[Raven]

Originally Posted by AChimp

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.

Originally Posted by AChimp

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.

Originally Posted by AChimp

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.

Originally Posted by AChimp

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."

Originally Posted by AChimp

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.