Abortion, Genocide, what’s THE difference?!?!?!?!?.... do you condone murder???

"personal choice could also mean any of the other reasons given, or some that we many never think of. it just means it's personal, and you really don't have any right to ask!! I don't want to talk about it. whatever!!!

reply to post by Cuervo

Death is defined by the cessation of a heartbeat. Wouldn't logic dictate that the presense of a heartbeat indicates life?

No, death is defined as irreversible cessation of (particularly higher) brain activity.

en.wikipedia.org...

okay heres my scenario, a teenage girl, junior in high-school is walking home from school when suddenly five guys come out from the back alley, beat and rape her. she goes to the hospital, goes through all the whatnot that they go through (rape kit, reconstructive facial surgery, paperwork etc.) and some allotted passes by, she's pregnant. now i ask you why the hell would anybody want to give birth to something that came from something that horrific? it's bad? modern culture worships the spartans even though they threw a baby off a cliff with any birth defect. being pro life comes from social control. do you even think you can stop a pregnant woman from obtaining enough alcohol to manually abort a baby if they have to? it's ultimately up to the mother. "god" nor humans claiming to "do gods work" have any say in the act of abortion. abortion is kinda wierd, but also there is suicide, risk of alcohol poisoning, drug addiction brought on by attempt to abort the fetus themselves, parents disowning their own daughters because of religious whatnot. yeah i'd rather have my daughter get an abortion than become a heroin addicted alcoholic just trying to get rid of the memento of having a train run on her. if you're a rape victim who went ahead and had your kid, that's fine, you made your choice i myself am pro choice and also believe that consensual pregnancy is sacred and shouldn't be passed up.

I cannot believe religion men who take over the
Life of a woman who does not won’t to have a baby.
It is possible to put a baby in to a man.
So YOU take the baby to term.

Originally posted by dawnstar
"personal choice could also mean any of the other reasons given, or some that we many never think of. it just means it's personal, and you really don't have any right to ask!! I don't want to talk about it. whatever!!!

Why don't you want to talk about it?

Do you not like facts that distort your view of reality???

They gave all the answers given...there is no hidden data...please face facts and stop lying to yourself.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Cuervo

 

Death is defined by the cessation of a heartbeat. Wouldn't logic dictate that the presense of a heartbeat indicates life?

No, death is defined as irreversible cessation of (particularly higher) brain activity.

en.wikipedia.org...

I use official medical definitions....and you use wikipedia


Come on man...be honest with yourself.

Originally posted by buddha
I cannot believe religion men who take over the
Life of a woman who does not won’t to have a baby.
It is possible to put a baby in to a man.
So YOU take the baby to term.

Again...who is bringing up religion...YOU ARE.


Stop trying to interject controversy to use as your strawman.

why argue over the defination of death? the heartbeat begins beating around three months, I am pretty sure that brain functioning developes later.
and well, most anti abortionists want to consider conception as the beginning of life....so neither is relevant to them.

and well, they don't want to talk about it, it's none of your business. why should they have to venture into memories that they don't find pleasant, just to answer your stupid questions...

This should never be about policy. This is about free will, and it amazes me how many people would choose to violate Universal LAW and infringe on someone else's right to personal freedom and choice.

I guess there will always be "good little servants who uphold the laws for their MASTERS who wish for everyone to wear their voluntary shackles."

Originally posted by dawnstar
why argue over the defination of death? the heartbeat begins beating around three months, I am pretty sure that brain functioning developes later.
and well, most anti abortionists want to consider conception as the beginning of life....so neither is relevant to them.

and well, they don't want to talk about it, it's none of your business. why should they have to venture into memories that they don't find pleasant, just to answer your stupid questions...

18 days = heartbeat
40 days = brainwaves

Originally posted by dawnstar
why argue over the defination of death? the heartbeat begins beating around three months, I am pretty sure that brain functioning developes later.
and well, most anti abortionists want to consider conception as the beginning of life....so neither is relevant to them.

and well, they don't want to talk about it, it's none of your business. why should they have to venture into memories that they don't find pleasant, just to answer your stupid questions...

You seem a little ticked off...maybe you should shelve your emotion and stick to a logical discussion???


I do consider the beginning of life at the time of conception.

I have clearly laid out way in many posts in this thread...no one is disputing that the biological process of human life begins at conception. They have to twist definitions to try to define it through consciousness, brain function, heart beat, or some other arbitrary bodily function. I don't have that problem...my position is plain and simple and doesn't rely on human bodily functions. I will go ahead and say my position is more SCIENTIFIC...and theirs is more based on EMOTION.

Originally posted by Qcuailon
This should never be about policy. This is about free will, and it amazes me how many people would choose to violate Universal LAW and infringe on someone else's right to personal freedom and choice.

I guess there will always be "good little servants who uphold the laws for their MASTERS who wish for everyone to wear their voluntary shackles."

