a small amount of time. As such here are the basics. Virus infects cell, infected cell has pieces of discared viral DNA within its body. Cell presents discarded pieces on a receptor. It is than picked up by a Cytotoxic T-Cell. Upon which the cell lysed. That's a single process starting from infection of a single cell. There are far more. But my question is do you see the initial reaction? And I will concede that there would be a minor amount of reaction in the cloned human for a certain period of time, until death. But as the cloned human would not have full abilities to maintain life, it would die. And I simple explained this for no reason. Let me ask you a question. Tell me how the clone would have the potential to reproduce?

Now we have arrived at the rights issue. If the clone were alive, then you said it would have rights... but you say that it's unlikely the clone itself counts as alive, so therefore there are no rights. There's no brain for thought to occur in, and therefore, no caring (which you define as "nothing more than chemical signals sent from one portion of the brain to the other, causing a reaction") so we can harvest the organs for our own uses all we want and no one will accuse us of murdering anyone because the clone was never truly alive to be violated to begin with.

I have neither stated, nor given a shit, that either would care. As caring is something based solely off of personal belief. Now to to address the skin statement below, so I don't have to utilize quotes and make a long post even longer. The skin has the same DNA as the rest of that specific human. As such it is merely a part of a greater whole of that human. It does not act separatly, which is what I meant by independence. The embryo on the other hand is the whole. It is the whole culmination of that specific code of DNA. The probability of which for it to come around within the near future, is astronomical. A code separate to that of its mother. Making it a separate living human being.

Well, Raven, that's an interesting theory and I encourage you to conduct research in that area of science, but since there is no scientific evidence to corroborate your theory, it remains unproven and you must rely purely on philosophy and abstractions to explain it.

Like I said I never really gave a shit about caring. I don't even give a shit about personal belief. I am arguing this from the whole of humanity. Something I suggest you do. As what is determined to be law for the whole of humanity can not be based off mere belief. It has to be based off logic and science. For you can not enforce the beliefs of some upon the whole.

[FS]

On the subject, does anyone know if a person who's braindead (say, after an accident), but kept alive by artificial means, still has rights? And do doctors have to go through legal procedures before turning off the machinery?

[AChimp]

You still haven't explained how you went from talking about fetuses to babies. :blah

I don't really feel like explaining the entire immune system, it is far to complex to do so in such a small amount of time. blah blah blah
Right, so you haven't explained how the immune reaction ISN'T the mother's, since it's the mother's blood that nurturing the fetus's cells.

But as the cloned human would not have full abilities to maintain life, it would die. And I simple explained this for no reason. Let me ask you a question. Tell me how the clone would have the potential to reproduce?
Oh, and the embryo does have full abilities to maintain life? If we took it out of the mother it would do completely fine on its own from that point on? No, huh? Didn't think so. The fetus needs the mother to survive as much as the clone needs the machines.

Tell me how the embryo has anymore potential to reproduce than the clone? Neither are in any condition to be getting it on, by themselves at least. It's simple enough to extract sex cells from from the clone and mix them around in a petridish.

Making it a separate living human being.
Tsk tsk, Raven. You said that something would have to have a brain to react with environmental stimuli for it to count as a "living being." As I've already shown, there is no brain in a first trimester embryo.

I am arguing this from the whole of humanity. Something I suggest you do. As what is determined to be law for the whole of humanity can not be based off mere belief. It has to be based off logic and science. For you can not enforce the beliefs of some upon the whole.
Show me the science and logic that shows that bacteria cells have brains and that that individual cells have awareness (albeit in a lesser form than our own :rolleyes ) that is more than reflex reactions. There's no evidence for it, so you can't use it to prove your theories!

You seem to be ignoring a lot of your own creed by filling your ramblings with philosophical nuggets of fun.

[Raven]

Well, my lack or proper articulation has created a slight uphill battle. But your arrogance isn't benefitting you very well. I would suggest dropping it if you actually do hope to win this.

"You still haven't explained how you went from talking about fetuses to babies."

The baby is a separate organism from the mother. The fetus/embryo is a separate organism from the mother.

"Right, so you haven't explained how the immune reaction ISN'T the mother's, since it's the mother's blood that nurturing the fetus's cells."

I never said it wasn't, I said it was used by the embryo/fetus.

"Oh, and the embryo does have full abilities to maintain life? If we took it out of the mother it would do completely fine on its own from that point on? No, huh? Didn't think so. The fetus needs the mother to survive as much as the clone needs the machines.

Tell me how the embryo has anymore potential to reproduce than the clone? Neither are in any condition to be getting it on, by themselves at least. It's simple enough to extract sex cells from from the clone and mix them around in a petridish."

I'm rather tired of redundantly explaining how the brain works. What we can do with machines is not enough to keep a person alive without a brain. They would die. In fact they would probably go into a diabetic shock in die. If not by some other method. That was what I meant by the statement.

Look up potential and you'll understand why. If the clone never had a brain, as you describe it. Than the clone never had the potential to reproduce. I will grant you that I was in fact false in my assumption that the clone would not have a metabolism, or be able to react. It would in fact have a metabolism as the cells would be generating the metabolism, even if its digestion would not be breaking down the glucose. Although it having solely being granted glucose would be a dangerous endeavor, as their would be no insulin to moniter the blood-glucose level. I'm really just bantering on in terms of science, solely because this has become to redudant to really care. I repeat my argument, than you repeat yours, than I repeat mine. And so on into ad infinitum.

