NationStates Jolt Archive

Ok, this is it. I'm going to clear up the controversy once and for all. Listen up, because I might not be nice enough to post this again.

Human life is not defined by DNA. It's not defined by a "soul", which can't even be shown to exist. It's defined by brain function.

Because of that a fetus isn't a human being until it crosses the mental threshold of conscious thought and emotion. Until then it's just meat and can be disposed of. That is all.

I disagree. A human life is a human life. But personally, I think we should respect the 10th Amendment and leave abortion laws to the individual states.

I disagree. A human life is a human life. But personally, I think we should respect the 10th Amendment and leave abortion laws to the individual states.
You can't disagree. My post was the last word on Abortion. It's binding. You have to deal with it.

You can't disagree. My post was the last word on Abortion. It's binding. You have to deal with it.
Somebody's arrogant.

You can't disagree. My post was the last word on Abortion. It's binding. You have to deal with it.

*Sigh*

Yes, sir. :(

*Walks away, sulking*

You have to deal with it.
Usually, when I'm dealer, we use a pack of cards...
:confused:

Ok, this is it. I'm going to clear up the controversy once and for all. Listen up, because I might not be nice enough to post this again.

Human life is not defined by DNA. It's not defined by a "soul", which can't even be shown to exist. It's defined by brain function.

totally untrue. human PERSONHOOD is currently defined by brain function, but the status of a given tissue or individual as "human" and/or "living" does not necessarily rely upon brain function. your liver is human and alive despite its utter lack of brain function, but your liver is not a human person...see the distinction?

Human life is not defined by DNA. It's not defined by a "soul", which can't even be shown to exist. It's defined by brain function.

Just because you cannot empericaly prove a soul does not mean it does not exist.

It's defined by higher brain function? So people with extremely severe mental disabilities can be "disposed of?"

From Webster's Dictionary:

Main Entry: life
Pronunciation: 'lIf
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural lives /'lIvz/
Etymology: Middle English lif, from Old English lIf; akin to Old English libban to live -- more at LIVE
1 a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings -- compare VITALISM 1 c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction

Doesn't mention anything about brain function.

Somebody's arrogant.
Yeah. Can you beleive the balls on some people? The guy tried to disagree with me.

I agree with the argument that conscious thought defines humanity, although I don't like the way some of it is phrased ("meat to be disposed of" just doesn't sound particularly nice).

However, there's no chance of clearing up the controversy of abortion. It's just one of those topics that can't really be resolved.

totally untrue. human PERSONHOOD is currently defined by brain function, but the status of a given tissue or individual as "human" and/or "living" does not necessarily rely upon brain function. your liver is human and alive despite its utter lack of brain function, but your liver is not a human person...see the distinction?
Ok, personhood, whatever.

Just because you cannot empericaly prove a soul does not mean it does not exist.
he didn't claim a soul does not exist. he said (if i understand correctly) that the existence of a soul cannot be proven, and, therefore, that we cannot claim that human personhood is defined by whether one has or lacks a soul...since we cannot establish if a soul even is a real thing, we cannot use it to quantify human personhood.

You can't disagree. My post was the last word on Abortion. It's binding. You have to deal with it.

IDIOT, go home and apologise for your arrogence. How can it possibly be the last word if its the first post on a forum?

Somebody's arrogant.

No, just drunk. And a commie. ;)

Yeah. Can you beleive the balls on some people? The guy tried to disagree with me.
*Giggle fit* :D

Just because you cannot empericaly prove a soul does not mean it does not exist.
Same with santa claus. Should we change laws regulating air traffic on Dec. 25?

It's defined by higher brain function? So people with extremely severe mental disabilities can be "disposed of?"

<snip>
Doesn't mention anything about brain function.
but without its own functioning brain and nervous system, it could be considered just an extension of the womans body -not a 'self aware' life form, and therefore it is up to her what she does with it...

It's defined by higher brain function? So people with extremely severe mental disabilities can be "disposed of?"

From Webster's Dictionary:

Doesn't mention anything about brain function.
Bottle cleared it up. Personhood is what I meant to say. And yes, if the human is incapable of emotion and thought you can dispose of it.

Same with santa claus. Should we change laws regulating air traffic on Dec. 25?

Yes- er, I mean, no...um...is that a trick question? :confused:

Okay...Who made Drunk Commies God and didn't tell me?

Ok, personhood, whatever.
it is a very important distinction. a human fetus is both living and human, and thus can be refered to as "human life." this is equally true of a human liver, a human cell, a human gamete. much of the anti-choice versus pro-choice debate seems to quibble about whether a fetus is "alive" and/or "human" or not, and this is a serious waste of time because the fetus is very clearly alive and human. personhood is at issue, and personhood is defined subjectively rather than with the cold science we can use to distinguish life from non-life and human from non-human material.

I'm going to clear up the controversy once and for all.



How nice of you~!

Personhood is what I meant to say. And yes, if the human is incapable of emotion and thought you can dispose of it.

So in other words, we can dispose of George W. Bush. :D

Same with santa claus. Should we change laws regulating air traffic on Dec. 25?

A little diffrent, lets not be childish about this.

Okay...Who made Drunk Commies God and didn't tell me?

Bottle did! It's all Bottle's fault!

*Points accusing finger*

(J/k :D)

IDIOT, go home and apologise for your arrogence. How can it possibly be the last word if its the first post on a forum?
How dare you call me an idiot and demand an appology? I can't beleive your arrogance.

You can't disagree. My post was the last word on Abortion. It's binding. You have to deal with it.

You don't have the last word on abortion. You can say whatever you want, but that doesn't make it right or true, whether you're talking about abortion itself or saying you have the last word on it. I suggest you stop acting so arrogant, and accept other people's opinions, as well as their right to voice their opinions.

The last word on abortion?

Splat.

How dare you call me an idiot and demand an appology? I can't beleive your arrogance.

GRAMMAR NAZI ATTACK!

It's believe, not 'beleive.'

So in other words, we can dispose of George W. Bush. :D
Fine by me, but do you really want Dick Cheney for prez?

How dare you call me an idiot and demand an appology? I can't beleive your arrogance.
I can't believe the temerity that some of these people have.

The last word on abortion?

Splat.

Is "splat" even technically a word?

You don't have the last word on abortion. You can say whatever you want, but that doesn't make it right or true, whether you're talking about abortion itself or saying you have the last word on it. I suggest you stop acting so arrogant, and accept other people's opinions, as well as their right to voice their opinions.

I suppose people can chatter and proclaim all sorts of wrong things on the topic, but when you really look at it what he said *is* definitive and correct.

You don't have the last word on abortion. You can say whatever you want, but that doesn't make it right or true, whether you're talking about abortion itself or saying you have the last word on it. I suggest you stop acting so arrogant, and accept other people's opinions, as well as their right to voice their opinions.
I accept nothing of the sort! I am the troll king!

Just kidding. Of course everyone's entitled to their point of view. Although I used an arrogant attitude for comic effect, I did state my actual viewpoint.

Fine by me, but do you really want Dick Cheney for prez?

Ahem...good point. :(

(Sorry, Bushy!)

Bottle did! It's all Bottle's fault!

*Points accusing finger*

(J/k :D)

Yeah, Bottle! Why didn't you...

Wait a minute...who are you?

Somebody's arrogant.
No, he's actually quite wonderful :D Don't be put off by the rough and arrogant exterior...

A little diffrent, lets not be childish about this.
How is it different?

How dare you call me an idiot and demand an appology? I can't beleive your arrogance.

You basicly said you are right and no one else could even come close. Thats arrogence in the extreme. You cant do that. A thread is designed for discussion. If you believe that then why bother starting a thread on it. You cannot go around discussing something like abortion claiming to be certian. You can't be. It is impossible for us to "prove" when life begins, when a soul is recieved or if one is at all. You can say "I think this because" but dont claim to have "THE FINAL WORD".

Yeah, Bottle! Why didn't you...

Wait a minute...who are you?

I'm, I'm uh...I don't know!

:eek:

GRAMMAR NAZI ATTACK!

It's believe, not 'beleive.'
I am sometimes a very poor speller.

IDIOT, go home and apologise for your arrogence. How can it possibly be the last word if its the first post on a forum?
Neo...don't flame. You should know he's kidding...well in his approach if not his statement.

AHEM.



Fetus:


1. The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
2. In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.


Interpret away.

