It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Abortion, Genocide, what’s THE difference?!?!?!?!?.... do you condone murder???

page: 24
40
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ScorpioRising

Originally posted by LooseLipsSinkShips
I figured as much that the creator of this thread would be from Europe and more specifically Great Britain. Scottish folks, Ireland folks...they tend to take a dramatic crying stance to many things. They crave deep pain. They find suffrage in many things just so they can feel pain. There is something mysterious about Scottish/Irish folk. They are a very impassioned people but there direction is all wrong.



Excuse me? Don't be fooled by my location on the left. I am Irish. And I find your comment deeply DEEPLY hurtful.....

Seriously though, I really am Irish but that has nothing to do with thinking that your comment was a little bit silly. Not to mention nothing to do with the thread....


Hey, I am Irish too. But from Chicago. Roman Catholic too.

But if someone is raped, they shouldn't be forced into giving birth to something that they never committed themselves to fully in mind, body, and spirit. In cases of rape and incest, abortion should be allowed.

And my comment had everything to do with this thread. Scottish...Irish folk tend to crave pain...deep suffrage. The creator of this thread seems to be taking a stance that is common to his locale. And that is for a reason...
edit on 24-2-2011 by LooseLipsSinkShips because: (no reason given)




posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:35 AM
link   

Originally posted by ImaginaryReality1984

Originally posted by MindSpin
You have got to be kidding me.

Killing the child is thinking of the childs future???

Like I said before....your "logic" scares the hell out of me.


And your inability to recognise logic makes me laugh. When someone is considering an abortion they often think about the life the child will have, can they provide the things it will need. This is looking into the future, well speculating into the future on known factors. If they think the child will have a bad life it is another reason to abort the child. So yes it is thinking of the child future and the life they might have and being unhappy with the life it will have.

This is very basic stuff and you keep trying to twist it but it won't work and you make yourself look silly.



It is absolutely scary that you think killing a child is looking out for it's future.

There is really nothing else to say about that topic.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:40 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 



Actually i moved it nowhere, i was responding to what someone said. However i'm afraid there are certain scientific facts we know are required for what we call conciousness and a certain brain size is most certainly one of them.

Again do you think a bee is fully concious? What about a mouse?


There you go again...making baseless claims.

Yeah...I'm gonna have to ask you for some sources of those "certain scientific facts" that are required for "what we call" (because it isn't a purely scientific concept) conciousness.


Yes other things are involved but i'm afraid a basic brain size is required from what we know and i don't think it's wrong to bring that one up.


Yeah...gonna have to ask for sources for that.

But I guess you are saying that an elephant...with a very large brain...is more concious than humans...huh???



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:42 AM
link   
"Some is reflex pain?
Yes. When you stick a baby with a diaper pin, she will object. Her initial reflex recoil is exactly what happens in the womb after eight weeks when the same child is painfully stimulated Changes in heart rate and fetal movement also suggest that intrauterine manipulations are painful to the fetus.
Volman & Pearson, "What the Fetus Feels," British Med. Jour., Jan. 26, 1980, pp. 233-234.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How have lawmakers reacted to this knowledge?
There have been bills introduced to require abortionists to anesthetize the unborn baby before killing him or her.
M. Siljander, Congressional Record, E609, Feb. 23, 1984"



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:44 AM
link   
Sitting on our righteous butts in front of a computer screen and judging others, without having a real solution to the problem is not only narrow minded, but also useless and impractical.

Abortion is wrong, no doubt about that; but what other choice is there? Looking at our society today, are all those unwanted children filling the streets, the ghettos, the orphanages, the juvenile institutions and later the prisons a better option? This is not a matter of right or wrong anymore, like a mathematical equation. It's a matter of seeing the whole picture and choosing the least worst option.
Are abandoned, abused, neglected kids, kids that are condemned to a lifetime of suffering, poverty and humiliation better than an abortion? Don't we have enough of those already? Are we able to help them, before asking for more?

