The Nightstar Zoo

Nightstar IRC Network - irc.nightstar.net
It is currently Tue Oct 17, 2017 8:16 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2004 5:37 pm 
Pi (as Kodiak Claw) wrote:
Kodiak Claw wrote:
The federal abortion laws are unconstitutional.
Sorry but thats how it breaks down. The constitution states that all powers not expressly given to the federal government are reserved by the states.

If you're going to invoke that particular clause, then 90% of the laws that the U.S. Congress passes are unconstitutional. Everybody in Washington D.C. (including the Supreme Court) agreed to collectively ignore the tenth amendment over 200 years ago.

However, that's a discussion for another forum

I think I owe Kodiak Claw an apology. He had written a couple paragraphs of text (two posts above), and I hit the 'edit post' button instead of the 'quote' button. So the text above is mine, and, except for the bit I quoted, his text is lost. I'm sorry. :(

:: kicks whatever phpbb web designer put the edit and quote buttons right next to eachother ::


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 23, 2004 7:07 pm 
Kerlyssa wrote:
Are you saying that US law is immoral, or that it is not based on morality?

Yes.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 6:28 am 
Pi wrote:
Pi (as Kodiak Claw) wrote:
Kodiak Claw wrote:
The federal abortion laws are unconstitutional.
Sorry but thats how it breaks down. The constitution states that all powers not expressly given to the federal government are reserved by the states.

If you're going to invoke that particular clause, then 90% of the laws that the U.S. Congress passes are unconstitutional. Everybody in Washington D.C. (including the Supreme Court) agreed to collectively ignore the tenth amendment over 200 years ago.

However, that's a discussion for another forum

I think I owe Kodiak Claw an apology. He had written a couple paragraphs of text (two posts above), and I hit the 'edit post' button instead of the 'quote' button. So the text above is mine, and, except for the bit I quoted, his text is lost. I'm sorry. :(

:: kicks whatever phpbb web designer put the edit and quote buttons right next to eachother ::


Sympathies.

I did the same thing the other day... except I quoted all of what gnolam had written and I was able to fix.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 8:45 am 
IMO, if the mother won`t survive the pregnancy I dont see a reason to keep the child alive. Also I understand woman who are raped, become pregnant and want to have an abortion (dont know how often it happens. I just say that i agree with them).

Also a growing zygote isn`t human for me. Just look at all the mammalian zygotes, they all look the same in the beginning. (trust me, we had this as a prectice in biology and well only 4 people of the 25 found the "real" human zygote) So that`s not a good definition.

In my tiny country the law says you can do abortion until the 3 month (IIRC). And that is a pretty good definition.

And on the religion part. Religion and real life are two very different things. A religion is something for a person. Most religions believe in conversion by leading as example. So trying to talk people into your religion isn`t the way.

Anyway I hope it all is a bit clear and understandable.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 12:15 pm 
Raif: The US government was formed on morality. Its members are elected or appointed according to the interests (moral and otherwise) of its constituents. Why do you think there are laws governing behavior in the first place?

What DO you think US law is based on? Why DO you think there is an abortion debate at all?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 1:05 pm 
In my ignorant eyes, the US law is based on "christian" morality and dated as well (but that are most laws these days). And the current discion there because someone wants to ban it, IIRC.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 2:02 pm 
Offline
Knight of Daisies, Tulip Slayer
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 3:03 am
Posts: 1621
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Agreed. US law is based largely upon the Judeochristian value system, which doesn't work for many people not of a Judeochristian faith.

Also, US law is based on power and control. The lawmakers have power, want to keep power, and make laws so they can retain power.

It's mainly the Christians who want to ban abortions. Fundamentalist Christians. They seem to think that the zygote is worth exactly the same as a grown human, from the very instant the egg is fertilized. They don't make any exceptions for rape or incest or failed birth control. Some of them are grudgingly accepting of abortions when the mother's life is in clear danger. Otherwise, their attitude is "She made her choice when she opened her legs."

This stunt they have of showing graphic pictures of abortions to try and gross people out... That's a cheap and dirty trick. Surgeries are pretty gross, no matter what kind. Maybe they should show graphic pictures of open heart surgery to turn people off to the idea of bypasses and artificial heart valves. Maybe they should show graphic pictures of a piece of someone's intestine being removed, in the hopes of getting people to vilify cancer surgeries. It's all the same. Abortions are no more or less gross than any other surgical procedure.