I am sometimes a very poor speller.

Sumtimes I am two. :p

How is it different?

Thats a myth. The soul is religious theology. While it doesnt have grounding in emperical fact it has arguements that can have a simmilar effect.

I accept nothing of the sort! I am the troll king!
Guys, stop making Drunk Commies sad, or he'll turn into an emo troll (http://img69.exs.cx/img69/8441/emotroll8ef.jpg).
You wouldn't want to do that to him, would you?
:(

Santa Claus - a made up thing employed to enforce morals and provide hope for immature people.

The Immortal Soul - a made up thing employed to enforce morals and provide hope for immature people.

A = C; B = C: A =B

It isnt all that complicated.

You basicly said you are right and no one else could even come close. Thats arrogence in the extreme. You cant do that. A thread is designed for discussion. If you believe that then why bother starting a thread on it. You cannot go around discussing something like abortion claiming to be certian. You can't be. It is impossible for us to "prove" when life begins, when a soul is recieved or if one is at all. You can say "I think this because" but dont claim to have "THE FINAL WORD".
Yes I know. I was doing it for comic effect, but I did state my true viewpoint on abortion. I'm sorry if my tone offended you.

You say fetus, I say foetus...

You wouldn't want to do that to him, would you?
:(

Probably not.

Thats a myth. The soul is religious theology. While it doesnt have grounding in emperical fact it has arguements that can have a simmilar effect.
Is religion not a system of myths? Is theology not a system of logic dealing with myths with no grounding in empirical fact?

Guys, stop making Drunk Commies sad, or he'll turn into an emo troll (http://img69.exs.cx/img69/8441/emotroll8ef.jpg).
You wouldn't want to do that to him, would you?
:(
that is truly disturbing

Guys, stop making Drunk Commies sad, or he'll turn into an emo troll (http://img69.exs.cx/img69/8441/emotroll8ef.jpg).
You wouldn't want to do that to him, would you?
:(
Emo? Screw that. I am the Troll King!!! When I get mad I just trash a thread and send all the serious posters running for their very sanity.

Souls must exist on the grounds that I contractually own five of them.

If they didn't exist, how could I buy them?

Souls must exist on the grounds that I contractually own five of them.

If they didn't exist, how could I buy them?
You got ripped off dude.

You say fetus, I say foetus...

so you use British spellings but not definitions? ;)

so you use British spellings but not definitions? ;)
Don't mind her, she's Canadian.

Don't mind her, she's Canadian.

I know, it's in relation to an earlier 'discussion' about feminism

Drunk commies

When do you place consciousness in a foetus?

What evidence do you use?

did you know your allowed an abortion, if the feotus is upto 24 weeks old. did you also know that a feotus can survive when born between 19- 24 weeks. like i've also said in another thread about abortion, their is no difference between the mental state of a feotus and a new born baby, so hence the posters analogy is either a). flawed or b). suggests it's ok to kill babies.

did you know your allowed an abortion, if the feotus is upto 24 weeks old. did you also know that a feotus can survive when born between 19- 24 weeks. like i've also said in another thread about abortion, their is no difference between the mental state of a feotus and a new born baby, so hence the posters analogy is either a). flawed or b). suggests it's ok to kill babies.

you are quite incorrect. There is distinct difference in mental state. Go read up about when brain waves develop proper.

It's about 26 weeks

Drunk commies

When do you place consciousness in a foetus?

What evidence do you use?
As far as I know no experiments to determine when a fetus is capable of emotion and conscious thought have been carried out. Until then I can't give a solid answer. Such experiments should be designed and conducted ASAP.

EDIT: It seems I was wrong. Someone has done some experiments according to the post above this one.

A little diffrent, lets not be childish about this.
He's right. We should be discussing how the duration of the rabbit hunting seasons in Maine (http://www.state.me.us/ifw/hunttrap/2005huntseasonchart.htm) and Alaska (http://wildlife.alaska.gov/regulations/pdfs/smgame.pdf) jeopardize the Easter Bunny. I think that's a lot more of an immediate problem, given the date.

As far as I know no experiments to determine when a fetus is capable of emotion and conscious thought have been carried out. Until then I can't give a solid answer. Such experiments should be designed and conducted ASAP.
I thought your first post was the last word on abortion? This has gone on for *counts* five pages now. :)

I thought your first post was the last word on abortion? This has gone on for *counts* five pages now. :)
Well, you can't interpret everything I say literally. I'm like the bible in that regard.

just because you have brainwaves, it doesn't mean you have conciousness. innate responeses cause *brainwaves*.

just because you have brainwaves, it doesn't mean you have conciousness. innate responeses cause *brainwaves*.

I was refering to adult pattern EEG which is around 28-30 weeks I think, but I wasn't sure if people reading were up on the lingo

so you use British spellings but not definitions? ;)
I'm going to find you and...*stops short of uttering a threat*...

For your information, it's the Canadian spelling. feminist feminist feminist

Same with santa claus. Should we change laws regulating air traffic on Dec. 25?

Wh-whaaaat?! *liptremble* S-Santa is a .... lie?

*shakes as he tries not to cry*

And here I was about to offer a suggestion to put landing strips on all rooftops...

Darn..

In my mind, the answer is, "I'll give everyone the right to have an abortion, but my girlfriend won't be getting one."

I'm going to find you and...*stops short of uttering a threat*...

For your information, it's the Canadian spelling. feminist feminist feminist

Yeah, all those bits of software and books that come in 'Canadian English'

Oh wait, there's only 'Amercican English' and 'British English'

;)

In my mind, the answer is, "I'll give everyone the right to have an abortion, but my girlfriend won't be getting one."
It's not only your choice to make. Your girlfriend is not your property. And the baby isn't yours. :D

Sorry...I just had to...*runs*

Any of you guys see a short about abortion called "The Silent Scream". It's an ultrasound of a baby being torn limb from limb during the abortion process, and it's screaming in terror. A baby is somewhat aware from a very early stage

Yeah, all those bits of software and books that come in 'Canadian English'

Oh wait, there's only 'Amercican English' and 'British English'

;)


Actually there is "English" and "American English."

Yeah, all those bits of software and books that come in 'Canadian English'

Oh wait, there's only 'Amercican English' and 'British English'

;)
That's because you haven't yet SEEN/HEARD the delight that is Canadian English, 'eh! American English, bah. And British English...double bah. You just don't want to sound stupid saying English English, but Irish English is a heck of a lot different from your *puts on snooty English accent* British English.

Any of you guys see a short about abortion called "The Silent Scream". It's an ultrasound of a baby being torn limb from limb during the abortion process, and it's screaming in terror. A baby is somewhat aware from a very early stage

Yes, I have seen it.

The baby neither screams nor shows any terror.

And Dr Nathan Thingy uses an innacurate model, and exaggerates things horribly.

It is no more than propoganda.

Read some scientific papers if you want real information.

You can't disagree. My post was the last word on Abortion. It's binding. You have to deal with it.
i agree :)

Any of you guys see a short about abortion called "The Silent Scream". It's an ultrasound of a baby being torn limb from limb during the abortion process, and it's screaming in terror. A baby is somewhat aware from a very early stage
You know what? A cow is also somewhat aware, and will make noises when injured, but I still eat beef. When a cow can be shown to have the same mental faculties as even a severely retarded child I will stop eating beef. Well, probably. I really like bacon cheeseburgers.

You know what? A cow is also somewhat aware, and will make noises when injured, but I still eat beef. When a cow can be shown to have the same mental faculties as even a severely retarded child I will stop eating beef. Well, probably. I really like bacon cheeseburgers.

go veggie!

Quorn. mmmm, tasty

Damn you, now I want dinner.

Damn you, now I want dinner.
So go eat a cow. Or perhaps a severely retarded child.

Any of you guys see a short about abortion called "The Silent Scream". It's an ultrasound of a baby being torn limb from limb during the abortion process, and it's screaming in terror. A baby is somewhat aware from a very early stage


Any of you guys see this documentary about politics called "The Triumph of The Will" It is film of some political rallies that showed conclusively who the people should support and gave hope to an entire nation and gave it the strengh to endure great hardship in the most savage war in history.

