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

Originally posted by Jack Squat
reply to post by mrphilosophias

 

Imagine baby Jesus was aborted!!!!?

Herod tried but God is in charge, and we will all be judged, until then I am praying and hoping for the world to regain its sanity.

reply to post by Maslo


Whether or not it got an encyclopedia entry, "Science of Morality" is a non-science. Science is observational fact. Morality is subjective and people can place their own value on what they perceive.

This debate is about science and the double-standards we have when creating laws around it.

reply to post by Maslo

The problem with using definitions from a dictionary is that they give only one most encompassing one, which is now more or less historical. There are actually different types (stages) of medical death (clinical death, brain death, somatic death), and the one used as a legal death IS irreversible brain death, in the modern era of medicine.

YES..it IS the most encompassing definition. Thank you for helping me prove my point.

See...I am all about the most complete and the most encompassing definition.

That is why I use the Biological definition of "LIFE"...because it encompasses ALL other theories.

Nice how that works...huh?


Do you want to know when "death" really occurs..outside of a "medical definition"??? When cells STOP dividing.

So we have a nice little definition here...life begins when cells START dividing...life ends when cells STOP dividing. Everything between those two points...is LIFE. Another human ending that process is MURDER.


Dispute it please.

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by Maslo

 

Whether or not it got an encyclopedia entry, "Science of Morality" is a non-science. Science is observational fact. Morality is subjective and people can place their own value on what they perceive.

This debate is about science and the double-standards we have when creating laws around it.

Not necessarily true. Have you studied ethics? Categorical imperatives (Golden Rule), inalienable fundamental human rights, justice and fairness, natural observation, preferable ends, these are all means by which objective moral principles may be found or actualized, and then there is Divine Revelation.

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by MindSpin

 

if I remember right, many of the victims on one genocide died at the hands of scientists, in the form of hideous experiments. all, justified by the potential advancements for mankind!! nice logical explanations, with no heart or feeling involved....

just saying.....

And...thanks for the random fact that has no bearing on any of my arguments.


I love the turn of events though...pro-choice people turning AGAINST science...LOL.

reply to post by Rustami

We were told abortion would "empower" women and let them make their own choices. But research has shown that 80 percent of women are pressured by their husbands or boyfriends or by their parents to abort their baby. Is this empowerment? www.hoshuha.com

I found this to be true in many cases.

Originally posted by mrphilosophias

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by Maslo

 

Whether or not it got an encyclopedia entry, "Science of Morality" is a non-science. Science is observational fact. Morality is subjective and people can place their own value on what they perceive.

This debate is about science and the double-standards we have when creating laws around it.

Not necessarily true. Have you studied ethics? Categorical imperatives (Golden Rule), inalienable fundamental human rights, justice and fairness, natural observation, preferable ends, these are all means by which objective moral principles may be found or actualized, and then there is Divine Revelation.

Yes. But none of those things are "science". They are still subjective. Morality can be a field of study and a subject of practice and research but it cannot be science. This is why the scientific community largely dismisses "Science of Morality" as a non-science.

I only pick on it because you cannot have a fair debate about ethics when you call ethics science. Either actions fit the scientific definitions of "kill" and "life" or they don't. You can then use morality to evaluate those findings.

Originally posted by geekyone
Ok deep breath, this is my take on it.

Abortion is killing a child, you can dress it up however you like but that is what it is.

If you think that whatever the surrounding issues are make that acceptable, then be honest about it.

I don't think anyone has ever denied that abortion ends a potential life.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by MindSpin

 

Your arbitrary criteria of "sentience" can not be measured.

In life on Earth, brain waves = sentience. Brain waves can surely be measured.

A main criteria of sentience is being self aware..

Sentience is the ability to feel or perceive.

See self-awareness there?

are newborn babies self aware?

That depends on what level of self-awareness you mean, in broad sense yes. But what is important for us is sentience, not self-awareness. Babies and third trimester fetuses are surely sentient

You have the slippery slope...because you are choosing to not use science and instead use the subjective and widely differing opinions of philosophy and morals.