I have two main reasons, personally, for supporting the woman's right to have an abortion.

First of all, I'm very much pro-freedom. If it's not harming another person, you should be free to do it. I believe that YOU are the sole owner of your body, and that YOU should have the freedom to do to your possessions whatever you wish. And since your body is your property, then you should have the freedom to do to IT what you wish. As far as I'm concerned, until the baby is separated from the mother by birth (or Cesarian section), that fetus is an organ of the woman's body. And while I personally don't think that abortion is the RIGHT choice in most cases, I think that everyone needs to have the freedom to make the WRONG choice. Who knows, maybe what I see as the wrong choice is actually the right choice for that person? I'm not them, I can't decide for them.

This is exactly the same reason I do not support the War On Drugs. It's just prohibition with a new name, and we saw how well that worked. If we REALLY want to keep our kids off drugs, then we need to start running actual educational PSA's, not these stupid beating-egg-with-skillet things that EVERYONE thinks is an absolute joke. Run some scientific information about the effect of various drugs on a body. And legalize the drugs. Let the people make their own choices.

Choice, freedom, responsibility, consequences. That is what I believe in. You should be free to make your own choice, to choose your own actions, as long as it doesn't interfere with another person's freedom to choose their own actions. And with actions, come consequences, and responsibility. We should all take responsibility for our own actions, and face up to the consequences of those actions. Is this a pipe dream? I don't think so. The problem with our current society is that choice has been removed, consequences have been removed, responsibility has been removed. You're in the hands of Momma State now. Don't worry, Momma's gonna make everything alright.

_________________
Fandemonium 2010 -- No Boundaries.
http://www.fandemonium.org
Friday - Sunday, August 6th - 8th, 2010
Nampa Civic Center - Nampa, Idaho (Only 20 minutes from the airport!)
(Idaho: It ain't just potatoes anymore.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 2:40 pm 
...except when you consider a fetus to be a person. In which case it is murder, not just a personal choice. Rape and failed birth control are irrelevant in that case.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 9:13 pm 
Offline
Janitor
Janitor
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:15 pm
Posts: 2388
Location: In the middle of the Pacific Ocean, somewhere.
Kerlyssa wrote:
...except when you consider a fetus to be a person. In which case it is murder, not just a personal choice. Rape and failed birth control are irrelevant in that case.


And around we go...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Nov 24, 2004 11:29 pm 
Offline
Knight of Daisies, Tulip Slayer
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 3:03 am
Posts: 1621
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Well as soon as one of the lawmaker types comes up with a clear definition of when the fetus becomes a human, with all rights and privileges thereof, then the argument will continue.

Just let them come up with a definitive answer on when the fetus is a full human being. I'll abide by that decision.

If they define it as being as soon as the egg is fertilized, then I'll grumble about it... But I'll abide by it.

_________________
Fandemonium 2010 -- No Boundaries.
http://www.fandemonium.org
Friday - Sunday, August 6th - 8th, 2010
Nampa Civic Center - Nampa, Idaho (Only 20 minutes from the airport!)
(Idaho: It ain't just potatoes anymore.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2004 2:18 pm 
Ishidan wrote:
Kerlyssa wrote:
...except when you consider a fetus to be a person. In which case it is murder, not just a personal choice. Rape and failed birth control are irrelevant in that case.


And around we go...


Indeed, I wonder where we will end...

Anyways to me. IMO, you ain`t human until you are 3 months old. Before that, you are nothing more then a parasite afterwards it ain`t chnaged a lot but still. There was something about that 3 month, but too lazy to google at the moment.

And personal choice? Well can the fetus understand what is happening? I think not. Life is about choice, not having one is touching a cornerstone of life itself.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Thu Nov 25, 2004 10:50 pm 
I'm a pro-lifer. But most of my reasons (REASONS, not arguments for, which is different) are based on personal beliefs, and things that cannot yet be proven one way or another.

So until I can find arguments that are worth putting in, I think I'll stay out of this. I just wanted to address some side-issues that came up here...

Ogredude wrote:
What interests me is that the majority of people against abortion are Christians, and they play the "soul card" fast and heavy... Saying that you're endangering the child's immortal soul, that you're preventing the child from having a chance in this world, etc etc etc...

And yet, by their VERY BELIEFS, all babies that die are AUTOMATICALLY sent to Heaven to sit by God's side and yak it up with Jesus the Christ himself.