The question is not if abortions are wrong; the question is why we are so screwed up as a society that our women prefer to kill their fetuses than to bring them into the world. Why so many teens get pregnant? Forcing a 17 years old girl to become a mother will ruin both their life; instead of one girl with a possible future we'll have two persons with no future of all. Is this a better alternative?

Give those women a solution before condemning them; give them a guaranty that if they will not be able to raise their kid, somebody else will do it, with love and care; a guaranty that her kid will not become a discard of society. Give them the help they need to raise their kids, and remain dignified human beings in the same time.
Give them a solution, not a sentence. Is someone here able to do that? Is the government able to do that? Than why the bitchering?

A society that is unable to take care of its own members, all of its members, has no right to choose for them.

All those anti-abortion fanatics should realize that a kid is not a "God's present" that we happily receive on our birthday and then throw it away when it's too much to deal with; a kid is a living person with needs to be cared about for at least 18 years, and not every woman who is able to get pregnant it's also able to provide that. And as long as they are not willing to replace the mother, they should leave the choice to her. And use their time looking for a solution to prevent unwanted pregnancies, and educating our teens, instead of passing judgments that will destroy others' life for ever.
edit on 24-2-2011 by WhiteHat because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Somehumanbeing
reply to post by MindSpin
 





We were discussing when the biological process of life began...NOTHING about sentience was discussed until I pointed out that you seem to be getting the two confused.


1. What did you think I was talking about when I was discussing the human brain?

2. It seems that I have to be excessively clear to you and draw you a picture.

3. A sizeable quantity of the contents of all your posts have been ad-hominem attacks followed by "I worry where you logic is heading" not just to me but to everyone else, maybe its time to step down from your holier than thou pedestal, yes?

4. I have answered your questions in paragraph format after every post, yet you still continue stating that I have not, even when others say that I have.

5. You twist my words.

Finally, I distinctly remember someone stating that many use this website as a method of ego masturbation, this is perhaps one event. I am done being your stimulant, Enjoy

edit on 24-2-2011 by Somehumanbeing because: (no reason given)


I see...not gonna answer my questions again...huh? Just gonna run away are you?


Let me give you some tips.

1. We were talking about when "LIFE" began. You never mention sentience, conciousness, or intelligence before I brought up "sentience" in responding to you. Then you switch to..."Yeah...that's what I was saying".

2. Yes...you should alway be clear when you are trying to debate a topic. I shouldn't have to tell you this...this isn't something that should have to be cleared up.

3. Show me my "ad hom" attacks towards you...besides maybe my last response to you when I realized you were trying to shift the topics.

4. You have a funny way of answering questions by asking me more questions


5. You do the twisting on your own...I just point them out.



And what's that...did you just close with an Ad Hom?????





posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin
ALL functioning...nah..probably not. But you didn't say ALL...you said NONE.


I was pointing out it had no emotions or feeling with a brain that small from what we know of animal intelligence and human injury and you leapt on that, you are now tying to get out of it by twisting what has been said or the intent of what was being said.



Originally posted by MindSpin
It's not basic deductive reasoning...which is why I am continuing to suggest you brush up on your knowledge of logic.

You should know, being the logical master that you are, that when you make a claim...you have the burden of proving it. Saying "it's obvious" isn't proving it. Show me some proof please.


Yep i have the burden of proof and as stated this is all so obvious i doubt anyone has written a paper on it. I will ask you again, do you believe a mouse has a full set of emotions as human beings would understand them? If your answer is no then a fetus with the same brain size also doesn't have them and therefore i don't need to give you proof because you have proven it to yourself. Again this is basic deductive reasoning.



Originally posted by MindSpin
Prove it.

And your bullet to the head comparison...lol. Wow. So are you saying infants...with smaller brains than adults...or even pre-schoolers...are incapable of "feeling" because if an adult gets shot in the head by a tiny bullet that it does damage????

LOL...too funny.


Nope i said a brain of a certain size and used the wallnut as a size comparison because it's sort of the same size of both a fetus at 24 weeks and a mouse. If you think babies with that size brain are fully concious then you should be equally outraged at the killing of mice.


