Abortion

[UnDeath]

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

[Raven]

Originally Posted by UnDeath

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Raven

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]

Originally Posted by AChimp

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?

Originally Posted by AChimp

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?

Originally Posted by AChimp

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.

Originally Posted by AChimp

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.

Originally Posted by FS

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.

Originally Posted by FS

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Raven

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!!

[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]

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.

[Raven]

Originally Posted by theapportioner

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]

Originally Posted by Raven

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]

Originally Posted by theapportioner

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

[UnDeath]

Originally Posted by Raven

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?

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.

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.