Some things to chew on, and get off my chest

[Natoma]

Obviously not because once a baby is born it's automatically deemed "human" and "alive," thus it is immediately self aware.

Huh? By what biological magic does exiting the womb suddenly flip the "self-aware" switch?

See Roe v Wade.

 

[Natoma]

Obviously not because once a baby is born it's automatically deemed "human" and "alive," thus it is immediately self aware.

Natoma, this is embarrasing. How about this: we'll stop the argument and you spend a day doing some research into a fetus's neural development and/or classical conditioning trials.

As I told Joe, see Roe v Wade.

I don't deem it that way at all however. In fact I personally wish we could outlaw abortion in the third trimester due to the fact that babies are known to be developmentally complete in the third trimester, and can even survive outside the womb with our current level of technology. AFAIK, this is actually rounding the way in the congress. I supported the ban on partial birth abortion as well.

You want to deal with legalities and semantics and whatever, go straight to Roe v Wade. If you want to deal with my personal feelings on the matter, see the paragraph above.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Mercy-Killing for what purpose? Because they aren't deemed "alive" anymore. Why? Because they are in a vegetative state.

No, mercy killing because there's no chance at resuming anything resembling a quality life, or because there's immense pain and suffering involved, with no hope of improvement.

the last time I checked, if the patient him/her self expressed the desires to be "kept alive" (living will, or what-have-you), there isn't much question as to whether there should be a mercy killing. Is there? the issues arise when the patient expresses his WILL to be mercy killed, or in some cases when the will is unknown, and the legal "voice" of the patient is made by a third party.

So I'll make you a deal...when you can prove that the baby wants to be terminated, we'll consider them. Agree?

Now...about that "self-awareness" switch...

 

[Joe DeFuria]

Obviously not because once a baby is born it's automatically deemed "human" and "alive," thus it is immediately self aware.

Huh? By what biological magic does exiting the womb suddenly flip the "self-aware" switch?

See Roe v Wade.

Don't see anything....

 

[Vince]

Yes, you have. And what did I say in each of those cases? I don't disagree in the slightest, but I'm not the one that has the power to overturn Roe v Wade do I?

No, but you have the power to form a non political opinion, the power to hold consistent views, and the power to make a good decision.

Mercy-Killing for what purpose? Because they aren't deemed "alive" anymore. Why? Because they are in a vegetative state. It's completely related. We allow one, and don't allow the other. There are some serious issues that need to be fleshed out in order to understand this better.

A 'vegetative state" (God I hate that) doesn't mean they're not human, we all agree they're human. Yet, if someone wished to die and thats what they genuinly want, who am I to stop them. Good for them. Darwin would be proud.

It feels about as good as being an american who wears clothes made by 10 year olds working 20 hours a day making less than a penny a day. We can take this as far as you want to go.

Fine, then never again raise this "You'd think we would have learned" bullshit one liner against Joe, or I, or anyone else. Because, you clearly don't give a shit and are nothing more than an oppertunist hypocrite.

Your political beliefs and 'word-on-the-street' mentality to knowledge are blinding, it's like I'm arguing against John again.

 

[Natoma]

Mercy-Killing for what purpose? Because they aren't deemed "alive" anymore. Why? Because they are in a vegetative state.

No, mercy killing because there's no chance at resuming anything resembling a quality life, or because there's immense pain and suffering involved, with no hope of improvement.

the last time I checked, if the patient him/her self expressed the desires to be "kept alive" (living will, or what-have-you), there isn't much question as to whether there should be a mercy killing. Is there? the issues arise when the patient expresses his WILL to be mercy killed, or in some cases when the will is unknown, and the legal "voice" of the patient is made by a third party.

So I'll make you a deal...when you can prove that the baby doesn't want to be terminated, we'll let them go forward. Agree?

Now...about that "self-awareness" switch...

That's not what we were discussing Joe. We were discussing vegetative states, not people who personally asked to die.

And even then, we still have a problem. Remember Dr. Kevorkian?