I can't speak for the others, but as Catholics are among the most vocally anti-abortion, I hafta say this one argument, when used against them, doesn't fly. We don't believe babies that die go to heaven. We believe they get sent to Limbo, which is not the same.

Note that I'm NOT saying the "soul card" is a valid argument in a proper debate about abortion. The existence of a soul has yet to be conclusively proven. I believe in it, but I recognize that people who DON'T aren't being irrational.

I also want to note that the argument "They can't be against abortion, when in-vitro is okay!" is similarly invalid, at least it SHOULD be, because IV is in fact against the teachings of the Catholic Church.

But if you were speaking of another faith, then all I've said may not apply. :P


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Nov 26, 2004 12:14 am 
Offline
Knight of Daisies, Tulip Slayer
User avatar

Joined: Sat May 11, 2002 3:03 am
Posts: 1621
Location: Sector ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha
Okay, so the soul card played by a Catholic is reasonable, within the context of their beliefs...

I still refuse to accept it played by any Protestant Christian.

As for myself, I believe in reincarnation. So an aborted baby will just get reincarnated somewhere else.

If you want to get down and dirty with the metaphysics of my beliefs, I believe that we are reincarnated until we learn a certain amount, who knows what that amount is, maybe it's just "a lot", maybe it's everything there is to know about everything... Anyway, once we've learned enough, we escape the cycle of reincarnations and go somewhere else, who knows where... My belief is that we're reabsorbed into the Godhead, as it were...

The point of this is, maybe the abortion has a purpose, in teaching the parents what it's like to go through something like that, and teaching the parents' family what it's like to have family go through it, and teaching the parents' friends what it's like to have friends go through it, and so on...

Course, I could be just blowing smoke. Who's to say what religion, if any, is The Correct Answer? Nobody, that's who. So we have beliefs that make us feel better.

_________________
Fandemonium 2010 -- No Boundaries.
http://www.fandemonium.org
Friday - Sunday, August 6th - 8th, 2010
Nampa Civic Center - Nampa, Idaho (Only 20 minutes from the airport!)
(Idaho: It ain't just potatoes anymore.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2004 7:07 pm 
Darth Shrike wrote:
In my ignorant eyes, the US law is based on "christian" morality and dated as well (but that are most laws these days). And the current discion there because someone wants to ban it, IIRC.

Indeed, and let's not forget that many (if not most) modern laws are based quite firmly in getting and keeping power and wealth, having nothing to do with morality at all, christian or otherwise.

Ker: You shouldn't equate law with morality. The two are more often in opposition than agreement.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Mon Nov 29, 2004 7:12 pm 
WingsOver wrote:
I can't speak for the others, but as Catholics are among the most vocally anti-abortion, I hafta say this one argument, when used against them, doesn't fly. We don't believe babies that die go to heaven. We believe they get sent to Limbo, which is not the same.

As I recall, the current pope did away with limbo about 4 or 5 years ago.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 3:05 am 
Offline
Vorpal Bunny Slipper
Vorpal Bunny Slipper

Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:54 am
Posts: 2707
Raif wrote:
As I recall, the current pope did away with limbo about 4 or 5 years ago.


So no more Jamaican dance parties at the Vatican? :(

_________________
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, grab es tief unten im Keller ein.
Später dann graben es andere aus, und nennen dein Haus das Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, leg auch ihre weißen Schädel hinein.
Mit Beton gießt du es aus, das Fundament vom Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, da ist noch Platz, da paßt noch wer rein.
Hier tobte sich der Teufel aus, unten im Keller im Knochenhaus.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 3:13 am 
Offline
Janitor
Janitor
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:15 pm
Posts: 2388
Location: In the middle of the Pacific Ocean, somewhere.
jeremiahsmith wrote:
Raif wrote:
As I recall, the current pope did away with limbo about 4 or 5 years ago.


So no more Jamaican dance parties at the Vatican? :(


Hey, he can't bend backwards like he used to, you know.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 10:33 am 
Raif wrote:
Ker: You shouldn't equate law with morality. The two are more often in opposition than agreement.


Simply because the law doesn't jibe with your morality doesn't mean it isn't based on morality. Even if you consider the law only to be a way for people in power to stay in power, people in power have a very real interest in satisfying the demands of the people, be they material or moral.