Originally posted by MindSpin

How am I moving the goal posts when I haven't even made a claim???

You keep making ridiculous claims...and keep having to backpeddle, redefine what you meant, or just completely change what you were saying.

It's ok to admit you are wrong...really...it doesn't hurt.



I am happy to admit when i'm wrong, i am not so here. But you have just asked me to prove a mouse isn't as smart as a human being so tbh your argument is the one failing



Originally posted by MindSpin

OH...you have other random criteria???

I'd love to hear what they are...please entertain me???


Tbh with the way you continually spin things i have little interest in continuing with you. A clear example is where you claim i said a bacteria isn't alive but i never said any such thing, i said it wasn't concious. This shows either you are unable to understand what is written or you are deliberately twisting what i am saying.








Originally posted by MindSpin

1) A fetuses brain is not developed enough to feel emotion. You don't say "full emotion"...you say "emotion"...period. Prove it. It should be easy considering your second claim of...


Does a mouse have emotions on a level with human beings? I would say no, if you disagree then you better start a campaign to ban mouse traps along with abortions because it's about the same brain size of a 24 week old fetus. That is my claim.



Originally posted by MindSpin
Let's see that "scientific knowledge" there buddy...let's see you prove your "scientific" claims. And who said anything about religion??? Trying to inject controversy I see...sad sad sad.

Let's just stick to proving the claims you are making.



And as stated already this is basic deductive reasoning and you have repeatedly failed to engage with that argument instead asking for proof, as in a paper on something that is so obvious science didn't bother.

Let me break it down for you.

I am claiming that a brain the size of a walnut cannot possibly hold any real emotion, the brain of a fetus at 24 weeks is round about that size. For comparison a mouse has a similar sized brain. Therefore if you claim the fetus has human level emotion or conciousness you must also accept the mouse has and immediately ban mousetraps along with abortions.

Care to respond to this because i've typed it a few times now and you're beginning to bore me with how you skip it.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:53 AM
link   
I'm Scottish, and believe me, I totally disagree with the OP, as do most Scottish people I know! I'm not even going to bother giving my opinion again, it's all been said before and I don't know why this subject is being spouted again, what a waste of bandwidth!

To the OP, why not just add your views onto an existing thread? There are plenty of them....



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by MindSpin

Yes other things are involved but i'm afraid a basic brain size is required from what we know and i don't think it's wrong to bring that one up.


Yeah...gonna have to ask for sources for that.

But I guess you are saying that an elephant...with a very large brain...is more concious than humans...huh???


No and again you twist words as if i was claiming brain size automatically denotes conciousness. It's odd how you keep doing that and tbh i'm not debating with someone who continually twists an argument unfairly. Other things come into the equation like the balance of grey and white matter for a start.

As i say you unfairly twist things and while you demand proof you fail to answer a simple question i put to you which would provide all the reasoning that is necessary.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Ha ha moving goalposts again!
we went from having consciousness to having a full set of emotions as humans do.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 12:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Ha ha moving goalposts again!
we went from having consciousness to having a full set of emotions as humans do.


I would argue you don't have one without the other, i'm using the terms interchangeably. But as stated the person i am dealing with twists words and ideas and it's unfair and there is a direct example on the previous page where they make out i was saying bacteria were not alive when i stated absolutely no such thing.

Simply incredible.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 01:02 AM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 


www.scientificamerican.com...



This article sums it up perfectly discussing brain development.


But when does the magical journey of consciousness begin? Consciousness requires a sophisticated network of highly interconnected components, nerve cells. Its physical substrate, the thalamo-cortical complex that provides consciousness with its highly elaborate content, begins to be in place between the 24th and 28th week of gestation. Roughly two months later synchrony of the electroencephalographic (EEG) rhythm across both cortical hemispheres signals the onset of global neuronal integration. Thus, many of the circuit elements necessary for consciousness are in place by the third trimester.


