Next "logical" step after abortion?
- Thread starter covermye
- Start date
Personally, mental retardness is in no way reason for (late) abortion.
In my original post i was talking about those rare, horrible, painful diseases (by birth or as a consequence of an accident, for example) that sometimes makes you wonder why the powers that be are so cruel on some people sometimes.
In my original post i was talking about those rare, horrible, painful diseases (by birth or as a consequence of an accident, for example) that sometimes makes you wonder why the powers that be are so cruel on some people sometimes.
zidane1strife
Banned
Actually depending on how things go, they may be even more ashamed...
Well, I'll say this, after implantation occurs I believe the embryo should be offered protection. The line's too blurry to say when or how consciousness arises to say "less than X weeks, it's ok to kill", and faster or slower development could occur, making things even more hazy. With no way to accurately tell or measure the rise of this phenomena, it is best to cut the line at the earliest possible moment, that is at the moment around implantation.
That way there is no argument that can be made to do something weeks or months later.
As for the cells question, AFAIK examples of consciousness have only been seen in the brain. If I lose an arm, a leg, skin, sneeze, etc. I don't fret too much. Even if you alter my cells into full-on toti potent ones, I wouldn't be worried about it, even if they could develop into whatever you like. But, the fact that some organisms, even ones with a full-blown brain are killed, does worry me.
That is true, it must not be devalued any more. We need a better system, one that can protect the rights of those that cannot defend themselves, reproduction must pass from being the responsibility of the individual to being the responsibility of society. Rights must be given, and rights must be taken, for the benefit of all. The right to reproduce must be controlled and taken from the individual.
This right is to be given to society which will in turn give rights to those that are to come into this world. Those who're to arrive will not be bound by the will of a few individuals, but by the laws that will govern us all.
Yes, other organisms have received very poor treatment. Even though we share many of the mechanisms that they do, and even though they have a brain... It's scary to think... that there is a possibility that even though their state of consciousness might not be as full as ours... that they might indeed be conscious, just with far less mental prowess...
The idea of a chimera has abhorred many. For it would blur the line between unhuman and human... but that line may have already been blurred with regards to many of our fellow organisms, by all that we share with them.... while it may scare us, deep down we have that gut feeling that other so called non-humans have a degree of consciousness... and if one day this is proven to be so... Indeed, our children will truly loath what we've done...
zidane1strife said:
Actually there's general agreement on a "test" for conscience. If the life form actually recognizes their reflection in the mirror as their own, they're acknowledge to possess self-awareness and conscience. So far only humans, chimpanzees, orang-utans ,etc. are known to have that ability.
If you wanna have some fun, put a cat in front of a mirror, but quickly, like cover the mirror then suddenly take the cover off! 
Hilarious!
ok back to topic
Hilarious!ok back to topic
zidane1strife
Banned
Interesting, I didn't know that.
Still, In some of my deeper states of mental relaxation, I might not be able to pass such a test. Was I then not conscious?
I know babies can't pass that test until a certain age.
There have also been times when, I'm sure I'd be unnable to tell that.
So, who exactly created this test? True, my definition of "consciousness" is a little different, I consider it not to be self-aware, but to "be". That is I may be mindlessly performing an action, and even though I may not be thinking, choosing, or the like, I'm still there... even if I were to be unnable to make any choice, thought or the like, I'd still be, even if unaware of being.
Don't go putting words into my mouth. I'm the one DEFENDING human life here. This is what I said, word for word:
I was clearly not refering to ALL MENTALLY CHALLENGED adults here, but just the ones that MAY NOT have a conscience. How do you define conscience? I really don't give a damn, because I understand that I don't have the capacity (nor do you... or anybody else, IMO) to "play God"... deciding who or what is "conscious" enough. Again, it goes back to the "sanctity of human life". I believe that human life is precious, and that right or wrong according to the law, we're taking a chance when we allow abortion to be used as a form of birth control.
You want me to PROVE that this bar is going to keep getting moved? Won't it be a little late by that point? It's human nature to want to justify one's opinion and actions, and on nearly ANY issue, you can see people justifying themselves by forming an opinion or making an argument JUST OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS of what is "acceptable", then saying: "If X is acceptable, why not X + .001?" It's done every day, and it sickens me that people don't have enough character to stand up for what's right. Not everything in life is defined by "grey area". There ARE actually some things that are wrong, no matter how hard some people try to justify them. Toying with human life's importance by deciding at what stage it's acceptable to terminate that life is not an issue I want to have blood on my hands about. As for me, I'll err on the side of caution and be responsible with where I insert my penis in the first place.
