Abortion

[Raven]

Originally Posted by AChimp

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.

Originally Posted by AChimp

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.

Originally Posted by AChimp

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?

Originally Posted by AChimp

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.

Originally Posted by KevinTheHerbivore

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.

Originally Posted by 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?

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.