|
On June 16 2013 03:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 03:32 edlover420 wrote:On June 16 2013 03:25 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 16 2013 03:11 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
if my memory serves me right, it takes children a year or a few post-birth to develop even the basic cognitive functions, let alone a personality and conscience.
I don't think your memory is serving you right... His memory is indeed serving him right, I remember from my psychology classes that a child doesn't develop an abstract thinking until age of 5-8 and a lot of similar stuff but can't remember it right now. Well, I think that in itself is bullshit, but the main point: basic cognitive functions =/= abstract thought. Personality and conscience =/= abstract thought.
I wont argue with you over TL because you seem pretty clueless but please google Piaget's theory of cognitive development and read everything for yourself.
|
You won't convince people with a soft science anyway 
|
If the thing is a human life, and there are laws against ending human life, then no, the circumstances of the conception shouldn't have any effect on anything. The messy part is determining when human life begins and when it should be protected.
|
On June 16 2013 02:20 jello_biafra wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 02:13 Enki wrote:
If the woman want's to get it done, that should be that. Also, I hate the justification for aborting a child because it was a result of incest (consensual anyways, if that happens). There are plenty of children who are born everyday with disabilities that were known beforehand. Why don't we just kill all children who are going to be born with defects and keep the gene pool clean then? I really hate justifying abortion because of that. It's not about keeping the gene pool clean it's about stopping someone from living a horrible life because of some condition.
That's fine, but don't have a double standard then. If you are going to apply it to cases where incest was involved, apply it to every unborn child regardless of how they were conceived.
|
On June 16 2013 03:37 edlover420 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 03:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 16 2013 03:32 edlover420 wrote:On June 16 2013 03:25 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 16 2013 03:11 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
if my memory serves me right, it takes children a year or a few post-birth to develop even the basic cognitive functions, let alone a personality and conscience.
I don't think your memory is serving you right... His memory is indeed serving him right, I remember from my psychology classes that a child doesn't develop an abstract thinking until age of 5-8 and a lot of similar stuff but can't remember it right now. Well, I think that in itself is bullshit, but the main point: basic cognitive functions =/= abstract thought. Personality and conscience =/= abstract thought. I wont argue with you over TL because you seem pretty clueless but please google Piaget's theory of cognitive development and read everything for yourself.
Piaget's theory is one amongst many others, and even Piaget himself acknowledged potential flaws in his thinking. Cognitive development and early childhood psychology are very contentious areas of study.
|
no, because there doesnt have to be justification for that.
a fetus isnt a human being in my eyes. not until about the 5th ish month.
|
On June 16 2013 03:07 Passion wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 02:46 Stol wrote:On June 16 2013 02:39 Passion wrote:On June 16 2013 02:34 Stol wrote:On June 16 2013 02:30 Dunmer wrote:On June 16 2013 02:28 Stol wrote:On June 16 2013 02:26 Dunmer wrote:On June 16 2013 02:20 jello_biafra wrote:On June 16 2013 02:13 Enki wrote:
If the woman want's to get it done, that should be that. Also, I hate the justification for aborting a child because it was a result of incest (consensual anyways, if that happens). There are plenty of children who are born everyday with disabilities that were known beforehand. Why don't we just kill all children who are going to be born with defects and keep the gene pool clean then? I really hate justifying abortion because of that. It's not about keeping the gene pool clean it's about stopping someone from living a horrible life because of some condition. That's a stupid reason, firstly the child or anyone else for that matter won't know how the child's life will turn out. If your reason is justification then people who want to kill themselves but can't because of some terrible condition and they ask someone to do it for them should be allowed to do it in the same country? Which isn't the case as euthanasia is banned in the UK and a lot of other countries as far as I understand it. On the topic of abortion its stupid how if the man wants a baby and the woman doest she can abort and the man loses their child. Reverse the roles and the man has to pay welfare checks until the child is 18 even though he didn't want it? Seems fair to me... If you reverse the roles you use a condom. I was referring to the point in time where the baby is already conceived by accident or whatever and one of the parents wants an abortion. Well as a man I think thats a small price to pay for not being discriminated against in most parts of life. I also think that as long as my body is unaffected I dont really have much say in the matter. (edited in the quote) People being able to legally murder your offspring is a small price? For not being discriminated against?! Not being discriminated is a right. That's why we don't discriminate women, men, jews or people with a different skin colour where I'm from. Are you serious? I'm from sweden, its a very equal country. Sadly that doesnt change the fact that there's still discrimination against women. On average, men earn more money than women. Men hold most of the high positions both political and on the market. Recruiters ask women if they intend to have children during interviews and much more, despite laws against discrimination. Its a long list, saying "we dont discriminate women" is wrong, no