It is in a great many respects like "the silent scream."

yet a baby can be born on 22 weeks and live, it can develop into a perfectly healthy baby. like i said babies mental states are basically the same as a feotuses. innate responses, much like cells react to their environment. conciousness develops with input. so while a new born baby has no conciousness as such, it has the ability to develop one, as does a feotus. i find it hard to believe people even bother trying to proove a feotus isn't *alive*. theres a very simple solution out there to people who would consider an abortion and that is *don't get pregnant, unless you want to raise the child.*

Actually there is "English" and "American English."
Have you noticed in Microsoft word that you can change your language settings to the following kinds of English:

Australia
Belize
Canada
Caribbean
Hong Kong SAR
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Jamaica
Malaysia
New Zealand
Phillipines
Singapore
South Africa
Trinidad and Tobago
U.K
U.S
Zimbabwe

What are the differences, really?

Any of you guys see this documentary about politics called "The Triumph of The Will" It is film of some political rallies that showed conclusively who the people should support and gave hope to an entire nation and gave it the strengh to endure great hardship in the most savage war in history.

It is in a great many respects like "the silent scream."
:D Thanks...that flick came to my mind as well...

I'm trying to eat light so I'm in good shape to head up to Maine and pick off the Easter Bunny come the 27th.

yet a baby can be born on 22 weeks and live, it can develop into a perfectly healthy baby. like i said babies mental states are basically the same as a feotuses. innate responses, much like cells react to their environment. conciousness develops with input. so while a new born baby has no conciousness as such, it has the ability to develop one, as does a feotus. i find it hard to believe people even bother trying to proove a feotus isn't *alive*. theres a very simple solution out there to people who would consider an abortion and that is *don't get pregnant, unless you want to raise the child.*
You claim that the mental state is the same, but you only offer as evidence that the body can survive (with extraordinary medical assistance) at 22 weeks. The one has nothing to do with the other.

yet a baby can be born on 22 weeks and live, it can develop into a perfectly healthy baby. like i said babies mental states are basically the same as a feotuses. innate responses, much like cells react to their environment. conciousness develops with input. so while a new born baby has no conciousness as such, it has the ability to develop one, as does a feotus. i find it hard to believe people even bother trying to proove a feotus isn't *alive*. theres a very simple solution out there to people who would consider an abortion and that is *don't get pregnant, unless you want to raise the child.*


Provide some citations on this figure you've thrown out regarding '22 weeks.'

But in all seriousness, are you saying that because we cannot empircally prove that the soul does not exist, we should base all of our regulations and laws upon the assumption that it doesn't? That's kind of like saying we should we should jump in a lake we assume is swim-friendly because we can't see any potential threats in the refracted light of the water.

Have you noticed in Microsoft word that you can change your language settings to the following kinds of English:


Ireland

What are the differences, really?
maybe it automatically corrects '"idiot" to "eejit" and" fuck" to "feck"

and the thesaurus contains all the different sectarian names

i cant think of any other reason for there to be an "English (Ireland)" dictionary...

But in all seriousness, are you saying that because we cannot empircally prove that the soul does not exist, we should base all of our regulations and laws upon the assumption that it doesn't? That's kind of like saying we should we should jump in a lake we assume is swim-friendly because we can't see any potential threats in the refracted light of the water.
No, that's a bad analogy. We don't need to go jumping into lakes. We do need laws to regulate our society. Those laws should be based on what we know, not on things that have absolutely no empirical support. Otherwise we would have laws to prohibit work on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, just in case god get's angry about work being done on one of those days.

give a shit, we're all just bags of meat there is no special significance to being human. Life is worthless per se to think otherwise is madness.

If a woman wants an abortion she should be able to have one end of story.

But in all seriousness, are you saying that because we cannot empircally prove that the soul does not exist, we should base all of our regulations and laws upon the assumption that it doesn't? That's kind of like saying we should we should jump in a lake we assume is swim-friendly because we can't see any potential threats in the refracted light of the water.


There is no reasonable basis whatsoever to believe in an immortal, divine, supernatural soul. There is oftentimes a reasonable basis, and a strong one at that not to jump into lakes.

It is in the same realm of fantasy as unicorns and space aliens, people are welcome to believe in it if they so choose, but the law applies to everyone and cannot have as a basis flights of imagination, even if they are widely held.

so are you suggesting that because it costs more to keep a baby born early, that they should die? no i didn't think so. babies born in the 22nd week are more of a lottery, some are more developed than others. you also aren't offering any type of information suggesting that their minds aren't different. you should also look for some recent tests carried out on cows, it suggested that they had friendships, friendship groups, feuds, community structure... the list goes on. their minds are a lot more complex than they are given credit.

*lastly, tell me what a new born baby would think?

maybe it automatically corrects '"idiot" to "eejit" and" fuck" to "feck"

and the thesaurus contains all the different sectarian names

i cant think of any other reason for there to be an "English (Ireland)" dictionary...

well, I wasn't going to start, but...


Canadian - British + American = confused
South Africa - se'rth effrica
Australia - with a question mark at the end?

maybe it automatically corrects '"idiot" to "eejit" and" fuck" to "feck"

and the thesaurus contains all the different sectarian names

i cant think of any other reason for there to be an "English (Ireland)" dictionary...


On a side note they should shoot most of the people in the IRA, not just the ones who butchered that poor man.

Human life is not defined by DNA. It's not defined by a "soul", which can't even be shown to exist. It's defined by brain function.

Because of that a fetus isn't a human being until it crosses the mental threshold of conscious thought and emotion. Until then it's just meat and can be disposed of. That is all.

I disagree like so many others D.C. A fetus is a baby no matter what stage of life it is, the girl/woman just got pregnant and doesn't know till its six and going to school, its a baby in my opinion. I'm sure a lot of other people agree with me on that.

...
*lastly, tell me what a new born baby would think?

"bugger, who took me out of that nice warm, friendly place?"

so are you suggesting that because it costs more to keep a baby born early, that they should die? no i didn't think so. babies born in the 22nd week are more of a lottery, some are more developed than others. you also aren't offering any type of information suggesting that their minds aren't different. you should also look for some recent tests carried out on cows, it suggested that they had friendships, friendship groups, feuds, community structure... the list goes on. their minds are a lot more complex than they are given credit.

*lastly, tell me what a new born baby would think?
Up to the parents whether the fetus should be kept alive or not. Until it can think for itself it has no rights. It's just meat owned by a mother.

Evidence that their minds are different was offered by the poster who wrote about brainwaves.

So don't eat cows.

The newborn baby would probably think "Gee it sure is bright out here"

I disagree like so many others D.C. A fetus is a baby no matter what stage of life it is, the girl/woman just got pregnant and doesn't know till its six and going to school, its a baby in my opinion. I'm sure a lot of other people agree with me on that.
They may agree with you, but you are all wrong.

...
So don't eat cows.
...

I'll second that

I disagree like so many others D.C. A fetus is a baby no matter what stage of life it is, the girl/woman just got pregnant and doesn't know till its six and going to school, its a baby in my opinion. I'm sure a lot of other people agree with me on that.


You're simply incorrect in your opinion about whether or not a foetus is a 'baby.'

Also, you seem to substantiate your opinion soley on the assertion that "lots of people agree with you."

If this is indeed the case, the fact remains that more people disagree with you than agree.

You're simply incorrect in your opinion about whether or not a foetus is a 'baby.'

Also, you seem to substantiate your opinion soley on the assertion that "lots of people agree with you."

If this is indeed the case, the fact remains that more people disagree with you than agree.
It's the "50 million Elvis fans can't be wrong" way of knowing. Far superior to reason and science.

so are you suggesting that because it costs more to keep a baby born early, that they should die?
I'm not going to pick just on you...this is to ALL the anti-abortionists. Nearly half a million women die every year from complications during childbirth. These are women who WANT their babies, and die while having them. The babies generally die too. Why don't you spend your time, money and effort on helping those that WANT their babies live through childbirth? Surely more lives would be saved this way.

Hehe...I suppose then the "better safe than sorry" argument flies out of the window then, ne?

XD

Anyway, I do apologize for the bad analogy. I just find it slightly irking that we establish regulations whilst making assumptions from what we deem to be evidential theories and empirical arguments. I dunno. I suppose it's because I'm not an empiricist that makes me cringe at the thought.

yet the baby has never encountered light before, so it infact wouldn't think that. infact the only thing the baby has encountered is the womb. the baby has no idea of concept, doesn't know it's own arm is his, etc. actually what would happen is the light would entered the eye, and an innate reflex would tell the eyes to squint, there would be no concious thought. just like when you hit your knee and it jerks up.

and yes brainwave scans, that's not proof though. can you decipher brainwaves? no i can't either.

hah, that's funny. I just got an abortion issue for my nation after reading this thread :P

You're simply incorrect in your opinion about whether or not a foetus is a 'baby.'

