| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
oxxo
988 Posts
On November 05 2011 02:23 cydial wrote: A fetus =/= human being. Sorry, but babies aren't even technically conscious till they are 5-6 years old. So... you're saying it's ok to get rid of kids under 5 since they aren't 'human beings'? Or how about people in comas considering they aren't conscious either? Or how about people with severe mental disabilities? A fetus is a human being. | ||
|
missefficiency
Germany105 Posts
On November 05 2011 02:23 cydial wrote: A fetus =/= human being. Sorry, but babies aren't even technically conscious till they are 5-6 years old. Then it's not a baby anymore  I think you probably meant months?At the age of 3 months, a baby cries to have a personal need fulfilled. They do it because they've learnt over the past months that it actually works and gives them an advantage. A child is playing "role games" with dolls and teddy bears at the age of about 2. It's thoroughly selfish at the age of 3. The personality isn't complete at the time, but certain basic structures have already been established. | ||
|
-_-
United States7081 Posts
On November 05 2011 02:21 KwarK wrote: When it can exist independently of the mother. Improvements in medical science are pushing back this date but it's still well outside the abortion laws at the moment. I've heard that a few times, but it always seemed to missing the point to me. Existing independently of a mother never seemed like a requisite for humanity to me. If, for example, a human being developed in a mother's womb until they were now what we'd consider two years old, and couldn't survive outside of the mother's womb until then, would you be okay with aborting that two year old? What if it was a 5? 10? Independence to me doesn't have anything to do with humanity, but rather burden on the mother. | ||
|
popdawg
15 Posts
If you had to hold on to someone for 9 months on the edge of a cliff (still have food ect.) in order to save the life would you do it? | ||
|
yeint
Estonia2329 Posts
On November 05 2011 02:37 missefficiency wrote: At the age of 3 months, a baby cries to have a personal need fulfilled. They do it because they've learnt over the past months that it actually works and gives them an advantage. No, that's not learned behavior, it's a basic animal instinct found in most vertebrates. (note that I'm not arguing for infanticide! just correcting a misconception) | ||
KwarK
United States41470 Posts
On November 05 2011 02:39 -_- wrote: I've heard that a few times, but it always seemed to missing the point to me. Existing independently of a mother never seemed like a requisite for humanity to me. If, for example, a human being developed in a mother's womb until they were now what we'd consider two years old, and couldn't survive outside of the mother's womb until then, would you be okay with aborting that two year old? What if it was a 5? 10? Independence to me doesn't have anything to do with humanity, but rather burden on the mother. A living person has a living body capable of life. A parasitic organism relies on the living body of another to leech life. A foetus is a parasite on the mother, while I don't advocate abortion recreationally the mother does have the right to control her own body, including removing that parasite. | ||
|
Brutland
United States92 Posts
many cultures still treat the baby and mother as one being until around 4-5. a name defines you, it tells the rest of the world that you are a separate being. as for Or how about people in comas considering they aren't conscious either? do we keep any other creature in an artificial state of life (coma)? of course we dont, because its not humane. humans should learn to be humane to each other. humans are animals. and we havent fallen that far from the tree. go study some anthropology or visit the inner city or a college dorm if you think differently | ||
|
MrTortoise
1388 Posts
I would love to see scientific evidence on that one. It smells of BS to me - how do you do carry out that study properly? as for all this at a certain age they do blah for blah argument ... please stop talking anthropomorphic BS. If you cant ask it why its doing something you will never get an asnwer ... even then you will have grounds to doubt that it ever really knows itself. Its pointless nonsense argument because you cannot prove either way. Go argue about god, it has the same formal structure. As for the morality of it? We goto war .. that is about the most immoral thing you can do. If we cannot avoid doing that then everything else pales into insignificance and everything is just in some circumstances - as is war sadly. Why create a rule that we are not going to break when we know that exceptions will exist? | ||
|
yeint
Estonia2329 Posts
On November 05 2011 02:39 -_- wrote: If, for example, a human being developed in a mother's womb until they were now what we'd consider two years old, and couldn't survive outside of the mother's womb until then, would you be okay with aborting that two year old? What if it was a 5? 10? That's not really a sensible argument. The question isn't about duration of time spent in the womb, it's about being an independent organism. A 5 year old fetus wouldn't be any more or less sentient than a 9 month old fetus, because they do not have to respond to external stimuli. Sure, you could hypothesize that the baby becomes fully conscious and sentient before delivery, but that's just complete fantasy, you may as well be proposing that babies grow on trees, and is it ethical to keep watering the fetuses in times of drought. | ||
|
missefficiency
Germany105 Posts