matter where you come from. Some countries are moving towards equality, but not a single one can actually claim to be there. People with different skin colour and religion are also discriminated against all around the world, just because there are laws against it, or that you dont do it, doesnt mean its not happening. Also I dont think its murder if its done before a set time limit, not that many who approves of abortion really does, otherwise they wouldnt call it abortion. Even if there's one or two cannibals in my country, that wouldn't have me say "we're cannibals". Because we're not, we don't eat human meat. Also, a lot of the differences you mention have a different origin (women being less suitable for the patriarchal leader roles that are the standard, their life choices, etc.). Either way, you conveniently overlooked my main point; this not being a benefit up for bargain, its a right (even if it might not be the case a full 100% of the time all over the world). Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 03:03 Stol wrote:On June 16 2013 02:58 revel8 wrote:On June 16 2013 02:46 Shai wrote:On June 16 2013 02:32 revel8 wrote:
I would always support the woman's right to choose. Making it an issue of choice is ridiculous. It's a question of the definition of life. Either you believe the fetus is alive and has rights, or you believe it is a condition of the mother. I just don't think it is a decision that anyone should have the right to decide instead of the pregnant woman. Sorry if you disagree. I don't think it matters whether I believe the fetus is alive and has rights. I think what is pertinent is what the pregnant woman thinks on the issue. It being alive or not doesnt matter. Sperm is alive, bloodcells are alive. They are all living cells. The question is where you draw the line between a bunch of cells and a new organism. Which also brings up the topic of post-birth abortion, given that said organism will remain foetus-like dependent on the parents for almost two more decades.
I overlooked it cause it doesnt matter. Equality being a right doesnt mean much when its not practices to the fullest. You're right about the fact that it comes down to numbers. However, any statistic on the subject will still support my claim, comparing male chauvinism with cannibalism is simply laughable.
Patriarchal leader roles also stem from past discrimination, same thing with "life choices". These kind of phrases has nothing to do with equality and finding cultural and historical reasons for why the world is unequal does in no way show that things are in fact equal, its only further prove the exact opposite I'm afraid.
Secondly, there's no denying that a human child is an organism after birth. Being fed and nurtured has nothing to do with the definitions of an organism.
There are even many parasites that can not fully function on their own.
A virus on the hand is generally not considered an organism because it can neither reproduce, grow or metabolise on its own. Most organisms that are unable to function independently can however reproduce and metabolise on their own, but not survive. The acquisition of food (being fed) has nothing to do with your ability to metabolise.
I am personally not sure how the fetal metabolism and growth work and how much is handled by the placental metabolism, especially in the early stages. Then again I never said it was easy.
Edit: and no, I'm not comparing a foetus with a virus, I'm using it as an example on the definition of an organism.
|
On June 16 2013 03:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 03:32 edlover420 wrote:On June 16 2013 03:25 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 16 2013 03:11 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
if my memory serves me right, it takes children a year or a few post-birth to develop even the basic cognitive functions, let alone a personality and conscience.
I don't think your memory is serving you right... His memory is indeed serving him right, I remember from my psychology classes that a child doesn't develop an abstract thinking until age of 5-8 and a lot of similar stuff but can't remember it right now. Well, I think that in itself is bullshit, but the main point: basic cognitive functions =/= abstract thought. Personality and conscience =/= abstract thought.
It's more likely that, I'll make an assumption here, you think it's bullshit because of some preconceived religious notions rather then actual scientific inquiry such that, and I'm not saying it is or isn't true, if the science holds up then you're on the shorter end of the stick. That being said, I don't recall from my studies anything regarding fetuses so I'm ignorant to either side.
Also he said 5-8, as in years, in the 9 months a baby is located in the mothers womb it's brain has yet to even begin to develop, especially in the first 3 months where abortion is generally treated as legal. The question, however, is at what point is consciousness obtained? I'd argue later in the babies development outside of the fetus but this is speculation (simply by the few things I've watched in the past and a few journals I've picked up)
|
|
|
On June 16 2013 03:37 edlover420 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 03:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 16 2013 03:32 edlover420 wrote:On June 16 2013 03:25 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 16 2013 03:11 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
if my memory serves me right, it takes children a year or a few post-birth to develop even the basic cognitive functions, let alone a personality and conscience.
I don't think your memory is serving you right... His memory is indeed serving him right, I remember from my psychology classes that a child doesn't develop an abstract thinking until age of 5-8 and a lot of similar stuff but can't remember it right now. Well, I think that in itself is bullshit, but the main point: basic cognitive functions =/= abstract thought. Personality and conscience =/= abstract thought. I wont argue with you over TL because you seem pretty clueless but please google Piaget's theory of cognitive development and read everything for yourself.