Also, you seem to substantiate your opinion soley on the assertion that "lots of people agree with you."

If this is indeed the case, the fact remains that more people disagree with you than agree.

I'm Christian, I don't care what you agree and disagree with. Any other person who has any love for God or/and Jesus must agree somewhat. A fetus is something of a baby, born or not in my opinion. It may not feel yet, but its still a creature from God.

yet the baby has never encountered light before, so it infact wouldn't think that. infact the only thing the baby has encountered is the womb. the baby has no idea of concept, doesn't know it's own arm is his, etc. actually what would happen is the light would entered the eye, and an innate reflex would tell the eyes to squint, there would be no concious thought. just like when you hit your knee and it jerks up.

and yes brainwave scans, that's not proof though. can you decipher brainwaves? no i can't either.
You can correlate certain patterns with certain mental states. Find the ones that corellate with thought and you have a test for higher mental function.

yet the baby has never encountered light before, so it infact wouldn't think that. infact the only thing the baby has encountered is the womb. the baby has no idea of concept, doesn't know it's own arm is his, etc. actually what would happen is the light would entered the eye, and an innate reflex would tell the eyes to squint, there would be no concious thought. just like when you hit your knee and it jerks up.

and yes brainwave scans, that's not proof though. can you decipher brainwaves? no i can't either.

brainwaves are brainwaves. Adult EEG (electroencephalogram) patterns are just that - the same as an adult. Sort of like how you tell someone is brain dead.

I'm Christian, I don't care what you agree and disagree with. Any other person who has any love for God or/and Jesus must agree somewhat. A fetus is something of a baby, born or not in my opinion. It may not feel yet, but its still a creature from God.

And regardless of whether people choose to believe in your god, it's okay to force them to live by your god's values?

And regardless of whether people choose to believe in your god, it's okay to force them to live by your gods values?

yes. And my god says everyone must get nekkid!

brainwaves are brainwaves. Adult EEG (electroencephalogram) patterns are just that - the same as an adult. Sort of like how you tell someone is brain dead.

So since those who are brain dead do not have consciousness, then they are considered to be just meat and therefore discardable?

So since those who are brain dead do not have consciousness, then they are considered meat and therefore discardable?

well we switch them off don't we? Harvest their organs?

So since those who are brain dead do not have consciousness, then they are considered meat and therefore discardable?

Yes. Would you really want to live like that?

And regardless of whether people choose to believe in your god, it's okay to force them to live by your god's values?

There's only one God, he created you, me, anybody and everybody on Nationstates, my forefathers/mothers, their familes, their children, their friends and families, exc A.W. Seems like this is turning into the thread styles I hate, once asking whether or not you believe in God/Jesus and why :headbang:

I'm Christian, I don't care what you agree and disagree with. Any other person who has any love for God or/and Jesus must agree somewhat. A fetus is something of a baby, born or not in my opinion. It may not feel yet, but its still a creature from God.
You can't base laws on religious beleifs. What if the population shifted and muslims took over. Would you like to live under sharia?

So since those who are brain dead do not have consciousness, then they are considered to be just meat and therefore discardable?

or maybe we could use little sticks to move their hands and legs and pretend like they are still alive?

Anyway, I do apologize for the bad analogy. I just find it slightly irking that we establish regulations whilst making assumptions from what we deem to be evidential theories and empirical arguments. I dunno. I suppose it's because I'm not an empiricist that makes me cringe at the thought.
The way I look at it is like this:
Take a good look at the theocracies of the world.
Then take a good look at the secular democracies of the world.
Then decide where you'd really rather live. ;)

There's only one God, he created you, me, anybody and everybody on Nationstates, my forefathers/mothers, their familes, their children, their friends and families, exetra A.W. Seems like this is turning into the thread styles I hate, once asking whether or not you believe in God/Jesus and why :headbang:

you cannot force your religion on me.

Yes. Would you really want to live like that?
If there were ever a chance of me being revived, then sure.

So since those who are brain dead do not have consciousness, then they are considered to be just meat and therefore discardable?
Yes. That's exactly what we do with them now.

If there were ever a chance of me being revived, then sure.

You are getting coma and brain dead confused. No-one has ever (or can be) revided from being brain dead. The brain is dead. It is not alive. It is an ex-brain.

You can't base laws on religious beleifs. What if the population shifted and muslims took over. Would you like to live under sharia?

I know. I'd still believe in my own beliefs (?) and hide in my house. I won't let em take me away from God and the Holy Son.

i don't think you understand at all, just because a baby has similar brainwaves as john smith, does it the baby is thinking about football? no, does it mean the baby has conciousness? no. it merely means the baby has potential for conciousness.

just because something has potentail it doesn't mean it has it.

You are getting coma and brain dead confused. No-one has ever (or can be) revided from being brain dead. The brain is dead. It is not alive. It is an ex-brain.
No, no, he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable brain, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful foldings!

There's only one God, he created you, me, anybody and everybody on Nationstates, my forefathers/mothers, their familes, their children, their friends and families, exc A.W. Seems like this is turning into the thread styles I hate, once asking whether or not you believe in God/Jesus and why :headbang:

You don't understand. You cannot force people to live under something they may well consider to be bullshit just because you think it's true.

I don't believe in your god and I don't much care what he says I should do. I'll live from my own morals and ethics, if they happen to coincide with your gods, that's fine. But neither you nor anyone has the right to impose religous beliefs on people - so don't try.

I'm Christian, I don't care what you agree and disagree with. Any other person who has any love for God or/and Jesus must agree somewhat. A fetus is something of a baby, born or not in my opinion. It may not feel yet, but its still a creature from God.
So are cows.

So is a bean plant.

You are getting coma and brain dead confused. No-one has ever (or can be) revided from being brain dead. The brain is dead. It is not alive. It is an ex-brain.

I stand corrected. :)

i don't think you understand at all, just because a baby has similar brainwaves as john smith, does it the baby is thinking about football? no, does it mean the baby has conciousness? no. it merely means the baby has potential for conciousness.

just because something has potentail it doesn't mean it has it.

doesn't mean it doesn't. I don't think 24ish weeks is an unreasonable time for elective abortions to stop.

There's only one God, he created you, me, anybody and everybody on Nationstates, my forefathers/mothers, their familes, their children, their friends and families, exc A.W. Seems like this is turning into the thread styles I hate, once asking whether or not you believe in God/Jesus and why :headbang:
Nope, you're wrong. There's no reason to assume there's a god unless evidence of it's existance can be found. Without evidence there may be no god, multiple gods, a goddess, or something completely different. That's why you can't base laws on things that can't be shown to exist. You can't pick which invisible being(s) someone dreamed up to base those laws on.

If there were ever a chance of me being revived, then sure.
You can't be revived once you're braindead.

There's only one God, he created you, me, anybody and everybody on Nationstates, my forefathers/mothers, their familes, their children, their friends and families, exc A.W. Seems like this is turning into the thread styles I hate, once asking whether or not you believe in God/Jesus and why :headbang:
Then stop it. Your God didn't create me.

i don't think you understand at all, just because a baby has similar brainwaves as john smith, does it the baby is thinking about football? no, does it mean the baby has conciousness? no. it merely means the baby has potential for conciousness.

just because something has potentail it doesn't mean it has it.
No, if the brainwaves correlate with thought you can reasonably assume it's thinking. You don't know what it's thinking about, but you know it's thinking. If they don't correlate with thought then you can reasonably assume it's not thinking, and that's that.

You can't be revived once you're braindead.
Yet.

Yet.

interesting thought

No, no, he's not dead, he's, he's restin'! Remarkable brain, the Norwegian Blue, idn'it, ay? Beautiful foldings!
His brain's just pinin' for the fjiords.

You don't understand. You cannot force people to live under something they may well consider to be bullshit just because you think it's true.

I don't believe in your god and I don't much care what he says I should do. I'll live from my own morals and ethics, if they happen to coincide with your gods, that's fine. But neither you nor anyone has the right to impose religous beliefs on people - so don't try.