If I'm responsible with my penis and it results in a birth inside my marriage where the baby just isn't quite 100% healthy, guess what? I'll TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE BABY and raise him/her in a loving home, to the best of my ability, anyway. I understand that biology isn't a 100% perfect science and that things happen. I have children in my extended family with "issues" such as Down's Syndrome and M.S. Guess what? We, as an extended family, find a way to take care of our own. I know I come across as a freak in that I DARE challenge the rest of mankind to take responsibility for their own actions in this day and age, but it's pretty simple really, isn't it?
Vince said:
Then your science and logic is even more flawed than mine apparently is. That's like saying you can't see the difference between anything with cells, simply because they all have cells and therefore ARE THE EXACT SAME THING. It's about the whole, not the parts.
Firstly, it's pro-choice not pro-abortion. Pro-abortion makes it sound like abortion is always the first course of action to be taken, when it isn't - it's about being able to make a choice.
There's a distinction to be made between "alive" and being "human". This goes back to my previous point - You can say a lot of things are "alive", but that doesn't mean that they're alive in the same way you and me are alive. That's why abortion isn't murder, because you're not killing a person. You can throw around all the science you want, and you argue that the cells are technically alive - but that doesn't make those cells "human". It's a subtle difference, but it IS a difference. Pregnancy is a period of growth and change - going from one state (the cells we're talking about) to another (a fully formed baby). Why shouldn't we stop that process at an early stage?
As someone else mentionned, trying to make comparisons between pro-choice and Nazism is flawed, and dangerous, logic. Trying to commit genocide on a race of people is an entirely different ball game to abortion or the selective "termination" of human beings (post birth) who clearly won't have any quality of life ahead of them. No doubt you'll retort by suggesting that the Nazi's thought the same of the Jews, but there is a difference.
Absolutely, and i'm under no illusions about that. But i'm not sure what point you're trying to make. I started out when the ovum was fertilised, but I am *not* the same as I was at that fateful moment. I'm still made of cells, but once again - it's about the whole, and not the constituent parts. Over time, those cells have given me the consciousness that the very cells i'm talking about terminating do not have. Would they eventually have consciousness? Undoubtedly. But does that matter? Not in my eyes. I'm stopping something which has barely started; something which people carrying "abortion is MURDER!!!!!" signs fail to understand. How people can't see the difference is shocking and naive.
And ya know, I have no problem with the concept that my parents could have chosen to abort me. I respect the fact they had a choice. Am I ultimately glad they didn't abort me? For sure. But does that mean I should have a problem with others having that same choice?
covermye said:
You just got the pathetic answer you deserved. As it has been pointed out before you're trying to emotionalize everything that has been said so far. You compared women and men having to take a difficult decision to Nazi. You claimed those people want to kill mentally challenged children. So far you have shown ZERO intent of contributing to the discussion, all you want is to argue.
That's why I have decided this is my last post replying to you.
zidane1strife, I'll reply when I got enough time on my hands, sorry...
Funny. I've claimed no such thing, nor have I so much as MENTIONED the word Nazi. I asked what the difference was. Am I emotionalizing? Somewhat, but I've stayed very level-headed thorugh this argument considering the way it usually blows up. I think I've show a LOT of intent at contributing towards the discussion. Go ahead and ignore me if you want, but I'm afraid you've mixed some other posts up as being mine...
My argument remains the same: We're NOT SURE at what stage a life is really a life. It's all semantics. I chose to err on the side of caution, which only seems reasonable to me.
covermye said:
I am sorry, I mistook fbg1 post with yours. However, you deliberately replied in a very pathetic way and so did I. Agree?
It's your choice to do so. I am not endorsing abortion in any means as birth control. However, I feel that people should have choice. I am not going to pass judgement on anybody having to deal with such a decision.
P.S.: I'll pick up your argument when I have more than 5 minutes on my hand...
PaulS said:
Um, Ok. My science and logic is quite sound I assure you, as opposed to your ignorant holistic view of life which is absolutely horrid from a biological standpoint where "life" is often seen on both the singular level as well as massivly multicellular. I'll later answer your belief that the holistic "human" has "human" qualities which seperate them from "others". Organisms are built and functional on a low, cellular level. Perhaps this isn't apparent to you and you're bizzare, pseudo-18th century understanding of biology and consciousness, but it's true.
You, in all your perceived glory, you're nothing but a 'clump of cells' - the chosen phrase of the pro-abortion camp which still believes that they contain something as "humans" which is above that contained by other organisms and "constructs made of cells" - this just isn't true - on any level.
Cute, you're in favor of abortion, the killing of humans which you perceive to be the property of the mother. Maybe you can ask Natoma and other unfortunate people like his ancestors about how this works....
Now this is too much, seriously. It's like a bombardment of all the propaganda and pseudo-science I talked about rolled into one.
