Indisputable Abortion FACTS:

[Velociryx]

Didn't bother to read thru the flame fest beyond page two, but one of Zylka's initial posts mentioned electrical activity (ie brainwaves) at 40 days in a human fetus.

Just uhhh....thought I'd throw this out there but, in the 70's, researchers charted coordinated electrical activity between two containers of yogurt sitting near each other in a refrigeration unit.

-=Vel=-

[Zylka]

No, actually, Zylka... I met to read my LOCATION. I'm two years younger than you... slightly less by 24 days actually

Why would I care to do that, when calling you a 14 year old is derived simply from your own mentality to project self hatred onto the future's of the unborn in "estimation"?

[Ben Kenobi]

How does it suck a lot more?? If you never even KNEW you existed, how can it suck for you? It's much worse to have lived as an orphan than to never have lived at all.

Dom Pedro

I argue just the opposite. How can nothing ever be greater than something? Yes life can be awful, but what about the good parts?

Secondly, can I say that your life is meaningless? So why then should the mother get to make the decision for her child?

Finally, why should we punish the child for being an orphan in killing her before she is born? Would it not be better to improve the lives of orphans rather than killing them?

[Zylka]

Originally posted by Velociryx

Just uhhh....thought I'd throw this out there but, in the 70's, researchers charted coordinated electrical activity between two containers of yogurt sitting near each other in a refrigeration unit.

-=Vel=-

Was it even one thousandth the activity of a HUMAN fetus' brain? How about an ant's? Didn't think so!

[Dom Pedro II]

It's not a question of self hatred...

It's a question of a certain nagging tiredness for humanity with each passing day... turning on the TV and seeing at worst murders, wars, butchering of other human lives, and at best, lies being spewed by the cockroaches of society who will survive long after the good have been buried.

To know that if we do the numbers and see how many of the people in this world have died in misery.. that the numbers are too great to bear.

I spent several days in whats called a favela... a ghetto basically. Have you ever had a starving child come and beg you for money? Have you ever seen an old woman her body to bent and misshapen from years of labor and lack of proper medical care... armless and legless amputees coming up to you, crying to you for help, and even if you could feed them today, tomorrow they'll be starving again... Have you ever seen this face to face?

Yes, there are days when I feel that we are a blight on this planet... that whatever good we may contribute is entirely out-weighed by our evils. And sometimes I feel that if we were just blinked out of existence... if no one had to shed a tear for a lost loved one because we all went together, that yes, I would think that its the best way. Because I don't see any signs that we're going to change. I don't see any signs that we're going to get better... **** will always rise to the top. So forgive me for wanting to extend a little compassion to those who have not yet been born into this nightmare... and for wanting to give a chance for this raped and battered planet to return to her former beauty.

But those are just some days...

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II


How does it suck a lot more?? If you never even KNEW you existed, how can it suck for you? It's much worse to have lived as an orphan than to never have lived at all.

so u r going to decide that for the child? in ur own myopic cynical world view. u r going to stand on a pedistol and say "I know it is better to have never lived at all then to have been adopted, therefore its ok to kill children."

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Zylka
...and George Carlin? OH MAN HAHAHA HE IZ REAL FUNNY - Only if you're a f*cking unaccomplished loser who needs reasons to hate and blame the successful and realistic conservative world around you. Unreal, you've gained Urban Ranger like respect in a few short posts. That's ok - because all I'm harbouring is resentment towards women. "Taliban" is such a nice cliche to throw around for the pathetically inadequate

It has ceretainly gotten quite shrill in here! Maybe you have mommy issues? Perhaps that is why you hate women?

And nothing to say on my kidney hypothetical? As I thought, you stick to the rhetoric while leaving my substantive points untouched. In other words, you have nothing to say - argument over, point Templar!

"The successful and conservative world around me"? Where is THAT world precisely? The most conservative societies on the planet are also the least successful. But again, feel free to shoot off your mouth without really saying anything.

Imram

Guilt or innocence? Not ignoring that at all. The soundest pro-life position I can think of is that the right to life cannot be abrogated. That position dispenses with all sorts of balancing tests. But it also precludes the consideration of death penalty period.

But suppose you want to make the argument that a fetus has not given up its right to life - but that a convict has through his death-worthy offense. Fine, you are saying in the balance the convicts right to life is less important than retribution/maintaining order/whatever, but that the fetus's right to life outweighs female reproductive freedom. This is you will note, a much weaker pro-life position than the "sanctity of life" variety. Granted, the weaker position is logically consistent. However, it means you need a balancing test that can consistently place greater value on your penological theory than life, but weigh life of another more than control of one's own body. (A really good balancing test of this type will also consistently arive at the proposition that juveniles should not be executed.) Good luck finding such a balancing test.