I'm not forcing anything on anybody. At least I'm not trying too. But please, stop the more then one god think. It bothers me enough to kick you in the crotch, followed by killing you out of madness.

I'm getting offline to end this crud.

I'm not forcing anything on anybody. At least I'm not trying too. But please, stop the more then one god think. It bothers me enough to kick you in the crotch, followed by killing you out of madness.

I'm getting offline to end this crud.

That's rather agressive and offensive of you. Perhaps more tolerance is required?

I'm not forcing anything on anybody. At least I'm not trying too. But please, stop the more then one god think. It bothers me enough to kick you in the crotch, followed by killing you out of madness.

I'm getting offline to end this crud.
Wow...talk about intolerant. Your way or the highway, huh? If only I could be an atheist pantheist...

His brain's just pinin' for the fjiords.
Well, o'course 'e was brain-dead! If I hadn't nailed that brain down, it would have nuzzled up to those sutures, bent 'em apart with its lobes, and VOOM!

I'm not forcing anything on anybody. At least I'm not trying too. But please, stop the more then one god think. It bothers me enough to kick you in the crotch, followed by killing you out of madness.

I'm getting offline to end this crud.
So your idea with no empirical evidence to back it up is somehow superior to someone else's idea with no empirical evidence to back it up? How strange.

I'm not forcing anything on anybody. At least I'm not trying too. But please, stop the more then one god think. It bothers me enough to kick you in the crotch, followed by killing you out of madness.

I'm getting offline to end this crud.

Off to call the Thought Police are we?

By the way, telling people if they don't think the way you do that you will kill them can be counted as forcing them, or at least trying to force them.

Yet.

I guess it depends how much is hard-wired into the neurons. If everything is, then you could refire them to bring it back.

But the brain is never off while we are alive, so possibly some is stored in a kind of transient way, in the patterns of neurons firing.

My only quirk about it is that we base final says on "no god" rather than "maybe". I may have particular beliefs, but I can respect that some others don't share them. But I do understand that I can no more prove that a supreme being(s) don't exist than I can prove that one (or more) does. I take it upon a system of faith, as do you take it upon a system of faith that one doesnt exist.

Just seems to me that we start out in the political mindset that because we cannot prove or disprove spirituality we base judgements and laws upon the atheistic side, almost as if it were a neutral zone for everyone else, when in truth it isn't.

Science has no set truths (albeit neither does religion), but we act as if it does...

That the needle in my rear, is all.

So your idea with no empirical evidence to back it up is somehow superior to someone else's idea with no empirical evidence to back it up? How strange.
Pssst...Hey DC...I'm catching up to your post count...watch out!!!

Wow...talk about intolerant. Your way or the highway, huh? If only I could be an atheist pantheist...

Nah. Just think if I get off the thread, people'll stop bugging me. Don't know what a atheist pantheist thing is either. Besides, people thinking there's mroe then one god drives me nuts. When I get mad, I hide it unless its on a computer, then I like to think, girl power by telling my main man and he helping me beat somebody up.

I guess it depends how much is hard-wired into the neurons. If everything is, then you could refire them to bring it back.

But the brain is never off while we are alive, so possibly some is stored in a kind of transient way, in the patterns of neurons firing.
The neurons degrade badly after death. Organelles in the cells begin to break down. The only way I see reanimation happening is if you could somehow map all the connections in the brain before death and recreate them in a cloned brain or some other medium. Or maybe I'm talking out of my ass.

Nah. Just think if I get off the thread, people'll stop bugging me. Don't know what a atheist pantheist thing is either. Besides, people thinking there's mroe then one god drives me nuts. When I get mad, I hide it unless its on a computer, then I like to think, girl power by telling my main man and he helping me beat somebody up.
Well people who think only their point of view is right drive ME nuts, but I don't go threatening physical abuse.

Atheist: does not believe in a higher power
Pantheist: believes in many gods

Both should annoy you, but the two together might drive you insane.

I actively do not believe in many gods.

Off to call the Thought Police are we?

By the way, telling people if they don't think the way you do that you will kill them can be counted as forcing them, or at least trying to force them.

Well I'm mad! That's why I'm trying to get off line! Nobody hast o think my way! I yell or threat when I get at the blowing point!

Nah. Just think if I get off the thread, people'll stop bugging me. Don't know what a atheist pantheist thing is either. Besides, people thinking there's mroe then one god drives me nuts. When I get mad, I hide it unless its on a computer, then I like to think, girl power by telling my main man and he helping me beat somebody up.

Your relgion seems to have done you no good.

Beating people up?
Getting angry over people having different beliefs?

You need to get some worldly education

The neurons degrade badly after death. Organelles in the cells begin to break down. The only way I see reanimation happening is if you could somehow map all the connections in the brain before death and recreate them in a cloned brain or some other medium. Or maybe I'm talking out of my ass.

I'm thinking from a medical physicist pov so correct my biology if it's dodgy

if you did it quick, and the data was all hard wired, it would work, wouldn't it?

My only quirk about it is that we base final says on "no god" rather than "maybe". I may have particular beliefs, but I can respect that some others don't share them. But I do understand that I can no more prove that a supreme being(s) don't exist than I can prove that one (or more) does. I take it upon a system of faith, as do you take it upon a system of faith that one doesnt exist.

Just seems to me that we start out in the political mindset that because we cannot prove or disprove spirituality we base judgements and laws upon the atheistic side, almost as if it were a neutral zone for everyone else, when in truth it isn't.

Science has no set truths (albeit neither does religion), but we act as if it does...

That the needle in my rear, is all.
When there's no evidence for something it's more rational to assume it doesn't exist rather than assume it does. That's why maybe doesn't work. Are you agnostic about dragons? Multiple gods? Spirits that inhabit everything? How can we craft laws to take into account all the "maybes", even the contradictory ones?

Well I'm mad! That's why I'm trying to get off line! Nobody hast o think my way! I yell or threat when I get at the blowing point!

Nobody has to think your way as long as they don't mind being beaten to death as a consequence?

edit: Maybe the NS forums aren't really the place for you then :/

Well I'm mad! That's why I'm trying to get off line! Nobody hast o think my way! I yell or threat when I get at the blowing point!
Then go already!

That sounds a bit unhealthy by the way...there are better ways to deal with stress. Pets are good...so are long baths...deep breaths...chill out....

Nah. Just think if I get off the thread, people'll stop bugging me. Don't know what a atheist pantheist thing is either. Besides, people thinking there's mroe then one god drives me nuts. When I get mad, I hide it unless its on a computer, then I like to think, girl power by telling my main man and he helping me beat somebody up.
What are you? 12?

Your relgion seems to have done you no good.

Beating people up?
Getting angry over people having different beliefs?

You need to get some worldly education

Sort of guess so. I'm not very religous in real life. Think I'm hot, everybody tells me I am.

Sort of guess so. I'm not very religous in real life. Think I'm hot, everybody tells me I am.

exercise more

or go to anger management classes

What are you? 12?

Nope. Fifteen and homeschool proud.

Sort of guess so. I'm not very religous in real life. Think I'm hot, everybody tells me I am.
Oh. You're a troll.

That last comment reminds me of the people who used to call into the distress line I worked at and talk about how 'hard' their problems were and how they couldn't 'handle' them alone...all while breathing heavy. Yucky.

exercise more

or go to anger management classes

I have been excercising. Tried today but the GYM my mom and I are in was closed for lunch and it was pooring down rain.

156 replies? So much for the "last word" lol...

Oh. You're a troll.

That last comment reminds me of the people who used to call into the distress line I worked at and talk about how 'hard' their problems were and how they couldn't 'handle' them alone...all while breathing heavy. Yucky.

Trolls are small, I'm just below six feet.

When there's no evidence for something it's more rational to assume it doesn't exist rather than assume it does. That's why maybe doesn't work. Are you agnostic about dragons? Multiple gods? Spirits that inhabit everything? How can we craft laws to take into account all the "maybes", even the contradictory ones?

Not really. My only point was that it would a lot easier if would could find a medium to satisfy everyone and dissatisfy anyone. Impossible, I know. *sigh* Ah well... I've learned to suck it up and take it up the rear, as I'm sure everyone else has at one point in their lives.

If only reality wasn't, eh?

Trolls are small, I'm just below six feet.
Thanks for the confirmation...now whose puppet are you I wonder...and what's your angle...