See that's where it gets confusing. You say that upholding "universal law" is giving people the green light on terminating fellow humans that have their own distinct DNA and is not a part of their hosts' bodies. Others say that upholding "universal law" is protecting those very same people even when they are still in the womb.

Both believe they are fighting for the rights of somebody. Either pregnant women or their children. Even when I use neutral language, it still seems like an obvious choice to me but whatever...

reply to post by destination now


For someone who originaly posted what a waste of time this was and you had nothing to say about it, you sure have a lot to say.

reply to post by kevinunknown


I think abortion is wrong on so many levels with some exceptions of course. However, I think it is up to people to choose whether they want the child or not. I am not going to interject on your life but I think it is kind of ironic that people act mature to have sex but act immature when it is time to be responsible.

"The Father of Modern Genetics" Testifies

Dr. Jerome Lejeune, known as "The Father of Modern Genetics," also testified that human life begins at conception before the Louisiana Legislature's House Committee on the Administration of Criminal Justice on June 7, 1990.

Dr. Lejeune explained that within three to seven days after fertilization we can determine if the new human being is a boy or a girl. "At no time," Dr. Lejeune said, "is the human being a blob of protoplasm. As far as your nature is concerned, I see no difference between the early person that you were at conception and the late person which you are now. You were, and are, a human being."

Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman of the Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, said: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception."

Dr. McCarthy de Mere, a medical doctor and law professor at the University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception."

www.prolife.com

reply to post by Cuervo


the key word is "host". most murder victims well, their murderers could easily have just gotten away from the person if they were bugging them that badly. people are murdered, for some really strange reasons at times really....
you can't remove a fetus from a mother that easily and expect the baby to live. and well, it isn't just a minor irratation, it's harmonal imbalances, it's morning sickness, heck, I got so I barely could walk with my third kid, which is why I use that as an example, I know it's possible. I know that there is a women in poland that lost her sight as a consequence of being denied an abortion. these are facts!
so, well, how do you equitably balance the rights of the mother, against the rights of the baby? and, how do you enforce the right of that baby? there were abortions long before there were laws legalizing them. many of the witches of old were herbalists, and well, their biggest crime was probably peddling remedies to unwanted pregnancies. are you gonna ban the pregnant women to the house, so she can't go out and obtain the plants that are required to provoke an abortion? gonna ban cinnamon from her house? shall we monitor what she eats, just to make sure she doesn't starve the baby out of existance?? are we next gonna question the validity of every women who miscarries, did she interfere in some way in the death of her child? to give equal rights to fetus as you do the host, well, you are creating one giant conflict, because there are gonna be cases where the two don't jive with each other too well, and one has to be sacrificed for the other.

Originally posted by MindSpin

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by Cuervo

 

Death is defined by the cessation of a heartbeat. Wouldn't logic dictate that the presense of a heartbeat indicates life?

No, death is defined as irreversible cessation of (particularly higher) brain activity.

en.wikipedia.org...

I use official medical definitions....and you use wikipedia

Come on man...be honest with yourself.

Definition of death varies, but it is precisely brain death that is considered important for all medical and legal purposes. As a student of medicine, I know the definition of death we were required to learn: irreversible cessation of higher brain activity, which is brain death.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

And whats wrong with wiki? All the sources are mentioned down. It is pretty accurate in basic things like this.

I thought this was a conspiracy and alt news website????? What does any of this have to do with the concepts that are discussed here???

reply to post by dawnstar

it isn't just a minor irratation, it's harmonal imbalances, it's morning sickness, heck, I got so I barely could walk with my third kid, which is why I use that as an example, I know it's possible. I know that there is a women in poland that lost her sight as a consequence of being denied an abortion. these are facts!

This is what is called anecdotal evidence...look it up...educate yourself to why it is not proper to use.

reply to post by MindSpin

YOU and other pro-choice folks are the only ones claiming sperm is a living being

Living being.
Being.

it refers to a discrete life form that has properties of mind (i.e. experience and character, cf. sentience), which are deemed to constitute a more complex and evolved state than simple organisms (i.e. that have only "life functions").

No, sperm does not qualify, just as embryos and early fetuses dont. Sperm and embryos are by definition not living beings, only living cells. They both lack qualities that define a being.
I have never claimed sperm is a living being, now you are comitting strawman. I said both sperm+egg and embryo are systems which would potentially turn into a being in the future.

I'm not trying to define a universal "protected vs unprotected life". I am simply talking about human life...that is easy enough to understand...is it not???

Then your speciecist philosophy breaks down in case of hypothetical intelligent aliens and transhumans, it has a singularity there. If you are OK with it, your call, but I dont think we should base as important thing such as legal abortion rights on such narrow and ad-hoc and self-centered philosophy, which does not offer answers to why the life in question should be or should not be protected, only establishes it as a fact, even if there are many which do not agree.