...and this is completely another topic from whether abortion is moral or not. *shrug*


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 11:40 am 
jeremiahsmith wrote:
Raif wrote:
As I recall, the current pope did away with limbo about 4 or 5 years ago.


So no more Jamaican dance parties at the Vatican? :(


:rofl:
You two shouldn't be allowed to communicate with each other.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 1:06 pm 
Kerlyssa wrote:
Raif wrote:
Ker: You shouldn't equate law with morality. The two are more often in opposition than agreement.


Simply because the law doesn't jibe with your morality doesn't mean it isn't based on morality. Even if you consider the law only to be a way for people in power to stay in power, people in power have a very real interest in satisfying the demands of the people, be they material or moral.

...and this is completely another topic from whether abortion is moral or not. *shrug*


Should it jibe with morality?

And this tread is almost Hijacked.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 6:23 pm 
Darth Shrike wrote:
Kerlyssa wrote:
Raif wrote:
Ker: You shouldn't equate law with morality. The two are more often in opposition than agreement.


Simply because the law doesn't jibe with your morality doesn't mean it isn't based on morality. Even if you consider the law only to be a way for people in power to stay in power, people in power have a very real interest in satisfying the demands of the people, be they material or moral.

...and this is completely another topic from whether abortion is moral or not. *shrug*


Should it jibe with morality?

And this tread is almost Hijacked.


Almost? I think you've tipped the balance, Shrike. ;)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Nov 30, 2004 9:13 pm 
Kerlyssa wrote:
people in power have a very real interest in satisfying the demands of the people, be they material or moral.

Not greatly, no. It's a wonderful system in theory. It just doesn't work that way in practice.

Quote:
...and this is completely another topic from whether abortion is moral or not. *shrug*

The abortion topic has been beaten to death... this is a more fundamental subject in the same vein. :) It's reasonable to assume one's views on the law would change substantially based on whether one thought the law was a moral thing.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Dec 01, 2004 4:26 am 
Kerlyssa wrote:
Darth Shrike wrote:
Kerlyssa wrote:
Raif wrote:
Ker: You shouldn't equate law with morality. The two are more often in opposition than agreement.


Simply because the law doesn't jibe with your morality doesn't mean it isn't based on morality. Even if you consider the law only to be a way for people in power to stay in power, people in power have a very real interest in satisfying the demands of the people, be they material or moral.

...and this is completely another topic from whether abortion is moral or not. *shrug*


Should it jibe with morality?

And this tread is almost Hijacked.


Almost? I think you've tipped the balance, Shrike. ;)


I seem to have that effect.

*shrugs*


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 9:59 pm 
Wow. Last post was in December. This really isn't a heavily-trafficked forum, is it?

Let's get this out of the way:
I'm Catholic. (Keep reading.)
I don't believe that the Earth was created in six days.
I do believe in the theory of evolution.
I do believe in a God, though I believe that if it does, in fact, intelligently alter the workings of the Universe, it does not bother to do so on such a femtoscopic level as is occupied by human affairs.
I believe that if an afterlife exists, it is probably closer to Nirvana than the Heaven and Hell of St. John's Revelation.
I do NOT believe that God punishes people for not strictly adhering to the rules of one particular religion -- or, for that matter, of any religion.
My morality is largely based on my belief in the preservation and betterment of human life. I am against killing people under any circumstances -- that includes death row inmates.

I believe that a fetus is a living human being. Granted, I have little evidence to support this belief, other than the fact that they eventually grow into feeling, breathing, thinking individuals. And it's quite probable that these attributes can't be ascribed to a zygote. The question, as has already been stated, is "when does the mass of fetal tissue become said thinking individual?" Despite our advanced imaging technology and vast knowledge base on thought and sapience, and though I champion rathional thought and empiricism, I don't believe that any amount of anatomical or behavioral evidence can definitively determine when an embryo becomes a person. And as I'm one to err on the side of caution, I'd like the bright line to be drawn at conception rather than at birth.