Read it, not only does it not support the original statement, it actually says the opposite.
|
Abortion is going to happen regardless. It's up to the government to decide whether they want to make it sanitary and safe or whether they want to outlaw it and make it a whole lot more dangerous.
|
I don't think The State should be given the power to be able to legislate this.
|
On June 16 2013 03:12 haffy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 02:46 Stol wrote:On June 16 2013 02:39 Passion wrote:On June 16 2013 02:34 Stol wrote:On June 16 2013 02:30 Dunmer wrote:On June 16 2013 02:28 Stol wrote:On June 16 2013 02:26 Dunmer wrote:On June 16 2013 02:20 jello_biafra wrote:On June 16 2013 02:13 Enki wrote:
If the woman want's to get it done, that should be that. Also, I hate the justification for aborting a child because it was a result of incest (consensual anyways, if that happens). There are plenty of children who are born everyday with disabilities that were known beforehand. Why don't we just kill all children who are going to be born with defects and keep the gene pool clean then? I really hate justifying abortion because of that. It's not about keeping the gene pool clean it's about stopping someone from living a horrible life because of some condition. That's a stupid reason, firstly the child or anyone else for that matter won't know how the child's life will turn out. If your reason is justification then people who want to kill themselves but can't because of some terrible condition and they ask someone to do it for them should be allowed to do it in the same country? Which isn't the case as euthanasia is banned in the UK and a lot of other countries as far as I understand it. On the topic of abortion its stupid how if the man wants a baby and the woman doest she can abort and the man loses their child. Reverse the roles and the man has to pay welfare checks until the child is 18 even though he didn't want it? Seems fair to me... If you reverse the roles you use a condom. I was referring to the point in time where the baby is already conceived by accident or whatever and one of the parents wants an abortion. Well as a man I think thats a small price to pay for not being discriminated against in most parts of life. I also think that as long as my body is unaffected I dont really have much say in the matter. (edited in the quote) People being able to legally murder your offspring is a small price? For not being discriminated against?! Not being discriminated is a right. That's why we don't discriminate women, men, jews or people with a different skin colour where I'm from. Are you serious? I'm from sweden, its a very equal country. Sadly that doesnt change the fact that there's still discrimination against women. On average, men earn more money than women. Men hold most of the high positions both political and on the market. Recruiters ask women if they intend to have children during interviews and much more, despite laws against discrimination. Its a long list, saying "we dont discriminate women" is wrong, no matter where you come from. Some countries are moving towards equality, but not a single one can actually claim to be there. People with different skin colour and religion are also discriminated against all around the world, just because there are laws against it, or that you dont do it, doesnt mean its not happening. Also I dont think its murder if its done before a set time limit, not that many who approves of abortion really does, otherwise they wouldnt call it abortion. Are you a feminist? Or part of Atheism + or something? Because the arguments you've used with no real explanation to how white males are so oppressive and everyone else is being dominated is the sort of stuff I see from them on a regular basis. Guess what, almost every example you've given doesn't necessarily mean that a white male is the one at fault. Do you know women are most likely to hold other women back at the work place? Do you know they are more likely to give praise to men than other women? To be honest I don't really see a problem with recruiters asking women if they plan on having a baby or not, especially if you're a small business... even though it's not allowed and is illegal in most countries. Seriously can you not see the big fucking reason why an employer would want to know something like that? They can't be fired, they have to be replaced, they can't do their regular jobs, they can have up to 36 weeks of 90% of their wage or £130 a week here in England. This kind of stuff legitimately pisses me off. People point out differences and think they should be fixed without accounting for other variables and factors. They just see a hole and think it should be plugged up no matter the consequences.
I am a white male .
I never said who was to blame or what was right or wrong, if you read the entire discussion we were having, it all started when I said that not having the right to decide if a woman gets an abortion or not is a price I'm willing to pay considering all the other areas where being a "white man" is, quite frankly, better.
If the actual reasons are justifiable or not wasnt a part of the point I was making, I was only commenting on how things actually are.
|
On June 16 2013 03:43 sc2superfan101 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 03:37 edlover420 wrote:On June 16 2013 03:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 16 2013 03:32 edlover420 wrote:On June 16 2013 03:25 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 16 2013 03:11 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
if my memory serves me right, it takes children a year or a few post-birth to develop even the basic cognitive functions, let alone a personality and conscience.
I don't think your memory is serving you right... His memory is indeed serving him right, I remember from my psychology classes that a child doesn't develop an abstract thinking until age of 5-8 and a lot of similar stuff but can't remember it right now. Well, I think that in itself is bullshit, but the main point: basic cognitive functions =/= abstract thought. Personality and conscience =/= abstract thought. I wont argue with you over TL because you seem pretty clueless but please google Piaget's theory of cognitive development and read everything for yourself. Read it, not only does it not support the original statement, it actually says the opposite.