I'm thinking from a medical physicist pov so correct my biology if it's dodgy

if you did it quick, and the data was all hard wired, it would work, wouldn't it?
Sounds ok, but then I'm not a scientist.

My only quirk about it is that we base final says on "no god" rather than "maybe". I may have particular beliefs, but I can respect that some others don't share them. But I do understand that I can no more prove that a supreme being(s) don't exist than I can prove that one (or more) does. I take it upon a system of faith, as do you take it upon a system of faith that one doesnt exist.

Just seems to me that we start out in the political mindset that because we cannot prove or disprove spirituality we base judgements and laws upon the atheistic side, almost as if it were a neutral zone for everyone else, when in truth it isn't.

Science has no set truths (albeit neither does religion), but we act as if it does...

That the needle in my rear, is all.
The default state, though, is the negative. I don't act as if space goats are going to rain down from the sky when I walk out of the door to this building, because I don't have any evidence that space goats exist, much less survive atmospheric entry. Were I to make actual laws that restricted people's motion to protect them from the effects of high-velocity falling space goats, you wouldn't hesitate to call me a loony, would you? Especially after I failed to produce any evidence at all and admitted I was making the laws to be on the safe side in case some evidence did turn up later?

Trolls are small, I'm just below six feet.

Trolls aren't small. Trolls are large and easily killed by acid and fire. Are you easily killed by acid and fire?

Trolls are small, I'm just below six feet.
Actually, you're thinking of gnomes. Trolls can be over 10 feet in height. Ever see Lord of the Rings? ;)

Trolls aren't small. Trolls are large and easily killed by acid and fire. Are you easily killed by acid and fire?
Most of us are...doesn't make us trolls, just prone to death by acid and fire:)

goodnight chaps and chappytes

Actually, you're thinking of gnomes. Trolls can be over 10 feet in height. Ever see Lord of the Rings? ;)

Yeah but I didn't emember that. I was thinking of the troll under the bridge in 'Billy Goat's bluff' that my dad used to tell me about.

goodnight chaps and chappytes
Goodnight. Nice debating with you, of what little we had when I stepped in.

Trolls aren't small. Trolls are large and easily killed by acid and fire. Are you easily killed by acid and fire?

Nope. I was my face with acid stuff, I think.

Yeah but I didn't emember that. I was thinking of the troll under the bridge in 'Billy Goat's bluff' that my dad used to tell me about.
troll, troll, troll

Nope. I was my face with acid stuff, I think.
????What the heck does that mean?

Nope. I was my face with acid stuff, I think.

*blink* Do what now?

????What the heck does that mean?

When he takes acid, he is his face?

troll, troll, troll

Nope. Farmer's daughter. Show rabbits, you know, the animal so no jokes. The fluffy ones like 'Peter Rabbit' I'm the champ at it. Last award I won was for the forth best rabbit at the entire show.

*chokes on coffee while laughing and passes out...goodnight folks!*

*blink* Do what now?

WASH, not WAS, lol. I'm happy again! Just takes me a little giggle at myself or the TV and I'm me :p

Here's something to ponder:

When faced with a hypothetical situation in which abortion would be outlawed, many atheists claim that it is an outrage, as it would constitute "forcing your religion on me," because Christians believe abortion to be wrong.

You know what? Christians also think murder is wrong. Why don't you complain that laws against murder should be repealed? Aren't they forcing a religious opinion on you? Yes, they are, but none here would complain about that.

Have any of you ever realized that it is possible for someone to oppose abortion from a non-religious point of view? Well, believe it or not, it is possible even for atheists to oppose abortion, and I'm sure there are many who do, perhaps even one or two on these boards.

Oh well, just something to think about...

*chokes on coffee while laughing and passes out...goodnight folks!*

Ditto.
Goodnight everyone, debate was fun while it lasted.

Ditto.
Goodnight everyone, debate was fun while it lasted.

Night and good ridens! Good-bye so my boyfriened can call! A-man, call! Your AJ's off line :fluffle:

Here's something to ponder:

When faced with a hypothetical situation in which abortion would be outlawed, many atheists claim that it is an outrage, as it would constitute "forcing your religion on me," because Christians believe abortion to be wrong.

You know what? Christians also think murder is wrong. Why don't you complain that laws against murder should be repealed? Aren't they forcing a religious opinion on you? Yes, they are, but none here would complain about that.

Have any of you ever realized that it is possible for someone to oppose abortion from a non-religious point of view? Well, believe it or not, it is possible even for atheists to oppose abortion, and I'm sure there are many who do, perhaps even one or two on these boards.

Oh well, just something to think about...

Well, aren't we making a WHOLE BUNCHA assumptions? Do you seriously believe I would NOT support the repeal of murder laws? Puh-lease! Also, my spirtuality has nothing to do with my position on abortion whatsover. :mad:

Ok, this is it. I'm going to clear up the controversy once and for all. Listen up, because I might not be nice enough to post this again.

Human life is not defined by DNA. It's not defined by a "soul", which can't even be shown to exist. It's defined by brain function.

Because of that a fetus isn't a human being until it crosses the mental threshold of conscious thought and emotion. Until then it's just meat and can be disposed of. That is all.

Amen! Life starts when a creature becomes able to survive on its own outside the womb, not before. This means that second or third trimester abortion might very well be killing a living human being, but first trimester abortion is nothing more than the removal of a clump of cellular material.

Here's something to ponder:

When faced with a hypothetical situation in which abortion would be outlawed, many atheists claim that it is an outrage, as it would constitute "forcing your religion on me," because Christians believe abortion to be wrong.

You know what? Christians also think murder is wrong. Why don't you complain that laws against murder should be repealed? Aren't they forcing a religious opinion on you? Yes, they are, but none here would complain about that.

Have any of you ever realized that it is possible for someone to oppose abortion from a non-religious point of view? Well, believe it or not, it is possible even for atheists to oppose abortion, and I'm sure there are many who do, perhaps even one or two on these boards.

Oh well, just something to think about...
The law against murder need not be based on religion. It can be based on the concept of human rights.

Yes, it's possible to oppose abortion from a non religious point of view, but it's still based on what constitutes a person. A piece of meat incapable of thought and emotion is not a person. Anyone who says it is is wrong.

Here's the reality of it all:

Some people have way too much time on their hands, and believe that because of this build up of time, they can therefore do, and say what they want. Some unintelligent rather bumbling folk, believe that in believing they can do and say what they want, (caused by the build up of free time) it means they are overwhelmingly correct.

Reading most posts on this board, it's frightening how people have so stood behind the facets of human rights, and differences in opinion, but not one single person has some to a sturdy conclusion that no one cares what the other person thinks. That most of the words on here are as empty, and meaningless as the matter between the ears of those who wrote the words.

While we're all cozy sitting at home, without a baby in our stomachs, we're making decisions for people who DO have that burden. We cannot say it is right, we cannot say it is wrong. What people fail to realize is that this fight is pointless. There will be abortion, no matter how much pro-life activists scream, and there will be strict boundaries on abortion, no matter how much pro-choice activists scream. Same goes with what "constitutes a person." Some believe that it is when a person consciously thinks, but it goes back to that age old riddle: "If a tree falls in the forest, and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?" Of course we understand that it does make a sound, that by scientific evidence soundwaves are actually created, but some people truly believe that the actual physical aspect of hearing and processing are what create sounds. How are we to be so sure there is not conscious thought in the womb of a mother? The starter of this thread established a pretty loaded and easily arguable statement. What the starter of this thread failed to realize, that it was just an opinion of one mind, and since when do we come to truly believe only opinions? The starter of this thread failed to take into account, no one in their right minds, would ever come to believe opinion is truth.

Starting this thread was thoroughly pointless, and it's easy to see, the one who began this, was obviously bored out of their mind, and was able to acquire a sturdy amount of entertainment from all who posted here.

Abortion is a topic where people will just have to learn to agree to disagree, and move on with their lives.

Starting this thread was thoroughly pointless, and it's easy to see, the one who began this, was obviously bored out of their mind, and was able to acquire a sturdy amount of entertainment from all who posted here.
I think the same pretty much goes for the rest of the posters in this thread, too, including me.

Although I was serious about capping that damn Easter Bunny! This year, you cotton-tailed devil! This year!!!

The argument pro-lifers is that you need to be held accountable for the potential of the child. Yet, if we take responsibility for the potential damages of all our action, potential, mind you, not real, then we are all in some really big trouble. The baby may have been crushed in some horrible light fixture accident the second it popped out anyway, so who's to say what you "stole" from the baby.