My argument is simple...human biological process of life. ImagineReality finally understood what I was saying...

See above.

They don't contain a complete and unique DNA and left to natural processes neither will develop into anything.

Omission bias. If we have a system that is capable of developing into a human person, it doesnt really matter if at the beginning it is going to do it on its own and we prevent it (abortion of the embryo), or at the beginning it is not capable of doing it on its own and we fail to enable it to do so if we can (man + woman). The consequence of our choice is the same - no human being where there could be if I acted differently.

If yu are not a moral consequentialist, then you may not agree with it, but I dont think deontological morality (actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of the consequences) could really be justified without resorting to some supernatural being, so I dont consider it valid as an atheist.

So you have a criteria of "sentience" on what can be killed or not? Is a dog sentient? ImagineReality doesn't seem to believe they are. Is it ok to kill dogs???

Yes I have, and yes, dog is sentient and IMHO its not OK to kill dogs, except in self-defense, just as humans.

Look...I gave you TWO sources of definitions of medical death. You can talk until you are blue in the face...but you are doing nothing but sharing your OPINION. I gave you facts...if you want to dispute them...please do so with FACTS and not your own personal opinion.

Opinion? Read something about the history of medical death, and why it includes those other criteria, and why they are not mandatory in the EEG and life support age, only optional. The most used definition in the modern era in clinical practice is brain death. Disconecting vegetative patients or donating hearts would be ILLEGAL if your definition was used.

en.wikipedia.org...

en.wikipedia.org...

An individual who has sustained either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions, or (NOT AND!) (2) irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, is dead. A determination of death must be made in accordance with accepted medical standards.

As you can see, the doctor can choose to use definition without other bodily systems if its appropiate, since there is no reason to sustain for example irreversibly brain dead patient.

Are Ants considered "higher animals" to you???

That requires further research to their sentience.

I think you are the one on the slippery slope here....you need to continue to define, redefine, classify, set criteria just to keep your position from turning into a completely illogical statement.

Criteria is set from the beginning - presence of sentience. If we cannot YET in practice determine where some of the unimportant border cases belong, that is not the fault of the philosophy, just our current knowledge and ability, just as our theory of gravity is not falsified by our inability to measure gravitational force or compute orbits with unlimited accuracy in practice.
And I see nothing wrong with continuing to classify, improve and research the nature of sentience and its implications on universal sentient being rights in our complex world, its certainly better than setting one arbitrary, narrow, selfcentered and medieval rule that ONLY humans are protected in ALL stages of development, and other conscious life which may be even more advaced is unprotected, rule unable to answer many important philosophical questions and without any objective morality justification for its existence.

And in comes eugenics.

What the hell has science of improving human genome have to do with anything?

Wouldn't it be more moral to end the suffering (decreaed suffering) of the severly mentally retarded???

Assuming they suffer (which overwhelming majority of them dont, they are very often more happy than normal people) so much that they would themselves prefer death over life they should have the right to voluntary euthanasia. Otherwise you will most probably increase suffering by killing them. Noone knows to decide better whether death is preferable to life than the person in question.

For the record, I support voluntary euthanasia.

How about the severly elderly with advanced alzhemiers...they don't even know who they are...shouldn't we just kill them???

How does "they dont know who they are" imply "they suffer"?

my position doesn't have that problem.

It has singularities everywhere where advanced sentient non-human life is theoretically considered, or worse, allows for killing it.

Schizophrenia...YES

You should define what you mean by "human concept". Do you mean things thought up or invented by people? (thats what I assumed from you including purely social construct such as religion), or do you mean things made by nature, discovered by us, which only affect our society to a certain degree, but are not social constructs but natural (biological) in origin? (consciousness, shizophrenia)?

I ask the same for "consciousness"...you can't measure it.

You can study it in many other ways using neurology.

See here

Wow...I didn't realize you had consciousness all figured out.

Occams Razor dictates that we shouldnt multiply entities without reason. That means until we find some attribute of consciousness that couldnt be in principle explained using what we already know about the brain from natural sciences like neurology (eplained as emergent property of complex brain neural network), we must assume it is all there is.

There you go...we can't do it. So it is scientifically impossible to determine what you and others are attempting to determine. And therefore illogical.

Again, does our inability to compute planet orbits with infinite or ridiculously high precision invalidate our theory of gravity, and imply its not complete? No. Theory is exactly right, just our computational capabilities are limited. Just like fractal is determined by its one simple equation exactly into infinite depth, but in practice we cannot compute how fractal looks at ridiculously high zoom. But that does not imply our "theory" of the fractal (equation) is somehow wrong or incomplete.

I have never stated anything about protecting all life. I am strictly speaking of HUMAN LIFE. Please stay on topic and try not to put words into my mouth.

OK. Try to justify using your favourite moral system why only human life should be protected in all stages, and equally sentient (or equally nonsentient in case of embryos) non-human life should not.