We spent like seven months in our psychology class studying Piaget, I think I know what it says.
|
On June 16 2013 03:48 edlover420 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 03:43 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 16 2013 03:37 edlover420 wrote:On June 16 2013 03:35 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 16 2013 03:32 edlover420 wrote:On June 16 2013 03:25 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 16 2013 03:11 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
if my memory serves me right, it takes children a year or a few post-birth to develop even the basic cognitive functions, let alone a personality and conscience.
I don't think your memory is serving you right... His memory is indeed serving him right, I remember from my psychology classes that a child doesn't develop an abstract thinking until age of 5-8 and a lot of similar stuff but can't remember it right now. Well, I think that in itself is bullshit, but the main point: basic cognitive functions =/= abstract thought. Personality and conscience =/= abstract thought. I wont argue with you over TL because you seem pretty clueless but please google Piaget's theory of cognitive development and read everything for yourself. Read it, not only does it not support the original statement, it actually says the opposite. We spent like seven months in our psychology class studying Piaget, I think I know what it says.
I have no doubt that you do. However, I don't think you know what basic cognitive functions are.
|
I don't see how being pregnant by rape, or incest makes it any better reason for a late term abortion when you had sufficient enough time to decide. I understand acting irrational because of trauma, but this is kind of ridiculous. Also, not to sound like a total asshole, but how do you "prove" you were raped, or "incest"... Are they doing DNA tests, or just taking peoples word for it?
|
On June 16 2013 03:32 edlover420 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 03:25 sc2superfan101 wrote:On June 16 2013 03:11 MasterOfPuppets wrote:
if my memory serves me right, it takes children a year or a few post-birth to develop even the basic cognitive functions, let alone a personality and conscience.
I don't think your memory is serving you right... His memory is indeed serving him right, I remember from my psychology classes that a child doesn't develop an abstract thinking until age of 5-8 and a lot of similar stuff but can't remember it right now.
you are waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay in the dark... first you have to define what you mean by cognitive function.
if by cognitive function you mean the ability to react to stimuli, like being able to process sound, well they can do that by the 24th week.
some scientists say that by 27th week babies can dream.
it's a process that starts surprisingly early (neurons start to fire randomly at around the 16th week) and lasts well into your late teens and even adulthood
|
Can someone explain why incest is separate? Certainly virtually all instances of incest fall under rape?
And while I would agree to adding exceptions, I do not think this is internally consistent or principled. If you think a foetus is a person then there should be no exceptions.
|
On June 16 2013 03:50 dotHead wrote:
I don't see how being pregnant by rape, or incest makes it any better reason for a late term abortion when you had sufficient enough time to decide. I understand acting irrational because of trauma, but this is kind of ridiculous. Also, not to sound like a total asshole, but how do you "prove" you were raped, or "incest"... Are they doing DNA tests, or just taking peoples word for it?
Pretty easy to prove the latter at least; not hard to tell who's related to you.
The former, however, is more difficult but general trauma to the vagina is a usually telling mark of the rape; that being said you can't do this months later so it'd have to be reported sooner such that there is evidence. You'll notice, with cases of rape, it's generally guilty until proven innocent (in terms of it definitely did happen, some fucker raped her) rather then the opposite and I'd go as far as to agree with that system because it's, in my opinion, better to have a few fake rape abortions slide through rather then have no rape abortions occur. It's all about which side of the bridge you'd rather.
This is in terms of Canada, I don't know how rape victims are handled in the US.
|
On June 16 2013 03:53 Hitch-22 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2013 03:50 dotHead wrote:
I don't see how being pregnant by rape, or incest makes it any better reason for a late term abortion when you had sufficient enough time to decide. I understand acting irrational because of trauma, but this is kind of ridiculous. Also, not to sound like a total asshole, but how do you "prove" you were raped, or "incest"... Are they doing DNA tests, or just taking peoples word for it?
Pretty easy to prove the latter at least; not hard to tell who's related to you. The former, however, is more difficult but general trauma to the vagina is a usually telling mark of the rape; that being said you can't do this months later so it'd have to be reported sooner such that there is evidence. You'll notice, with cases of rape, it's generally guilty until proven innocent (in terms of it definitely did happen, some fucker raped her) rather then the opposite and I'd go as far as to agree with that system because it's, in my opinion, better to have a few fake rape abortions slide through rather then have no rape abortions occur. It's all about which side of the bridge you'd rather. This is in terms of Canada, I don't know how rape victims are handled in the US.
Um, it is most definitely not guilty until proven innocent when it comes to accusing someone of rape. I have no idea where this absurd myth came from, but it's simply not true.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