 

[John Reynolds]

It feels about as good as being an american who wears clothes made by 10 year olds working 20 hours a day making less than a penny a day. We can take this as far as you want to go.

But, remember, the Wal-Mart CEO said that his definition of a child is different than yours (statement purportedly made while shown a pic of a child chained to a table in a Asian textile 'plant').

 

[Natoma]

Yes, you have. And what did I say in each of those cases? I don't disagree in the slightest, but I'm not the one that has the power to overturn Roe v Wade do I?

No, but you have the power to form a non political opinion, the power to hold consistent views, and the power to make a good decision.

I formed a non political opinion on abortion, I have consisten views, and I don't recall ever having to make any decision in this regard.

Mercy-Killing for what purpose? Because they aren't deemed "alive" anymore. Why? Because they are in a vegetative state. It's completely related. We allow one, and don't allow the other. There are some serious issues that need to be fleshed out in order to understand this better.

A 'vegetative state" (God I hate that) doesn't mean they're not human, we all agree they're human. Yet, if someone wished to die and thats what they genuinly want, who am I to stop them. Good for them. Darwin would be proud.

See Dr. Kevorkian wrt wishing to die.

As for 'vegetative state,' again, there are states that allow mercy killings in this state because they are no longer conscious and are deemed to never be able to regain consciousness again.

It feels about as good as being an american who wears clothes made by 10 year olds working 20 hours a day making less than a penny a day. We can take this as far as you want to go.

Fine, then never again raise this "You'd think we would have learned" bullshit one liner against Joe, or I, or anyone else. Because, you clearly don't give a shit and are nothing more than an oppertunist hypocrite.

Your political beliefs and 'word-on-the-street' mentality to knowledge are blinding, it's like I'm arguing against John again.

Uhm, no. 19th century slavery has nothing to do with marital rights today, or abortion. However, 20th century anti-miscegenation laws most certainly do have something to do with gay marital rights today. I brought up that example as a clear showing that you can come up with any example you wish, but that doesn't mean it's historically relevant or accurate.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

That's not what we were discussing Joe. We were discussing vegetative states, not people who personally asked to die.

Um, that's what I'm talking about. Someone who's in vegetative state, but has left a "living will" stating his "wishes" should he come into a vegetagive state.

If the person says "I want to be kept alive", is there ever any real question about terminating is life?

It's when the person says "pull the plug on me", or when someone OTHER than the patient claims to know the "wishes" of the patient that the debate ensues. Does the state allow it or not?

And even then, we still have a problem. Remember Dr. Kevorkian?

Thanks for proving my point.

Even when people WANT to die, the public frowns on it. Why not the same for the unborn when we can hardly ascertain their personal wishes?

 

[Vince]

Now...about that "self-awareness" switch...

Yeah, Natoma, care to explain. A few people here are curious too as to your answer after being drawn in by my oral vulgarity.

Infact, the good Doc of evolutionary biology pulled a presentation from Berkeley detailing the embryo's neural development which would see to say you're clueless.

It would seem that within 3 week there is neural growth along what is the ectoderm which forms a 'plate'. What's interesting is that the development is tied intrinsically to the zygote, which basically supports my DNA argument. As if there was any doubt

 

[Natoma]

As I said earlier Joe, if you would read completely without scanning and snipping, some states do allow the "pulling of the plug" on vegetative patients if they request it in wills, or if a 3rd party requests it. The most famous case atm is of course in Florida, which ruled in the favor of the parents who wished to keep their daughter alive, against the express wishes of the husband. However, that has not been the case everywhere.

 

[Vince]

I formed a non political opinion on abortion, I have consisten views, and I don't recall ever having to make any decision in this regard.

Right, so it's OK to deny the rights of, say, a fetus to life - but it's immoral to deny the rights of a Jew, Black, Asian, et al? Even though they're all fundimantally human, created with the same information constructs and all classified as alive by Biology.

Natoma, this is insanity.