Furthermore, I'm all for personal freedom. A woman's body is hers to do with whatever she chooses. Though self-destructive behavior is tragic and a personally sensitive topic for me, an individual is ultimately responsible for his or her own life, it is fully within a woman's rights to do what she wishes to herself, as long as she does not harm anyone else in the process. However, a fetus is not simply an organ in a woman's body. Even as a zygote, it is comprised of genetically foreign tissue and requires a complex hormonal balance in the uterus to prevent the mother's immune system. If there is an improper hormonal balance, the fetus is spontaneously naturally aborted. This would suggest that a fetus is a foreign organism dependent on the mother for nutrition (as was so cynically stated earlier, a parasite), which, given the proper prenatal environment, will develop into a fully-formed human child. Hence I believe that a mother is responsible not only for her own life, but for the life that depends on her, and has no more right to end it than she does to dash an infant's brains out.

Of course, people commit surprising violations of their moral codes in the face of emotional trauma. If a loved one of mine were threatened by a pregnancy, it's possible that I would support an abortion to save her life. Conversely, I know a pro-choice couple who had a funeral for their miscarried (early 2nd-trimester) child. People sometimes find that their worldview shifts in such a way that they make exceptions to their morality.

I have come to these conclusions largely by my own thought processes. They were influenced by my upbringing and the morals and teachings instilled by my family, and, to a lesser extent, society and my religion. However, due to my animosity toward hypocrisy and self-serving exceptions to a rule, over the years I have rejected many of the moral tenets of these systems, broken down others through deductive reasoning, and have built my own system of morality based on what I have perceived as the underlying immutable principles. Of course, because I try to logically justify my principles I am still conflicted about many (perhaps most) of them, and as I am still young they are likely to change with my maturing worldview. However, even though I have caught flak from other members of my community, political party and religion, my morals and views will not change as a result of the imposition of someone else’s will on me.

Such is the impasse of this debate.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 7:50 am 
Offline
Vorpal Bunny Slipper
Vorpal Bunny Slipper

Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 2:54 am
Posts: 2707
Anonymous wrote:
The question, as has already been stated, is "when does the mass of fetal tissue become said thinking individual?" Despite our advanced imaging technology and vast knowledge base on thought and sapience, and though I champion rathional thought and empiricism, I don't believe that any amount of anatomical or behavioral evidence can definitively determine when an embryo becomes a person.


Er, how about when we can detect organized brain activity? Or at least when there's an actual brain? Would that work? I am a bit curious as to how there can be a thinking individual when there isn't even any organ to think with.

_________________
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, grab es tief unten im Keller ein.
Später dann graben es andere aus, und nennen dein Haus das Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, leg auch ihre weißen Schädel hinein.
Mit Beton gießt du es aus, das Fundament vom Knochenhaus.
Scharr, scharr, verscharr das Gebein, da ist noch Platz, da paßt noch wer rein.
Hier tobte sich der Teufel aus, unten im Keller im Knochenhaus.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 11:52 am 
Jeremiah Smith wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
The question, as has already been stated, is "when does the mass of fetal tissue become said thinking individual?" Despite our advanced imaging technology and vast knowledge base on thought and sapience, and though I champion rathional thought and empiricism, I don't believe that any amount of anatomical or behavioral evidence can definitively determine when an embryo becomes a person.


Er, how about when we can detect organized brain activity? Or at least when there's an actual brain? Would that work? I am a bit curious as to how there can be a thinking individual when there isn't even any organ to think with.


I understand trying to "err on the side of caution", but I don't think it uncautious to assume that, before the brain is active, there is no mind - and thus, no person.
It's been demonstrated beyond reasonnable doubt that our mind stems from our brain (as evidenced by the effects of drugs and cerebral injuries, not to mention certain enuroligcal experiments). Murder is wrong in that it destroys a person - i.e., a mind. Thus, I believe that eliminating a fetus before it has developped a brain is no more immoral than killing a plant - both are alive, but neither has a mind.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 2:11 pm 
Jeremiah Smith wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
The question, as has already been stated, is "when does the mass of fetal tissue become said thinking individual?" Despite our advanced imaging technology and vast knowledge base on thought and sapience, and though I champion rathional thought and empiricism, I don't believe that any amount of anatomical or behavioral evidence can definitively determine when an embryo becomes a person.


Er, how about when we can detect organized brain activity? Or at least when there's an actual brain? Would that work? I am a bit curious as to how there can be a thinking individual when there isn't even any organ to think with.


When does simple synaptic activity become organized brain activity? Cultured neurons excised from lab animals show patterns in their interactions with one another, but I don't think anyone here would argue that that constitutes signs of a mind. I am concerned with the possibility that we may be unable to recognize fetal thought patterns as such. Even infant thought patterns are drastically different from those of adults, and those of fetuses are, at the very least, less sophisticated. Does all organized brain activity constitute thought? If not, where do we draw the line for what we consider intelligence? Should a fetus exhibit thought on par with a rat? A dog? A postnatal infant?