Oh, by the way, i'm pro-life. Ain't that a bitch?

P.S. "The Dingo Ate My baby"

I read through the first page of this thread, and found a lot of disturbed responses and statements.

Personally, when a person "gives up the ghost", they are embracing death.
Death is the cessation of all stimuli connected with life. The dead do not see, nor do they smell, touch, or taste.

(

I'm pro-life as well, but I believe you cannot force an idea on someone else. I am Christian, and once again, I read stereotypes on the "average Christian" and think to myself, 'oh gee.. that's not like me at all. Hmm.. stereotype disproven!'

General statements, are a bitch.


I speak from experience, (which is probably what most people, including the starter of this thread, cannot speak from) in having to witness the intense, and ultimately REAL stress, and horror at realizing one is pregnant. A close friend of mine made a stupid decision, and she knows she did. After missing her period, she was afraid she was pregnant, and so she came to me.

"Never let abortion be your first choice," I told her. There is evidence that abortions, can cause a higher psychological trauma rate after the fact:

An article written by Dominic Beer (Christian):

So do psychological reactions occur after abortion? A study[2] of all pregnant women in the entire population of Denmark comparing women within three months post abortion with pregnant women who declined abortion, showed that psychiatric hospitalisation was higher amongst postabortion women (1.84/1000) than in those who declined abortion and delivered (1.2/1000).

The Rawlinson Report on the Operation of the Abortion Act in 1994[3] reported this study as superior to - because of its comprehensiveness - an English study[4] on a sample of women which found a lower incidence of serious mental disturbance causing hospitalisation in those who had an abortion (0.3/1000) than in those who delivered (1.7/1000).

An American study[5] linked 173,000 women who had abortions or gave birth in 1989 to death certificates. Women who had abortions were 2.6 times more likely to die from suicide compared to those who delivered their babies. This is backed up by a recent study[6] in Finland looking at the death certificates of all fertile-aged women (1987-1994). Those who had had an abortion in their last year of life were seven abortions were also almost twice as likely to harm themselves after the abortion than before.

(For entire article go here: http://www.cmf.org.uk/literature/content.asp?context=article&id=1226 )

Another by David C. Reardon, Ph.D of the Elliot Institute (non-Christian organization):

While there is intense controversy regarding how many women experience post-abortion psychological problems, even pro-abortion researchers admit that at least some women are negatively effected. According to the disposition of the individual researcher, these negative reactions may be loosely labeled as "serious," "significant" or "minor" and the number of women experiencing these reactions may be vaguely described as "many," "some" or "only a few." But statistics are less subjective than adjectives. In one review of the literature, the lowest reported rate for adverse post-abortion outcomes was 6 percent, with most reports ranging from 12 to 25 percent, and the highest estimates rising above 50 percent. With such findings, only the most biased of researchers are so rash to claim that "no one" experiences post-abortion trauma.

Because the existence of post-abortion trauma is now almost universally accepted, many researchers are now focusing on the factors which may identify which women are at higher risk. From a political viewpoint, researchers who favor abortion on demand are hoping to show that the "few" women who do report negative post-abortion reactions were actually emotionally "unbalanced" prior to the abortion. If this is true, they argue, then it is possible that the abortion itself is not the cause of psychological injury, but instead women who were previously "unbalanced" are unfairly blaming their problems on abortion.

BLAMING THE VICTIM

This "politically correct" view of post-abortion trauma includes a kernel of truth surrounded by a lot of "blaming the victim." It is certainly true that women who are suffering from mental disorders or have previously suffered psychological trauma are more likely to subsequently report more severe negative post-abortion reactions. Indeed, if one thing is clear from post-abortion research over the last forty years, it is that abortion is contraindicated when a woman has mental health problems.

This is true because abortion is always stressful. How well a person copes with this stress depends on the individual's resiliency and the conditions under which the stress occurs. When a woman's psychological state is already fragile, the stress of an abortion can more easily overwhelm her. But the fact that she was more vulnerable to stress than others does not mean that the abortion is not the cause of her psychological injuries.

If a glass plate and a plastic plate are both dropped, the glass plate is likely to shatter, while the same stress may cause the plastic plate to only crack or chip. In either case, the damage cannot be blamed on the material; it must be blamed on the fall. While the extent of the damage is related to the nature of the material, the fall itself is the direct cause of the damage.

In the same way, while the nature of an individual psyche determines the extent of post-abortion injuries, it is the abortion itself which is the direct cause of these injuries...

(For entire article go here: http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/high_risk_abortion_patients.asp )


I took my friend to several different opinions, that of Christian doctors, and that of regular doctors. In the end, she decided if she was pregnant she would still have an abortion. She wouldn't risk it. (Before it is said, yes, I understand that adoption agencies in this country do suck, that opinion has been considered.) Rather than abandon her, like a fool, I stuck by her, and supported her decision 100%. I could do nothing, and I wasn't going to "shove my religion" down her throat. Whatever the hell that means.

Fortunately, she wasn't pregnant, it was just an unwanted scare, but it was still the same anxiety any woman would have gone through, the 'what if.'


What pisses me off really, as a woman, is that men have the balls to argue this matter. I mean.. let's.. think about this logically people. MEN.. sure they can care.. and worry about what their girlfriends or friends are going through, but do they have a right to argue?

No.

There will be abortion, no matter how much pro-life activists scream, and there will be strict boundaries on abortion, no matter how much pro-choice activists scream.
the first part of this sentence is clearly true (history has proven that) but the second part is not necessarily true at all. there are already a wide range of abortion attitudes in different nations in the world, many of which are considered far from strict by a great many people. there is no particular reason why there couldn't be a country that allowed all abortions for all reasons. i'm not saying that's necessarily GOING to happen, or even that it would necessarily be a good thing, but it's certainly not fair to claim it could never happen.

What pisses me off really, as a woman, is that men have the balls to argue this matter. I mean.. let's.. think about this logically people. MEN.. sure they can care.. and worry about what their girlfriends or friends are going through, but do they have a right to argue?

No.
Then we want our half of the babies' chromosomes back.

Then we want our half of the babies' chromosomes back.
no problem. they can get those out of the aborted fetus for you.

no problem. they can get those out of the aborted fetus for you.
Sweet! I can collect the whole set!

Ok, this is it. I'm going to clear up the controversy once and for all. Listen up, because I might not be nice enough to post this again.

Human life is not defined by DNA. It's not defined by a "soul", which can't even be shown to exist. It's defined by brain function.

Because of that a fetus isn't a human being until it crosses the mental threshold of conscious thought and emotion. Until then it's just meat and can be disposed of. That is all.

So what, screw you, I am going to disagree with you just to disagree. I will not live by your standards. Who are you say what Human life is defined by?

Sweet! I can collect the whole set!
so many horrible dead baby jokes are springing to mind right now...i need to go have a drink...

the first part of this sentence is clearly true (history has proven that) but the second part is not necessarily true at all. there are already a wide range of abortion attitudes in different nations in the world, many of which are considered far from strict by a great many people. there is no particular reason why there couldn't be a country that allowed all abortions for all reasons. i'm not saying that's necessarily GOING to happen, or even that it would necessarily be a good thing, but it's certainly not fair to claim it could never happen.


There will always be restrictions on the term of abortion (first trimester etc..) it doesn't matter what kind of restrictions. The term 'strict' is used rather loosely for it's connotation. A doctor isn't going to break the law, which makes the term 'strict.'

It's all I'm saying. Once the law of the term is set in place, it's hard to be changed.

***I wrote this some time back and got sidetracked. It's long (but thoughtful), late being posted, and it's my first post here. Hi, folks.***

Here's T's & Q's that come to mind.

Life alone can't be the deciding factor in abortion. If I pull out a hair from the root and flush it down the sink, have I murdered a possible clone?

Clones no good? Ok, what about all those discarded embryos in vitro fertilization? Is that murder?

Many who are pro-life are pro-choice in cases of rape, but the rape-er wasn't genetically evil, and even in theology there's free will. The zygote can develop into a more than decent human being - honorable and beloved by all. Does the mother have the right to murder out of her own emotional weakness?