"Being Human..." where to begin. Well, what first comes to mind is when I sat in on an old friend/mentor of mine first lecture on fundamental neuropsychology and how he began his talk. It was note worthy as he started by blatantly telling the students that they need to forget every perception put into their heads about how being "human" is special, that there is no abstract consciousness or God-given seat of the soul which makes you hot shit. That you're nothing but an evolved primate, which can be traced back to reptilian ancestry and beyond. Being "Human" is analogous to being any other animal which has specific advanced sensory or cognitive abilities which were naturally selected. The point being that we all have common ancestry, that being human isn't special - that we've all evolved from the same few first replicators. That fundimantally, we are nothing but the same cells at a point in our development which is unique and never to be repeated or sustained.
Linguistically, being "Human" means you're "A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H. sapiens. [Dictionary.com]." So, explain to me how being "Human" is different from being "those first few cells which replicate to 'become' human in under 9 months"?
Oh, right, it's that quality of "being Human" - that 'Human-ness" we all contain. So, where is the "Human-ness contained? Where is it today?
Well, in your genes, as encoded information but of course! But the fetus distinctly contains genetic information classified as belonging to Homo Sapiens... So, obviously, this can't support your case. Hmm, where else is this "Human-ness" which isn't genetic but an intangible quality of being Human that's not intrinsic to the species....
Let me guess, it's in the same place as Plato's "essences" and Aristotle's "substances" - better known as the waste-bin of legacy concepts which contemporary science has since filled with such disproved theories. Let me fill you in, around the 16th century, there began to be a movement away from this view of the world toward the mentality which has evolved into what I'm saying. People like Rene Descartes, Kant, Hume and eventually Russell opened the door to logical statements based on observable facts which lead to people like the infamous Ramon y Cajal to begin talking about what evolutionary neural developments actually existed which separated us.
You see there IS no difference, we're just arguing based on a different level of understanding. You're content to live in blind ignorance and state that something is "red" because it has some intangible and arbitrary quality known as "redness" whereas I'll look at it and say it's red because thats how we as humans perceive electromagnetism of ~650nm wavelength.
Ah Yes! The huge difference there is between killing humans due to their perceived level of development - regardless of if their "insignificant" because their Jewish or just a "clump of Cells."
Shocking and Naive? Perhaps we just know a bit more than you. Shocking indeed.
Also, you're never "the same as you were at that fateful moment [t[/t]]" - so can I redefine you at t+1 and kill you?
Perhaps they should have. Or better yet, maybe they should spare the present "clump of cells" you are from the horrific knowledge and life that you could possibly assimilate tomorrow. Lets be kind and kill you tonight.... who knows what tomorrow will bring, other than you're not the same as you were today.
hupfinsgack said:
What? Where the hell did you get this? First of all, I've never heard of this in any serious intellectual circle or writing, and beyond that, what does consciosness have to do with what's fundimentally a function bound by sensory input?
So, blind people aren't conscious? Holds even less practicality than those who've stated that linguistic ability is a good lithmus.
The truth is that nobody has come close to understanding what is consciousness and it's doubtful they'll have a definitive answer by 2050 of what is a 'proper' lithmus for the concept of consciousness. Especially in todays world dominated by the quantum revolution and it's legacy in the form of digital computation, Moore's Law and AI, basing what is "conscious" on something which requires specific forms of sensory input is blatently unacceptable.
EDIT: Not to mention if this is so, then how many of our AI creations can be deemed "conscious" today, in 2004? Compared to the basic Turing Test alone, not to mention the objections that even this test aren't stringent enough or the more fundamental objections which have followed, this would seem like nothing.
london-boy said:If you wanna have some fun, put a cat in front of a mirror, but quickly, like cover the mirror then suddenly take the cover off!
ok back to topic
That's not funny. My 9 month old cat Sapphire left 3 very long and still slightly visible scars on my stomach and chest after i picked her up and took her to the mirror in the bathroom. She's the kind of cat that is literally afraid of her own shadow.
Don't go telling people to do that. It hurts.
Natoma said:london-boy said:If you wanna have some fun, put a cat in front of a mirror, but quickly, like cover the mirror then suddenly take the cover off!
ok back to topic
That's not funny. My 9 month old cat Sapphire left 3 very long and still slightly visible scars on my stomach and chest after i picked her up and took her to the mirror in the bathroom. She's the kind of cat that is literally afraid of her own shadow.
Don't go telling people to do that. It hurts.
Now it's even funnier!!!
Errrr back to topic...
THe_KELRaTH
Regular
I believe Mr Harris's statement is to deliberately shock knowing the killing of babies would never be allowed.
I would suggest that his statement is to be used as a argument, at a later date, in favour of gene selection / control. ie.. here's the alternative option that you didnt like before BUT...
I would suggest that his statement is to be used as a argument, at a later date, in favour of gene selection / control. ie.. here's the alternative option that you didnt like before BUT...