The brain continues to develop radically even after birth. Infants do not have anywhere near the same capacity for thought as do older humans. They can't use language, they have little control over their bodies. In fact, at birth they do almost nothing but respond to stimuli. They do, however, have a great deal of neurological plasticity and the capacity to develop sophisticated intelligence. Not to seem a demagogue, but would someone care to clearly delineate the difference between abortion and killing a postnatal infant? How is either different from killing an animal?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 2:27 pm 
theguy23 wrote:
Jeremiah Smith wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
The question, as has already been stated, is "when does the mass of fetal tissue become said thinking individual?" Despite our advanced imaging technology and vast knowledge base on thought and sapience, and though I champion rathional thought and empiricism, I don't believe that any amount of anatomical or behavioral evidence can definitively determine when an embryo becomes a person.


Er, how about when we can detect organized brain activity? Or at least when there's an actual brain? Would that work? I am a bit curious as to how there can be a thinking individual when there isn't even any organ to think with.


When does simple synaptic activity become organized brain activity? Cultured neurons excised from lab animals show patterns in their interactions with one another, but I don't think anyone here would argue that that constitutes signs of a mind. I am concerned with the possibility that we may be unable to recognize fetal thought patterns as such. Even infant thought patterns are drastically different from those of adults, and those of fetuses are, at the very least, less sophisticated. Does all organized brain activity constitute thought? If not, where do we draw the line for what we consider intelligence? Should a fetus exhibit thought on par with a rat? A dog? A postnatal infant?

The brain continues to develop radically even after birth. Infants do not have anywhere near the same capacity for thought as do older humans. They can't use language, they have little control over their bodies. In fact, at birth they do almost nothing but respond to stimuli. They do, however, have a great deal of neurological plasticity and the capacity to develop sophisticated intelligence. Not to seem a demagogue, but would someone care to clearly delineate the difference between abortion and killing a postnatal infant? How is either different from killing an animal?


There isn't some clear line. It gradually turns from the one into the other.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 6:13 pm 
sun tzu wrote:
theguy23 wrote:
Jeremiah Smith wrote:
Anonymous wrote:
The question, as has already been stated, is "when does the mass of fetal tissue become said thinking individual?" Despite our advanced imaging technology and vast knowledge base on thought and sapience, and though I champion rathional thought and empiricism, I don't believe that any amount of anatomical or behavioral evidence can definitively determine when an embryo becomes a person.


Er, how about when we can detect organized brain activity? Or at least when there's an actual brain? Would that work? I am a bit curious as to how there can be a thinking individual when there isn't even any organ to think with.


When does simple synaptic activity become organized brain activity? Cultured neurons excised from lab animals show patterns in their interactions with one another, but I don't think anyone here would argue that that constitutes signs of a mind. I am concerned with the possibility that we may be unable to recognize fetal thought patterns as such. Even infant thought patterns are drastically different from those of adults, and those of fetuses are, at the very least, less sophisticated. Does all organized brain activity constitute thought? If not, where do we draw the line for what we consider intelligence? Should a fetus exhibit thought on par with a rat? A dog? A postnatal infant?

The brain continues to develop radically even after birth. Infants do not have anywhere near the same capacity for thought as do older humans. They can't use language, they have little control over their bodies. In fact, at birth they do almost nothing but respond to stimuli. They do, however, have a great deal of neurological plasticity and the capacity to develop sophisticated intelligence. Not to seem a demagogue, but would someone care to clearly delineate the difference between abortion and killing a postnatal infant? How is either different from killing an animal?


There isn't some clear line. It gradually turns from the one into the other.


If you're in support of abortion, then you need to draw that clear line. There can't be any ambiguity about whether or not you're killing a human being.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 11:55 pm 
What about partial birth abortion? That falls into two categories: the baby's brain is as developed as it will be when the baby begins breathing, but it is still attached to its mother via the umbilical cord.

And, as an aside, what is the point of partial birth abortions? If I'm not mistaken, the entire point of abortion is to stop pregnancy at an early stage. If you've made it through nine months of vomiting and carrying around an added, uncomfortable weight, why end it there?


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 62 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group