It makes sense you need the structure in palce before any thinking or emotion can occur, so theres your evidence of brain development. Now if you want to claim conciousness exists without a brain then sadly we're down to religion and faith, which isn't science.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   
I am of the opinion that life is experience. until a "growth" has somewhat of a experience sensing facility, then it is just a replicating mass.
Such an event can be argued that it is with a fully functioning when the nervous system is formed (it starts forming up at about 9 weeks, definately at 12 weeks.)

First couple months I am indifferent about abortions. After that, there must be a strong reason (endangering mothers life).

I think the day after pill should be easily available to all.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 01:11 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


In my experience, there is no point in trying to debate with the hard line pro-lifers, they are totally blinkered and seem to have no concept of the reality for most people. They tend to be totally unforgiving and would rather a woman has her life (and possibly her existing childrens!) totally ruined, rather than accept that there are appropriate times when abortion really is the only solution.

No one is forcing them to make the decision, but somehow they deem it perfectly acceptable to force other people into their viewpoint, even though it does not impact on their life in any way (although they'll probably moan about the tax being paid to support single mothers on welfare, which is in fact a serious consideration due to present financial constraints) But meh...they don't seem to care about the welfare of anyone, just their own sanctimonius opinion.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 01:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by kevinunknown
I should start by saying I am very much anti-abortion, I can see very few instances where abortion can be justified, in fact almost none. The one exception I would have is where the birth will cause the death of the mother; in those circumstances I think it is justifiable for the medical professionals to advise an abortion other than its wrong.


There are a multitude of exceptions that do not incline the situation where death is inevitable for the female, thus requesting the sacrafice on the mother's part. Rape, regardless of the percentage that causes pregnancy, is a perfectly understandable reason for the mother to request abortion. What the OP fails to realise in WHOLE is that the decision is not his to make. Whether a mother chooses abortion, is not going to affect his specific life. It will not alter his income, it will not alter his eating habbits, it will not affect his way of life, in the least. It is ultimately the mother's life who will be altered, or ended, considering the exception he gave. You can't narrow it down to one item of exception. If you did that, you'd be no different than Sharia law where a pedofile can get away with raping an underage female and the female gets punished for it.


If you have an abortion or facilitate an abortion then in mind you are no better than any other child killer, and if you condone abortion in my mind you supporting the killing of innocent children. Although I am Catholic, I hold these views independently of my religion. I just think it is wrong; I don’t need to bible to tell me murder is wrong, so I don’t need it to tell me abortion is wrong.


No one else needs anything to tell them something is wrong, but that in itself is self-suggesting. You, your understanding of the topic, and the influence that backs it up, are the very reasons you believe you're correct in your opinion. However, again, as I mentioned earlier. It's not your choice. You're life is not being altered by the decision of someone else to end the life of a being that is relying upon THEY'RE vital system to evolve (scientifically & biologically speaking).


Today I got really really annoyed; if ATS would let me curse I would use some stronger language. This is what has got me so annoyed. Currently in the UK a woman can have an abortion at 24 weeks (if she had “compelling reasons” for doing so), I have a neighbour who has just had a child at 24 weeks, the child is alive and the doctors say is doing well. If she wanted to she could have had time to go and have the child aborted a few days ago, a perfectly beautiful gift from God, a handsome baby boy, fully formed, she if she had chosen to could have gone and had him murdered thanks to our abhorrent liberal system.


I'm sorry to cut you off here again... but your words were "if she had chosen"... Again you assist me in proving the point that it is HER decision to do something that you disagree with. Not something that is wrong by a universal standard (religion teaches you that killing is wrong. Nature teaches you that killing is natural to every species on this planet. Even animals abandon young ones if they don't think they can handle taking care of them.), but a religious standard that you chose to state earlier, and by a standard you have set for yourself.

Continue...


She could probably tell a couple of doctors that giving birth to the child would psychologically damage her in some way or that she would have to pass the child on to the state and they would have happily stabbed the child through the heart. It happened to almost 3000 children in 2008 and not a single person was tried for murder.