The ban is for all abortions. If the doctors discover in week 21 that your baby is severely disabled and will be in pain for all his life or that you will die during the birth, you are out of luck. Usually there is a difference until what point you can abort because you just dont want a baby and because of medical reasons. When talking about a reasonable time, I was referring to "normal" pregnancies, not to explicit medical reasons that force a woman to abort since the child is severely disabled or a continued pregnancy would endanger her own life. This is a whole different topic and a much more painful discussion. Sorry for any misunderstandings. | ||
|
yeint
Estonia2329 Posts
On November 05 2011 02:43 KwarK wrote: A living person has a living body capable of life. A parasitic organism relies on the living body of another to leech life. A foetus is a parasite on the mother, while I don't advocate abortion recreationally the mother does have the right to control her own body, including removing that parasite. Considering the only objective reason for the existence of ANY organism is procreation and gene proliferation, I really wouldn't use the word "parasite" here. I think the argument becomes pointless when one side is arguing for some inalienable right of the mother to remove "parasites" from her body at will, and the other side arguing that every blastocyst is imbibed with a sacred soul. It's terribly ideological and over-simplistic. I'd rather we focus on tangible things like "is the fetus sentient? can it feel pain? are unwanted children likely to have fulfilling lives?". as for all this at a certain age they do blah for blah argument ... please stop talking anthropomorphic BS. If you cant ask it why its doing something you will never get an asnwer ... even then you will have grounds to doubt that it ever really knows itself. Its pointless nonsense argument because you cannot prove either way I think it's not a nonsense argument. We may not have an answer right now, but pain and sentience are functions of the brain, and can be objectively measured by neuroscience. Once we understand how the brain works, then we can observe the function of the brain during fetal development and determine when it becomes capable of doing those things. | ||
|
MrTortoise
1388 Posts
On November 05 2011 02:45 missefficiency wrote: @ Brotkrumen: When talking about a reasonable time, I was referring to "normal" pregnancies, not to explicit medical reasons that force a woman to abort since the child is severely disabled or a continued pregnancy would endanger her own life. This is a whole different topic and a much more painful discussion. Sorry for any misunderstandings. Actually it wasn't a different issue. You were arguing against an abstraction of the real situatuion. Much like the people who passed the law were. The problem is that they had an agenda that was fuelled by their preconceptions rather than the fact that it is a medical decision and really should fall under legislation at all as it shuodl be a case by case basis. Its an example of nanny state imo - but really don't want to get into an argument justifying that - I am happy with people having other views on the matter. RAther than a law this shuold of been something passed on as a recommendation from whatever medical association there is in the states. I can;t help but note that there are a crap ton of religious people over there with some VERY scary views. | ||
|
MrTortoise
1388 Posts
On November 05 2011 02:49 yeint wrote: Considering the only objective reason for the existence of ANY organism is procreation and gene proliferation, I really wouldn't use the word "parasite" here. I think the argument becomes pointless when one side is arguing for some inalienable right of the mother to remove "parasites" from her body at will, and the other side arguing that every blastocyst is imbibed with a sacred soul. It's terribly ideological and over-simplistic. I'd rather we focus on tangible things like "is the fetus sentient? can it feel pain? are unwanted children likely to have fulfilling lives?". I think it's not a nonsense argument. We may not have an answer right now, but pain and sentience are functions of the brain, and can be objectively measured by neuroscience. Once we understand how the brain works, then we can observe the function of the brain during fetal development and determine when it becomes capable of doing those things. Well when you have that science lets talk again - and i will want to talk It's a subject that would fascinate me. Until then you are talking nonsense as you agreed to - alternatively (as i suggested) come up with the experiment. Personally i doubt such a science will exist anytime soon because of my philosophical beliefs about the world and our perception of it vs reality - but thats a whole different debate.As for your tangible claims lol How do you measure sentience? - in case you hadn;t noticed we have had a VERY hard time describing what conscious even is let alone define what is and is not sentient. How do you test if a foetus can feel pain? seriously how can you do that experiment? Ethical rules would stop you but even so you cannot test for that. | ||
|
Moochlol
United States456 Posts
