Abortion

[Raven]

Originally Posted by UnDeath

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]

Originally Posted by Baalzamon

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."

[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]

Originally Posted by The_voice_of_reason

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]

Originally Posted by Preechr

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]

Originally Posted by AChimp

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?

Originally Posted by AChimp

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.

Originally Posted by AChimp

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?

Originally Posted by AChimp

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.

Originally Posted by AChimp

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.

Originally Posted by AChimp

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.

Originally Posted by AChimp

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.

Originally Posted by AChimp

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.

Originally Posted by AChimp

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?

Originally Posted by AChimp

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]

Originally Posted by Raven

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.

Originally Posted by Raven

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]

Originally Posted by FS

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.

Originally Posted by FS

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.

Originally Posted by FS

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]

Originally Posted by AChimp

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]

@ 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]

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by AChimp

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?

Originally Posted by AChimp

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.

Originally Posted by AChimp

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.