Though the ways of your country and many others may seem wrong to you, it is not you who will live with the decision. Am I asking you to turn a blind eye? Not in the least, I myself view seeing a baby stabbed through the heart as a brutal image. See it. Know it exists. And if you see a problem with it, try to find a way to modify it by means of using the system. Ranting in a post is a bad way to start, though even I can respect the effort to get the word out. Just realises that it is a two-way road and although you can produce a brutal image of what is happening, many will provide a justifiable reason for it.


Do you know that in the UK in 2008 22% of all pregnancies ended in abortion, to me that is just about the same as killing of 22% of 8 year olds in primary education


Bad example. An 8 year old has 8 years of memory. An 8 year old was given the oppurtunity to grow up and avoid abortion. An 8 year old has established a personality, friends, family, a reputation, has a decent enough upbringing to enable them to reach 8 years of life.

A 6 month old baby has none of that, and possibly an unloving or unwanting mother. I know it sounds cruel but realise from a logical (put all religion to the side, and think logically) perpsective (that meaning put your feet in the shoes of the opposite side for a moment. it's only fair), and see the drastic differences in your example.


, I mean you wouldn’t have a child then realise that at 6 months old you can’t cope and have your baby put down like a dog.


Have you given birth? Do you know what its like to carry a child in YOUR body? Variable speaking, do you agree with the way the child was concieved. Was it someone you loved that gave you that child? Did you intentionally want to have that child then change your mind? Or were you forced to have that child? Are you going to be judged by the people you know everyday for having or not having that child? Does the idea of having a child mean anything to you? Do you think you can provide an honest life for that child?

I don't know a single person who has seen their unborn child or premature child as a dog, and I don't know a human being (not that they dont exist, meaning that they are rare), that has referenced their child as an animal. If you have documentation to see that that is what 100% of the 22% of abortees was thinking when they asked for the abortion, bring it to the table, right now.


Something like a quarter of all pregnancies worldwide end in abortion, it’s sick. I think it’s more of a representation of how moral decadence has led to a sickening decay of our society that has paved way for to us justifying the killing of innocent children in a massive genocide. And that’s what it is, “GENOCIDE!”,


Definition of Genocide provided by the following source:
Dictionary Definition for Genocide

gen·o·cide /ˈdʒɛnəˌsaɪd/
[jen-uh-sahyd]

–noun
the deliberate and systematic extermination of a national, racial, political, or cultural group.


Genocide is not what your are fighting my friend. You are fighting the decision of other people with the self-justified reason to do what they want with the life they are legally entitled to.


nearly 200,000 people died in 2008 in a massive genocide supported by the state, they justified this genocide by saying it was ok to kill the unborn defenceless child as they could not defend themselves. If the Congo killed 200,000 people there would be an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council.


Again, an extreme differentiation that what you are trying to fufill in this post. 200,000 MEN, WOMEN, AND CHILDREN, killed in 2008 mass genocide (the word is being used correctly here), being killed in the Congo is different than 200,000 abortions.... some of which may be justified by the very exception you grant validity to.


This is truly a massive conspiracy, the UK government are allowing the genocide of hundreds of thousands of children, whatever happened to the first call of government being to protect its citizens.


I'm sorry my friend, overall what you have here is an opinion, not proof of any conspiracy. You have merely spread the word of a law that exists, that you disagree with. I can respect that and I hope that, by putting aside your deep-seeded hatred of the idea of this being legal, you can understand my honest view on this post.

Thanks in advance,

Shikamaru.

P.S.
Overall view: Neutral



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 



I was pointing out it had no emotions or feeling with a brain that small from what we know of animal intelligence and human injury and you leapt on that, you are now tying to get out of it by twisting what has been said or the intent of what was being said.


I'm not trying to get out of anything...I'm still waiting for your proof. That is all I have been asking for this whole time...prove your claim.

It's been fun watching you squirm trying to get out of doing so.


Yep i have the burden of proof and as stated this is all so obvious i doubt anyone has written a paper on it.


I thought you were Mr Logic and Science??? And your proof is "this is all so obvious"????

Tell me honestly...do you think that statement is logical or scientific??? I have yet to see a scientific paper say "In conclusion...it is all obvious that this is true...period...QED".