Uhm, no. 19th century slavery has nothing to do with marital rights today, or abortion. However, 20th century anti-miscegenation laws most certainly do have something to do with gay marital rights today. I brought up that example as a clear showing that you can come up with any example you wish, but that doesn't mean it's historically relevant or accurate.

What bullshit, way to backpeddle. HINT: It's all about intrinsic human rights guaranteed by a nation-state.

 

[Natoma]

Vince,

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=234705#234705 wrt my views on abortion, if you actually care.

 

[Natoma]

I formed a non political opinion on abortion, I have consisten views, and I don't recall ever having to make any decision in this regard.

Right, so it's OK to deny the rights of, say, a fetus to life - but it's immoral to deny the rights of a Jew, Black, Asian, et al? Even though they're all fundimantally human, created with the same information constructs and all classified as alive by Biology.

Natoma, this is insanity.

A newly fertilized egg is also fundamentally human, but I don't think you'd find a lot of people bemoaning the use of a morning after pill as akin to pulling a gun to someone's head and shooting them. I doubt you'd find anyone making that kind of allusion.

Uhm, no. 19th century slavery has nothing to do with marital rights today, or abortion. However, 20th century anti-miscegenation laws most certainly do have something to do with gay marital rights today. I brought up that example as a clear showing that you can come up with any example you wish, but that doesn't mean it's historically relevant or accurate.

What bullshit, way to backpeddle. HINT: It's all about intrinsic human rights guaranteed by a nation-state.

Backpeddle? Please show me where I did that.

 

[Joe DeFuria]

As I said earlier Joe, if you would read completely without scanning and snipping, some states do allow the "pulling of the plug" on vegetative patients if they request it in wills, or if a 3rd party requests it.

Hello?

Where did I say anything different?

I said when someone WANTS to "pull the plug", there is DEBATE.

When it can be ascertained that the patient himself DOESN'T want to pull the plug, there is no debate.

So when you can tell the that the unborn WANTS to be killed, then we could actually discuss if it should even be allowed or not. But somehow, the fact that the babay can't speak for himself, gives him no say...

 

[Vince]

Natoma, I saw that. It's inconsistent, it's hollow. I'm not talking about Roe vs. Wade, I'm talking about your inconsistencies. It's time to stand up and explain them. And from the sound of it (thanks Joe), you don't have much empirical knowledge to stand on.

 

[Vince]

A newly fertilized egg is also fundamentally human, but I don't think you'd find a lot of people bemoaning the use of a morning after pill as akin to pulling a gun to someone's head and shooting them. I doubt you'd find anyone making that kind of allusion.

(a) You never asked me (b) You're clearly not intune with the objections to the Yuzpe regimen or other ECPs.

Also, many IUD's are more akin to condoms or such preventative steps in that they prevent fertilization from taking place at all. The copper in copper-T IUDs for example can prevent the sperm from fertilizing the egg. The list goes on.

 

[Natoma]

When it can be ascertained that the patient himself DOESN'T want to pull the plug, there is no debate.

So when you can tell the that the unborn WANTS to be killed, then we could actually discuss if it should even be allowed or not. But somehow, the fact that the babay can't speak for himself, gives him no say...

Can't speak, can't think, can't emote, etc etc etc. That's the point of a living will, to take care of that issue. If you can't speak for yourself, and you haven't left any form of writing about what to do should something happen, then it goes to debate of course. This has absolutely nothing to do with what happens with a baby because there was never any chance of that. You're making an assumption based on your own belief of when life begins, no definitive hardcore fact. You and Vince both.

Natoma, I saw that. It's inconsistent, it's hollow. I'm not talking about Roe vs. Wade, I'm talking about your inconsistencies. It's time to stand up and explain them. And from the sound of it (thanks Joe), you don't have much empirical knowledge to stand on.

No, I want you to point out where you think I've been inconsistent, because Joe certainly hasn't.

a) You never asked me (b) You're clearly not intune with the objections to the Yuzpe regimen or other ECPs.