On November 05 2011 02:09 Alay wrote: And at what age should we ask people if they want to be alive? What age does someone actually have the competency to make that decision? How would it be ethical to kill someone if at that point they decided they didn't want to live? Who would we get to carry out these murders? If people have the right to life, do they have the right to death as well? What about life as the result of a crime--Does a women raped have the right to terminate a pregnancy that was forced on her through violence? If potential for continued life exists but isn't allowed, is it then considered always a crime? (To use an abstract, someone who needs an organ transplant.) I understand you're passionate about this, but consider that pain in the here and now is a lot more real than the loss of something that never happened. If the values of the person are to bring a child into the world once it is conceived, they should be more than welcome to do that--and like wise the legal validity of that option should always be allowed to those who feel they are not responsible, capable, or wanting of that pregnancy. It's a far stretch to not think that this decision would be a heavy one to consider for any person. God damn, yes a woman has the right to abort a rape I think one has the right to make the choice, if thought through very very carefully weighing the options and choosing what is best relatively, however great moral dilemmas occur here and I would walk on the edge of respecting potential life. And in the argument about choosing not to live after being asked, there is no murder team lol, I believe one can only make such decisions once they are an adult, and @ this point you either commit suicide or keep living. | ||
|
yeint
Estonia2329 Posts
On November 05 2011 02:52 MrTortoise wrote: Actually it wasn't a different issue. You were arguing against an abstraction of the real situatuion. Much like the people who passed the law were. The problem is that they had an agenda that was fuelled by their preconceptions rather than the fact that it is a medical decision and really should fall under legislation at all as it shuodl be a case by case basis. Its an example of nanny state imo - but really don't want to get into an argument justifying that - I am happy with people having other views on the matter. RAther than a law this shuold of been something passed on as a recommendation from whatever medical association there is in the states. I can;t help but note that there are a crap ton of religious people over there with some VERY scary views. That's the crux of this thing. That law is not motivated by any sort of reasonable justification. Late-term abortions are very, very rarely, if at all, used as delayed birth control. They are almost always a reaction to unforeseen medical complications or defects. The law pretends to solve an issue that doesn't exist, solely to open a door for interpreting Roe v Wade in "creative" ways. The victims here will be mothers who have to risk their lives or mental health by giving birth to horrendously malformed children. | ||
|
Brutland
United States92 Posts
| ||
|
blinken
Canada368 Posts
When people realize that creating life is a HUGE deal, maybe they will stop treating abortion like it isn't murder and start to act responsibly with their sex organs. Or is a woman's right to protection free sex more important than human lives? Men should take this responsibility as well. Use a condom if she ain't on the pill, for christ sake. | ||
|
teer
United States189 Posts
| ||
|
MrTortoise
1388 Posts
On November 05 2011 03:00 blinken wrote: Aside from rape, it's hard to see how a girl in this day and age can get pregnant if she doesn't want to. When people realize that creating life is a HUGE deal, maybe they will stop treating abortion like it isn't murder and start to act responsibly with their sex organs. Or is a woman's right to protection free sex more important than human lives? Men should take this responsibility as well. Use a condom if she ain't on the pill, for christ sake. Condom breaking? that took me both seconds ... i can probably come up with hundreds of ways if i thought about it ... from pool cues to toilet seats. | ||
|
yeint
Estonia2329 Posts
On November 05 2011 02:54 MrTortoise wrote: Well when you have that science lets talk again - and i will want to talk It's a subject that would fascinate me. Until then you are talking nonsense as you agreed to - alternatively (as i suggested) come up with the experiment. Personally i doubt such a science will exist anytime soon because of my philosophical beliefs about the world and our perception of it vs reality - but thats a whole different debate.It's not nonsense. It is a scientific fact that pain sensation is a neurological function of the brain. People with brain damage can become incapable of feeling any pain. What we know for sure about fetal brain development is that the visual center of the brain is entirely dormant until well after birth. I don't honestly care what anyone's philosophical beliefs on the issue are, facts are facts. My point was that there are answerable questions in this debate, and one of them is certainly "when can a fetus experience pain, if at all". I don't know whether this has been answered or not, but I do know that it's answerable. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Britney Dota 2  27152Calm  4556Rain 2481Soulkey 542ZZZero.O 155Dewaltoss 74sSak  49HiyA 43zelot 24Hm[arnc] 20[ Show more ] Super Smash Bros Heroes of the Storm Other Games FrodaN4894 Beastyqt962 sgares747 Lowko471 Hui .271 B2W.Neo256 mouzStarbuck208 Mew2King204 EmSc Tv  33Organizations Other Games StarCraft 2 Other Games StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War |
|
Sparkling Tuna Cup
WardiTV Invitational
BSL: ProLeague
DragOn vs rasowy
Tech vs izu
Wardi Open
BSL: ProLeague
Cross vs LancerX
StRyKeR vs JDConan
OlimoLeague
The PondCast
CranKy Ducklings
Korean StarCraft League
OlimoLeague
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