Earlier, someone mentioned a living liver having rights even though it's not a person. Am I mistaken or is it that the liver doesn't have rights so much as the person to whom it belongs does to it. In cases where the originator dies, isn't the liver then the property of wherever donated organs get donated? Harm then isn't done to the originator (unless they made specific plans for after death) so much as to society - that, if the liver isn't properly used, may lose another person or research material.

Also, is a [relatively] useless living piece of adult human worth more than a whole lower life form? Does a person have more right to a living hair follicle than a chimpanzee? Golden-retriever? Frog? How about a fetus in the 9th month? An embryo on the 9th day?

I think we can all agree "personhood" is sacrosanct. "I think, therefore you can't touch this." But do 3-minute olds really think? Don't 3-minute until-borns think about as much as them? You can rule and die for your country at 18 but the President of the United States says a Bud Light is above you until 21? My first sip of beer was at age 6, I've drunk and been drunk, but I don't really drink and I'm a 26 year-old male American college student.

If everyone else in the world woke up tomorrow with IQs in the 4000s, do they have the right to euthanize you if they don't wanna deal with you in their society? There’s a study out that suggests males don’t fully mentally mature until age 22 (or something to that effect); should we raise the voting/enlisting age?

If you *could* know that if pregnant girl got an abortion they'd one day carve her face on Mount Rushmore (yeah, yeah, I know, there's no more room up there, but...), but if she didn't, both she and the child would have utterly miserable and short lives, at great negative financial and emotional cost to society around them, should she have the abortion? What if God said it was OK and *meant* it, no test?

I'm "pro-choice" and "pro-life". I think that once a human life form reaches the fetal stage and starts feeling for itself, it should have rights. People talk about "choice" and "freedom" but people are free to use birth control (pills, condoms, diaphragms, vasectomies, tied tubes) and have the choice of whether or not to have recreational intercourse or to deal with its consequences for months thereafter. Yes, a zygote could turn into a person but it isn't one *now*.

Souls...it's a question of faith…many who conjure them in these discussions do so because they're easy: "Zygotes have souls, so every thought and question I wrote above in this long and mind-numbing reply is moot. Abortion is wrong, judgment made, issue closed. Forever. Life is easy again, and MY side won, too."

It's a question of faith. I have faith that if there is a God, "He" wouldn't punish the aborted, and that he would be proud of his creations that they tried their best by using the heads and hearts he gifted them to help one another. By his grace and our enlightenment, Heaven would be crowded.

Though, I am an atheist, and even when I was a Christian, I never really believed in Hell. God would not be so cruel. I had faith in him.

***P.S. To the member aghast at the notion that MEN dare participate in this discussion, "it takes two to tango." Parents' rights to their children don't end once they're outside of the womb.

Say the embryo could be beamed out (a la Star Trek) and raised in a superior artificial womb, the father's got the love, time, and the money, and wants to raise it even if the mother's not interested. Permission for a painless, harmless, and instantaneous beam-out is all that's necessary. Should the mother have the right to say nuh'ah, "This thing's gonna die in me, and that's all there is to it"?

Men aren't just pigs any more than women are just whores. Let's all remember what a stereotype is.

And I did like your post, BTW.***

There will always be restrictions on the term of abortion (first trimester etc..) it doesn't matter what kind of restrictions.

human civilization existed for thousands of years without restrictions on first trimester abortions. could you explain why it would be impossible for a human civilization to exist without first trimester abortion restrictions? i can see why you would say it is extremely UNLIKELY that such a legal system would occur, but i don't see how you can possibly claim that there MUST be such restrictions, forever, in all human societies that shall come to pass.


The term 'strict' is used rather loosely for it's connotation. A doctor isn't going to break the law, which makes the term 'strict.'

um, not so much...some people would say that it is permissive to allow ANY first trimester abortion to occur, so (for them) there are plenty of countries with non-strict first trimester abortion laws. this is in direct conflict with your original claim that there will ALWAYS be strict laws about first trimester abortion.


It's all I'm saying. Once the law of the term is set in place, it's hard to be changed.hard, perhaps. impossible? not at all.

Although I was serious about capping that damn Easter Bunny! This year, you cotton-tailed devil! This year!!!
Too late. The Easter Bunny hung himself. Proof. (http://www.penny-arcade.com/view.php3?date=2000-09-27&res=l)

You just pulled your pants down in front the whole crowd and made a fool of yourself by making some outragous standard, as if I will listen to you.
He made a joke, and you didn't get it...

...in public. ;)

I disagree. A human life is a human life. But personally, I think we should respect the 10th Amendment and leave abortion laws to the individual states.

The supreme court has jurisdiction over all of the states, and they have the right to decide whether or not certain laws, even state laws, disagree with the US constitution. The US constitution supercedes all other constitutions or laws, and it is whatever the supreme court interprets it as. You may think this is scary, but it's there for a reason. So that there can be no tyranny of the majority. So I'll take the risks and keep it this way.

There are only two acceptable situations where abortion should be allowed:

1. The Life of the Mother is in danger, or

2. The Life of the Father might be inconvenienced.

;)

He made a joke, and you didn't get it...

...in public. ;)

yeah....wow I got a little too much sleep. nice joke, Drunk :) I stand corrected.

There are only two acceptable situations where abortion should be allowed:

1. The Life of the Mother is in danger, or

2. The Life of the Father might be inconvenienced.

;)
don't you think it's a bit insulting to blithely assert that half the population does not own their own bodies, and then end your post with a wink emote?

don't you think it's a bit insulting to blithely assert that half the population does not own their own bodies, and then end your post with a wink emote?

Sorry. I assumed that no one would actually take that post literally. To be doubly sure, I attached the emoticon you mentioned. As I am a noob here, please help me out. Which emoticon should I use when I make an incredibly sarcastic post which no one could possibly take seriously?

:)

Thanks in advance.

Sorry. I assumed that no one would actually take that post literally. To be doubly sure, I attached the emoticon you mentioned. As I am a noob here, please help me out. Which emoticon should I use when I make an incredibly sarcastic post which no one could possibly take seriously?

:)

Thanks in advance.
You could actually surround it with <sarcasm> and </sarcasm> tags and someone would still take it literally. That's the beauty of the Internet!

Check this out.

<completely farcical, facetious statement which is not true at all>
I like hitting squirrels with my car! ;) :) ;) :) ;) :)
</completely farcical, facetious statement which is not true at all>

Someone will have taken this seriously by midnight tomorrow.

You could actually surround it with <sarcasm> and </sarcasm> tags and someone would still take it literally. That's the beauty of the Internet!

Check this out.

<completely farcical, facetious statement which is not true at all>
I like hitting squirrels with my car! ;) :) ;) :) ;) :)
</completely farcical, facetious statement which is not true at all>

Someone will have taken this seriously by midnight tomorrow.

You squirrel killing bastard. :eek:

[snip] There is evidence that abortions, can cause a higher psychological trauma rate after the fact:

[snip]

Another by David C. Reardon, Ph.D of the Elliot Institute (non-Christian organization):

[snip]

This is a pro-life canard that has been thoroughly discredited.

You may complain about the source, but this article (http://www.plannedparenthood.org/pp2/portal/files/portal/medicalinfo/abortion/fact-010600-emoteff.xml) accurately summarizes the science. You should note that, although there are some women who suffer minor to severe psychological symptoms after abortion, the rates of psychological symptoms after abortion are lower than for childbirth.

This factsheet (http://www.apa.org/ppo/issues/womenabortfacts.html) from the American Psychological Association confirms this information.

As for David Reardon, he is a pro-life hack. David Reardon's only apparent vocation is running an anti-abortion propaganda mill out of Illinois (The Elliot Institute, www.afterabortion.org) since 1988, although he does have a Ph.D in Social Sciences. He is, contrary to what you indicated, a Christian and The Elliot Institute promotes Christian viewpoints. For example, Reardon has written articles criticizing feminism from a Christian viewpoint. Anyway, the first article I linked to and this article (http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/168/10/1257) both rebut Reardon's "studies."

Ok, this is it. I'm going to clear up the controversy once and for all. Listen up, because I might not be nice enough to post this again.

Human life is not defined by DNA. It's not defined by a "soul", which can't even be shown to exist. It's defined by brain function.

Because of that a fetus isn't a human being until it crosses the mental threshold of conscious thought and emotion. Until then it's just meat and can be disposed of. That is all.
So all life not human should be disposed of at will :p

(note after viewing peoples sence of humor in here ... I was being semi facieous)