Also, many ECP's are more akin to condoms or such preventative steps in that they prevent fertilization from taking place at all. The copper in copper-T IUDs for example can prevent the sperm from fertilizing the egg. The list goes on.

a) I never said everyone would say this, and I said that specifically because I figured that you would indeed say this is exactly the same, i.e. taking a morning-after pill vs shooting someone in the head.

b) Apparently not.

So then why not call all forms of contraception murder then? If you remove the contraception, then the chances of creating a baby increase dramatically do they not? Is this not what the catholic church argues when they rail against contraceptive technology? You're killing potential human beings?

I don't really care about the biological reductionist logic Vince, because I know where we all start off from as genetic individuals. But the point is that there are huge portions of society, read: catholic church, who rail even against contraceptives by taking that allusion to its furthest point. You personally may stop at conception, but many people do not.

For hundreds of years in christendom, sex was only for reproduction, never for pleasure. Since the invention of the contraceptive, sex has slowly moved away from reproduction only to pleasure mostly, and reproduction only when people feel like it. Is everyone therefore mass murderers? Certainly, if you believe the catholic church. But you don't believe that way do you Vince, since you believe that it only matters at conception and later right?

 

[Vince]

You're making an assumption based on your own belief of when life begins, no definitive hardcore fact. You and Vince both.

Bullshit. How many times must we go over this? It's been stated time and time again that the generally accepted concensus for life is the ability to:

I'm not going to get into another argument now after the other thread, but Biologists generally are in agreement that "life" is defined by an organisms that is capable of self-replication and completion of one Carnot cycle.

First of all, your biological knowledge is severely lacking and as with most pro-abortion supporters who argue based on pseudo-science, a lack of knowledge, and their political motivations - it's killing you. The current general convention holds that an entity is "alive" if it satisfies two conditions


Replication - the ability to self-replicate and reproduce.

Chemical Assimilation - the ability to aquire particular molecules and use them in controlled rxn's, a singular Carnot cycle is often used as the bound

How about you do some reading and stop arguing from such an ingnorant position?

No, I want you to point out where you think I've been inconsistent, because Joe certainly hasn't.

Again... it's inconsistency which stems from your inability to parallel the current pseudo-science debate about the fetus's rights inherient in humans and the former arguments, which you pretend you care about, concerning the African-American's supposed genetic inferiority which led to their "owning" and domination by the White American.

As you've routinely presented the former as an argument and used it as a basis to posit:

"When will we learn?"

It's a corollary that you have yet to learn and are inable to see the same negative manifestations occuring during yuor own time and take action against which you accuse the 'White' Americans of. You also admit to this when you stated:

It feels about as good as being an american who wears clothes made by 10 year olds working 20 hours a day making less than a penny a day. We can take this as far as you want to go.

Thus, either conform to your own statements or admit that your a selfish asshole who doesn't care except when it benefits you:

God forbid fighting for our rights be allowed. Nope, can't have that. You'd think this country would have learned this lesson from the 40s, 50s, and 60s. Guess not.

Yep, some people just don't learn.

 

[Vince]

So then why not call all forms of contraception murder then? If you remove the contraception, then the chances of creating a baby increase dramatically do they not?

How dumb are you? It's been clearly stated time and time again what the bounds for "life" are:

• Self-replication
• Single Carnot Cycle

Do you not understand this? There is no probability in that, probability doesn't matter - this isn't QM and the biology we're discussing is deterministic; stop grasping at straws you can't reach.

Is this not what the catholic church argues when they rail against contraceptive technology? You're killing potential human beings?

Am I the church? Am I religious? I think not.

I don't really care about the biological reductionist logic Vince, because I know where we all start off from as genetic individuals. But the point is that there are huge portions of society, read: catholic church, who rail even against contraceptives by taking that allusion to its furthest point. You personally may stop at conception, but many people do not.

Hey, John Reynolds is back! I don't care about your [correct] argument, but I'll fight it based on my ignorant knowledge because other people will do this, or think this, or state that. I <3 this part of the argument.

Certainly, if you believe the catholic church. But you don't believe that way do you Vince, since you believe that it only matters at conception and later right?

Exactly, I only stated the bounds for life like... 4 times.