"Show me the science and logic that shows that bacteria cells have brains and that that individual cells have awareness (albeit in a lesser form than our own ) that is more than reflex reactions. There's no evidence for it, so you can't use it to prove your theories!

You seem to be ignoring a lot of your own creed by filling your ramblings with philosophical nuggets of fun."

Read a biology book. That may help you understand some of what you speak of. Instead of making mistakes like the "independence" of the autonomic nervous system. I couldn't even help but notice that the one person who had the creditials to argue it against me, didn't even respond to my statement back to them. I also have one last question for since when did awareness matter? And since when did it ever exist?

On the subject, does anyone know if a person who's braindead (say, after an accident), but kept alive by artificial means, still has rights? And do doctors have to go through legal procedures before turning off the machinery?

You weren't assine so I'll try to not appear like a dick. When someone constitutes braindead they still have portions of their brain function. They merely do not have enough of the brain functioning. The heart still beats, which does require the brain for it to increase, as is evident when someone begins flat lining. And the autonomic nervous system is usually still active. Problem is a brain dead person has lost a lot of their ability to use things that are voluntary. Among this is breathing, as breathing is only involuntary when the amount of carbon dioxide in the blood is too high. As such the person is still alive.

[Immortal Goat]

The doctor has EVERY right to pull the plug if there is no hope of the brain dead person coming out of it. I believe that it is not LIFE, per-se, that we should protect, but the QUALITY of life. If a person is in horrible pain, or not even aware of thier own existence as a person any more, and there is NO HOPE of recovery, just let them die in peace.

[Raven]

The doctor has EVERY right to pull the plug if there is no hope of the brain dead person coming out of it. I believe that it is not LIFE, per-se, that we should protect, but the QUALITY of life. If a person is in horrible pain, or not even aware of thier own existence as a person any more, and there is NO HOPE of recovery, just let them die in peace.

I'm not completely up docter-patient law in cases of "brain death" as such I won't comment on it. But I do know when something is begging the question. As such I have seen it so many times in this thread its tragic. Thus I'm not going to allow it anymore.

What is awareness? When does awareness begin?

[AChimp]

The laws change depending on the country, but I believe in most cases it is up to immediate family members to make that decision, except in cases where there is a living will that specifies "If I'm brain dead, kill me." Even then, family members can contest the living will, though IMO, they're not doing the brain dead person any favours.

Then again, they're not really doing any harm aside from insisting on occupying valuable hospital space.

When there's no family, I believe that it's up the the doctor.

[Sethomas]

Although my first post was made on the topic of abortion years ago, this is a stupid fucking thread.

You can believe that life begins at birth, or you can believe it begins at conception. To pick an arbitrary point in-between is asinine. The rules stand at three months simply because the people who made the rules recognize that people get more sentimental over a thumb-sized embryo than a pinhead-sized zygote. To introduce metabolic processes into the debate is moot; self-guided meiosis begins at conception.

My principle belief is that abortion should be illegal for the same reason murder is: one human does not have the right to kill another. Murder is a crime in all societies as a result of our uncertainty and fear of death. We want to die in a way suited to the way we live our lives, not by the intrusions of someone else's actions.

The argument of whether life begins at birth or conception scientifically one of semantics, but for practical argument it's a theological querry. By arbitrarily putting the line at three months, the government involuntarily assumes the position of the church. The obvious argument against this is that if the government intervenes on a woman's choice on the grounds of a theological oppinion, THAT is a violation of separation of church and state. But that's only on behalf of the woman, but the unborn child gets no say in the matter. Argh, this is kind of muddy trying to express this the right way, but I'm saying that the unborn child deserves the benefit of the doubt. Because it is not the right of the government to decide whether an abortion sends a soul into the afterlife or not, abortion should be equated with homicide judicially.

[FS]

I always thought the three-month line was there because the mother's life could be endangered by an abortion after that.

[Dole]

How the fuck is making abortion illegal going to help anyone? Women will still have abortions, but will have to go for 'backstreet' ones which is a far worse state of affairs to be in.
Pro-lifers make me fucking :puke
Especially male ones >:

[VinceZeb]

Yeah, Dole, those nasty pro-lifers that believe that innocent life is sacred... man, those bastards! >:

[Dole]

No, those clueless male wankers who think they have any say over an incredibly difficult set of circumstances that they themselves will never have to experience.
Why is it these supposedly happy christian pro-lifers who are supposed to celebrate the joy of all existence are generally the most right wing, intolerant, bigoted joyless ghouls to ever walk the planet?

[kellychaos]

Why is it these supposedly happy christian pro-lifers who are supposed to celebrate the joy of all existence are generally the most right wing, intolerant, bigoted joyless ghouls to ever walk the planet?

And Burbank thought he had the lock on defining Vinth.

[Raven]

"How the fuck is making abortion illegal going to help anyone? Women will still have abortions, but will have to go for 'backstreet' ones which is a far worse state of affairs to be in."

Slippery slope.

"No, those clueless male wankers who think they have any say over an incredibly difficult set of circumstances that they themselves will never have to experience.
Why is it these supposedly happy christian pro-lifers who are supposed to celebrate the joy of all existence are generally the most right wing, intolerant, bigoted joyless ghouls to ever walk the planet?"

I don't see the mother experience what it feels like to be scraped out of a uteras.

[Dole]

'Slippery slope' ?? Eh ? what?

'I don't see the mother experience what it feels like to be scraped out of a uteras.'

-are you a bloke by any chance? yes? then SHUT UP.

[AChimp]

Raven, are you ascribing feelings to things again? >: