are they more developed than something that doesnt have a vertabre(sp?)?
|
Quote:
|
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?
|
Quote:
Is the growth alive? |
its as alive as an undeveloped fetus. Which it once was, I might add.
|
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.
|
Quote:
|
Women must be homicidal serial killers, then. They're destroying human DNA monthly. Stop the violence!
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
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. |
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. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Ah, I never count em afterwards.
|
Quote:
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... Quote:
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... Quote:
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. Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
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?
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
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". |
Quote:
|
Quote:
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. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
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. Quote:
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 Quote:
You've probably got one of those "famous quotes" desk calendars, and it just happens to be Philosopher Month. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:35 AM. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.