I will ask you again, do you believe a mouse has a full set of emotions as human beings would understand them? If your answer is no then a fetus with the same brain size also doesn't have them and therefore i don't need to give you proof because you have proven it to yourself. Again this is basic deductive reasoning


Do I believe a mouse has a full set of emotions as human beings would understand them? My answer is, I don't know. Because I don't know...I haven't studied mice to see if they have full human emotions (why would they have human emotions anyway???)...and I have never read any studies on if they have full human emotions.

Which is why my answer is....I DON'T KNOW.

However...YOUR answer is that you DO KNOW...and that answer is NO. But you have yet to provide proof of that claim other than "it's obvious"...which isn't proof...that is opinion.

This is not basic deductive reasoning...this is conjecture at best...but more likely complete baseless opinion. Which is why I suggest you brush up on your logical knowledge.


Nope i said a brain of a certain size and used the wallnut as a size comparison because it's sort of the same size of both a fetus at 24 weeks and a mouse. If you think babies with that size brain are fully concious then you should be equally outraged at the killing of mice.


Whoa...don't confuse me with all the scientific jargon of "sort of" and measurment in "walnut" units.

Are you honestly trying to compare the killing of an unborn human child with killing a mouse??? Wow.


I am happy to admit when i'm wrong, i am not so here. But you have just asked me to prove a mouse isn't as smart as a human being so tbh your argument is the one failing


Um...no...I don't think I did...care to quote me where I said that???

You are the one talking about mice and walnuts as your scientific proof...not me.


Tbh with the way you continually spin things i have little interest in continuing with you. A clear example is where you claim i said a bacteria isn't alive but i never said any such thing, i said it wasn't concious. This shows either you are unable to understand what is written or you are deliberately twisting what i am saying.


You are right, you did say conscious in that example...my bad.

If you have more examples...feel free to share them....or just run away....I don't really care.


Does a mouse have emotions on a level with human beings? I would say no, if you disagree then you better start a campaign to ban mouse traps along with abortions because it's about the same brain size of a 24 week old fetus. That is my claim.


Yes..that is your claim...back it up with some sort of scientific proof. Not just "it's obvious".

I really don't know why you are obsessed with a mouse and only focusing on the size of a brain. Many animals have the same size brains and show drastically different amounts of intelligence. And then you bring "emotion" into it...which is something very very hard to measure.

I'm sorry you picked a very illogical argument and that you can't prove it...but that was your choice.


And as stated already this is basic deductive reasoning and you have repeatedly failed to engage with that argument instead asking for proof, as in a paper on something that is so obvious science didn't bother.


LOL...it's so obvious science didn't bother with it??? LOL.

Gravity is kind of obvious...they have spent loads of time on that.

I have to ask, I didn't want to ask...but I have to ask. What is your formal training or education in "logic"???


I am claiming that a brain the size of a walnut cannot possibly hold any real emotion, the brain of a fetus at 24 weeks is round about that size. For comparison a mouse has a similar sized brain. Therefore if you claim the fetus has human level emotion or conciousness you must also accept the mouse has and immediately ban mousetraps along with abortions.


Loughner logic....honestly.

You compare a human brain to a mouses brain...and try to equate "emotion feeling" to it??? And I am the one with the flawed reasoning???

What would you say is the size of a toddler's brain??? Like the size of a large dog? So toddlers have the emotional capability of a large dog??? Please tell me you don't actually believe this stuff???

There is so much wrong with your thinking...it is frightening. I don't even know why I am asking this or entertaining your ridiculous comparison....but are you saying mice don't experience fear? or any emotion at all?

And why do I have to feel the same towards a mouse as I do towards my own species??? WTF are you talking about???


Care to respond to this because i've typed it a few times now and you're beginning to bore me with how you skip it.


I'm not skipping it...but it is absolutely psycho logic that you are using.

Do I think a mouse has the full human emotion (LOL)???? NO.

Do I think comparing a mouse brain to a fetus brain is good "science"??? HELL NO.