Biology cannot answer moral questions such as "what kind if life should we protect by law?"

I will stick with science...I will not willingly abandon logic and science just in order to attempt to justify abortion.

You are just using wrong science, the answer to pro-life/pro-choice question is the domain of sociology, or Science of Morality, not biology.

edit on 24/2/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

you think that you are wise and knowledgeable and modern but you are a fool. Cellular growth and development are objective criteria for life, have you ever even taken Biology or Anatomy & Physiology? This is basic stuff. I reiterate my former argument and we can bring this to the debate forum if you would like.
1.) Taking the life of an innocent human being is morally unacceptable.
2.) Abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being.
:.
Abortion is morally unacceptable.

Originally posted by mrphilosophias

Originally posted by MindSpin

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by MindSpin

 

if I remember right, many of the victims on one genocide died at the hands of scientists, in the form of hideous experiments. all, justified by the potential advancements for mankind!! nice logical explanations, with no heart or feeling involved....

just saying.....

And...thanks for the random fact that has no bearing on any of my arguments.


I love the turn of events though...pro-choice people turning AGAINST science...LOL.

you think that you are wise and knowledgeable and modern but you are a fool. Cellular growth and development are objective criteria for life, have you ever even taken Biology or Anatomy & Physiology. This is basic stuff. I reiterate my former argument and we can bring this to the debate forum if you would like.
1.) Taking the life of an innocent human being is morally unacceptable.
2.) Abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being.
:.
Abortion is morally unacceptable.

I don't think you actually understand what MindSpin is saying. I think you are arguing his point...

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by mrphilosophias

Originally posted by Cuervo
reply to post by Maslo

 

Whether or not it got an encyclopedia entry, "Science of Morality" is a non-science. Science is observational fact. Morality is subjective and people can place their own value on what they perceive.

This debate is about science and the double-standards we have when creating laws around it.

Not necessarily true. Have you studied ethics? Categorical imperatives (Golden Rule), inalienable fundamental human rights, justice and fairness, natural observation, preferable ends, these are all means by which objective moral principles may be found or actualized, and then there is Divine Revelation.

Yes. But none of those things are "science". They are still subjective. Morality can be a field of study and a subject of practice and research but it cannot be science. This is why the scientific community largely dismisses "Science of Morality" as a non-science.

I only pick on it because you cannot have a fair debate about ethics when you call ethics science. Either actions fit the scientific definitions of "kill" and "life" or they don't. You can then use morality to evaluate those findings.

You can use scientific information and logic to arrive at moral imperatives. But science isn't always necessary, and it definetly is incomplete, imperfect, and changing, by nature, there are many truths which are self-evident.

1.) Universal/Fundamental truth does not change.
2.) The body of scientific knowledge changes.
:.
Science is neither fundamental or universal truth

Simple really.

There is no difference between the two. Abortion IS murder.

Just as women DO have a choice. A very simple choice.

They can choose to have loose morals, or they can have some upstanding morals and keep their friggin' legs closed!

reply to post by Maslo

In life on Earth, brain waves = sentience. Brain waves can surely be measured.

Oh look...you answered one of your own questions than...Ants are sentient...everything with a brain that produces brain waves is a sentient being.

I guess we should protect them all??? Make it illegal to kill all life with a brain??? That IS your argument..right?


Of course you ignored the fact that most definitions of "sentience" (because there are so many...I'm sure you will just ARBITRARILY pick ONE)...deals with "feeling" or being "self aware". Seems like you have a dilema...funny how I DON'T.

So which is it...all living things with brain waves are sentient? Only humans with brain waves are sentient? Do you have to be self aware to be sentient, if so, how do you measure this? Do you have to experience "feeling" to be sentient, if so, how do you measure this?

SO many questions to clarify your criteria...maybe you should move to a more simple and complete definition of life....like the BIOLOGICAL definition???

Sentience is the ability to feel or perceive.


See self-awareness there?

There you go...I knew you wouldn't dissapoint...arbitrarily picked one to suit your needs....Bravo.