[Dom Pedro II]

Nooooo, but you are anthropomorphizing something that does not even KNOW it exists... if the child is unaware of its existence, it cannot know that this alternative sucks by comparison to anything.... if it does not know that it exists, it is the same as though it does not exist (as far as the child is concerned). From YOUR perspective, it does exist, but that it because you are sentient being.

If we're talking about it in terms of whether or not either of us thinks its better to go through life with all of its ups and downs can be debatable... in some ways, I say yes. In others, I say no. But from the perspective of the child, since it does not know that it exists it has no vested interest in its survival. It is a piece of meat.

[Ben Kenobi]

This sounds good, if a fetus is human. But even if a fetus is human, yes, the right to control one's own body is greater.

Assume that without a kidney transplant I will die. Turns out we have a tissue match and you are the only available donor. You can live perfectly well with only one kidney. Should it be permissable for your kidney to be taken against your will in order to save my life? I'm going to have to say no to this - you have a right to keep your kidney even if it means my death. Or do you think kidneys should be stolen to save others?

Now your little point about "its only control of you body versus a life" doesn't seem so hot, does it?

Kudos to Templar for the excellent example. However, I will claim false analogy between a child in the womb and a kidney.

First of all, one of the consequences of sex is pregnancy. If a man gets a woman pregnant, he becomes responsible for that child if it can be proven that he is the father. Why should the situation be different for the mother?

In this, the woman, by having sex, has already consented to the pregnancy. So your example cannot work.

What about rape? This is where Templar's analogy has a greater coherence in that the woman has not consented to sex. Again, I cite false analogy because a kidney operation does not come without risks to the one donating the kidney. One does not have a responsibility to save someone else's life at substantial risk to one's own life. Even in a rape, the pregnancy does not have substantial risk to the mother.

There are cases where this analogy applies, such as where the mother's life is at risk from the pregnancy. In these cases, abortion would be justified for exactly the same reason as one cannot be required to donate a kidney.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II
Nooooo, but you are anthropomorphizing something that does not even KNOW it exists... if the child is unaware of its existence, it cannot know that this alternative sucks by comparison to anything.... if it does not know that it exists, it is the same as though it does not exist (as far as the child is concerned). From YOUR perspective, it does exist, but that it because you are sentient being.

If we're talking about it in terms of whether or not either of us thinks its better to go through life with all of its ups and downs can be debatable... in some ways, I say yes. In others, I say no. But from the perspective of the child, since it does not know that it exists it has no vested interest in its survival. It is a piece of meat.

its all a wash anyway. if I could kill u instantaneously(or perhaps just very quickly will do). u will never know that u have died. since once ur dead, u will not exist. so considering that u will not have knowledge of ANY of the negative consequences of ur death, I don't find it at all immoral to kill u.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This is you will note, a much weaker pro-life position than the "sanctity of life" variety. Granted, the weaker position is logically consistent.

You admit it IS consistent. Weaker, perhaps, but definetly not incompatable, like you said earlier.

it means you need a balancing test that can consistently place greater value on your penological theory than life, but weigh life of another more than control of one's own body.

We engage in balancing tests all the time. Why should this be any more different? Where the balance is, is up to us to decide.

[Dom Pedro II]

its all a wash anyway. if I could kill u instantaneously(or perhaps just very quickly will do). u will never know that u have died. since once ur dead, u will not exist. so considering that u will not have knowledge of ANY of the negative consequences of ur death, I don't find it at all immoral to kill u.

then what are we debating?

[yavoon]

Originally posted by Dom Pedro II



then what are we debating?

what I meant was a wash was ur point. if the validity of "cuz u dont know its bad to be dead." is valid. then there's no reason to think that simply killing ppl quickly isnt a moral act.

[Dom Pedro II]

Ah ha... but you've missed the key to the point... WE have sentience. There is a difference to us between life and non-life.

To something that does not have sentience, there is no such distinction.

If then were are to say that it has been robbed of the potential to have sentience, well, then we can say every child that was never even conceived was denied such a privilege as well.

If we follow that logic, then we must do away with birth control, and boy, won't that be fun on the population? And masturbation! Back to the old Catholic church we go so that we ensure every possible being that can exist does...

[Velociryx]

Zylka: A question for you.

What is it that makes a human....human?

Answer that question clearly, concisely, and there's something to debate. Without the answer to that question, you're just p*ssing vinegar.

-=Vel=-