Are you failing to provide any shred of proof for your ridiculous claims??? HELL YES.


All I am asking for is proof beyond you saying "it is obvious"...that is all I am asking...it is very very simple. You made a claim...back it up.



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
Ha ha moving goalposts again!
we went from having consciousness to having a full set of emotions as humans do.


I know...it is ridiculous at this point.

I'm just amazed at his "logic".



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 



It makes sense you need the structure in palce before any thinking or emotion can occur, so theres your evidence of brain development. Now if you want to claim conciousness exists without a brain then sadly we're down to religion and faith, which isn't science.


You see...here is the thing...it's very simple. I never made a claim about consiousness...YOU did.


My "claim" is purely biological in nature. "LIFE" begins when the sperm fertilizes the egg, a unique DNA is formed and cells begin to divide.

This is the same process in humans, mice (since you love them so much), fish, plants...ANY FORM OF "LIFE". Not all forms of "LIFE" have conciousness or "emotion"...which is why I don't use them in my attempt to define when "LIFE" begins.

I go by a purely biological (and scientific) definition.

If you want to dispute that...please do...please tell me what size the brain of a tomato plant needs to be before you consider it alive (LOL)???



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 01:30 AM
link   
reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984
 


You do know the "opinion" of the author of your article believes conciousness doesn't start until the baby is born???

So I guess that means you would think late term abortions are ok???

And again...your article is all "opinion" of the author...here is his take on it.


I wager that the fetus experiences nothing in utero; that it feels the way we do when we are in a deep, dreamless sleep.

The dramatic events attending delivery by natural (vaginal) means cause the brain to abruptly wake up, however. The fetus is forced from its paradisic existence in the protected, aqueous and warm womb into a hostile, aerial and cold world that assaults its senses with utterly foreign sounds, smells and sights, a highly stressful event.

As Hugo Lagercrantz, a pediatrician at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, discovered two decades ago, a massive surge of norepinephrine—more powerful than during any skydive or exposed climb the fetus may undertake in its adult life—as well as the release from anesthesia and sedation that occurs when the fetus disconnects from the maternal placenta, arouses the baby so that it can deal with its new circumstances. It draws its first breath, wakes up and begins to experience life.



So is this your "proof"????



posted on Feb, 24 2011 @ 01:35 AM
link   
reply to post by MindSpin
 


Looking back at my replies i see they are incomplete and so open to misinterpretation, this is my fault, therefore i'm going to clarify things, start afresh to make my position clear because it would seem we have gotten lost in a sea of misunderstandings. I will provide evidence for my argument as i go along and also ask for your agreement or disagreement on certain questions so as to open up a clear way forward. I hope you will join me in the spirit with which i post this.

So the question is (i think) whether a fetus feels pain, emotion and basically has conciousness, would you agree?

If yes then the next logical question is to ask where conciousness comes from, defining this will allow us to judge whether an abortion is right or wrong and at what time is it right or wrong. Would you agree to this?

Now from my perspective the brain is the seat of conciousness. As evidence of this we know that damage to the brain can utterly change someone. A stroke can make someone who was previously passive extremely agressive, it can also change function and sensation. Likewise mental illness comes from various brain problems, whether it's depression of scitzophrenia.

Would you accept the brain is the organ from which conciousness is created?

As my answer is yes to the previous question the next logical step is to assess when the brain in a fetus develops as obviously we cannot have conciousness without a brain if we accept conciousness comes from within the brain.

This Article gives good and clear descriptions of how and when the brain forms, 24-28 weeks would appear to be the point where a brain becomes recognisable in structure and later on it starts sending signals from one hemisphere to another. therefore this would be my cut off point for abortion as i consider th child to be alive, a living human being. Before this point i consider it no different to a tumour, a loose growth of cells.

I hope this clarifies my position so that we can go forward with a better idea of what is being said. If you want to clarify your own position we can go from there as maybe i have misunderstoof what you were claiming.



new topics

top topics



 
40
<< 21  22  23    25  26  27 >>

log in

join