That depends on what level of self-awareness you mean, in broad sense yes. But what is important for us is sentience, not self-awareness. Babies and third trimester fetuses are surely sentient

How do you know? How do you know a baby has the ability to perceive???

You are stuck in trying to defend something that you CAN NOT measure...and you fall back on non-sensical philosophy instead of sticking to SCIENCE.

Biology cannot answer moral questions such as "what kind if life should we protect by law?"

You don't need biology to answer this...human law should protect human life. Quite simple isn't it???

You are just using wrong science, the answer to pro-life/pro-choice question is the domain of sociology, or Science of Morality, not biology.

LOL...sociology is NOT science...don't make me laugh.

Sociology is little more than philosophy...same as religion. And dealing with MORALS...same as RELIGION.

Are you saying that abortion is a debate between philosophy and religion...between secular morals and religious morals???

Come on now...you are going to abandon SCIENCE for PHILOSOPHY??? And what do you think of people that approach this from a RELIGION stand point???

reply to post by whitl103


Foster homes, group homes, maybe institutions, any facility that would not only house, but feed, clothe and educate until the child is 18 years of age. Plus in the case of rape, provide the woman with free health care, psychological services, a place to live, feed her, clothe her, and surround her with a support team that will stay by her side through a pregnancy that she did not ask for, want, or looks forward to. After birth, provide her with free health care, psychological services, a place to live, food, clothes and a strong support team to see her through the PTSD she will suffer as a result of the rape, and the birth of a child she conceived through forced, violent sex. Provide her with the tools she will need to love this child, look at this child every day for the rest of their lives and not see the face or mask of the stranger who violently forced her to have sex and conceive this child.

Originally posted by Cuervo

Originally posted by mrphilosophias

Originally posted by MindSpin

Originally posted by dawnstar
reply to post by MindSpin

 

if I remember right, many of the victims on one genocide died at the hands of scientists, in the form of hideous experiments. all, justified by the potential advancements for mankind!! nice logical explanations, with no heart or feeling involved....

just saying.....

And...thanks for the random fact that has no bearing on any of my arguments.


I love the turn of events though...pro-choice people turning AGAINST science...LOL.

you think that you are wise and knowledgeable and modern but you are a fool. Cellular growth and development are objective criteria for life, have you ever even taken Biology or Anatomy & Physiology. This is basic stuff. I reiterate my former argument and we can bring this to the debate forum if you would like.
1.) Taking the life of an innocent human being is morally unacceptable.
2.) Abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being.
:.
Abortion is morally unacceptable.

I don't think you actually understand what MindSpin is saying. I think you are arguing his point...

i guess that I am the fool afterall, thanks! star for you

reply to post by mrphilosophias

you think that you are wise and knowledgeable and modern but you are a fool. Cellular growth and development are objective criteria for life, have you ever even taken Biology or Anatomy & Physiology? This is basic stuff. I reiterate my former argument and we can bring this to the debate forum if you would like.
1.) Taking the life of an innocent human being is morally unacceptable.
2.) Abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being.
:.
Abortion is morally unacceptable.

I 100% agree...too bad I am a fool

reply to post by Xiamara


No, it isn't unethical. Even in the Bible in the book of Proverbs is states to give someone strong medicine in their final moments so they forget their miseries.

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by mrphilosophias

 

you think that you are wise and knowledgeable and modern but you are a fool. Cellular growth and development are objective criteria for life, have you ever even taken Biology or Anatomy & Physiology? This is basic stuff. I reiterate my former argument and we can bring this to the debate forum if you would like.
1.) Taking the life of an innocent human being is morally unacceptable.
2.) Abortion is taking the life of an innocent human being.
:.
Abortion is morally unacceptable.

I 100% agree...too bad I am a fool

I profusley apologize and I am so sorry, but I quoted the wrong person. Fixing now. Forgive me please?

reply to post by mrphilosophias


No problems...lots of posts to read...easy to get them confused.

stars for all you awesome people who humbled my ass