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

reply to post by Kailassa

and happens much more often than we hear about.

And how do you know it happens much more often...if you never hear about it


Just a little sample of the wonderful logic you are using.

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by SevenBeans
Would you be willing to judge a man who killed a baby (?) or is it just when women do it that you try hard not to judge?

I am curious if you have any numbers so that we can compare

Woman who have abortions against the father's wishes
Vs.
Men who abondon their children.

Why do numbers matter?

If numbers matterd...then those people who only support abortion in cases of rape, incest and health issues would be considered irrelevant since 98% of abortions happen for "personal reasons".

We understand...you hate men...so much so that you deny women should take any responsibility or that they do anything wrong.

reply to post by TheImmaculateD1


So when two people are drunk..and the women gets pregnant...then the man should be able to legally absolve himself from all responsibility???

Can that man claim he was raped???

reply to post by Sinnthia


Sarcasm isn't your strong point hun...but then again neither is logic.

Maybe you should do yourself a favor and do what Annee eventually went and did...and look up the biological fact that life starts at conception.

I can at least give Annee credit for finally looking up facts and decidng to stop being ignorant to them.


I'm not so sure that I have as much hope for you doing the same.


And at any time...you are still free to refute my argument that you are dancing around.

Please prove that biologically, human life does not start at conception.

reply to post by MindSpin

Please prove that biologically, human life does not start at conception.

I dont think anyone is even trying to refute that, so that is a strawman. Proponents of abortions are claiming that human life is not enough, and another atribute is needed to be protected by law, for example biological independency from the mother, or possesing brain developed enough to be sentient.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by MindSpin

 

Please prove that biologically, human life does not start at conception.

I dont think anyone is even trying to refute that, so that is a strawman. Proponents of abortions are claiming that human life is not enough, and another atribute is needed to be protected by law, for example biological independency from the mother, or possesing brain developed enough to be sentient.

And then we are back to the same old game.

Biological independency: All the mother provides with the womb is food and safe environment. This is the same thing a mother provides to a newborn child. If you use this for your criteria for life, then you are also claiming newborn babies should not be protected by law.

Brain Waves: Brain waves are a bodily function...it is a essential bodily function...but so are many others. Heartbeat, lung function, circulatory function, nervous system function. Hell...even the kidneys are an essential bodily function. Without any of those...your body dies.

So HOW do you choose which bodily function is needed to declare that this is a "human" worth protecting???

And then you exit the scientific field, and enter into philosophy...and yet you (maybe not you specifically, but pro-choicers in general) bash the religous people who approach this discussion with their own personal philosophy.

What makes your philosophy greater than theirs? Neither of it is provable.

What makes your criteria of a brain waves as the bodily function to mark "human life" better than someone who chooses a heart beat???

Personally, I feel that anyone approaching this non-scientifically and from a philosophical view is illogical and using emotion to dictate their views. One side is using emotion to try to induce guilt...the other is using emotion to try to avoid it.

This is why I choose to stick with Science. This is why the law should stick with the scientific definition...because it is not biased nor does it rely on someones personal objective and non-provable philosophy.


If you are willing to outright admit that your "criteria" for life is arbitrary and illogical...then sure...we can agree to disagree...because I can't debate someone who has abandoned logic.

Are you willing to admit that?

reply to post by MindSpin


I really hate to have to do this but I am going to leave this thread for a bit. I caught up to where I was and have not read all of your replies thereafter. I would like to talk about something else for a bit and do some non-computer things. Now, if you want to utilize this opportunity to prematurely declare yourself victor of some argument you never successfully made then please do. At this point, a lot of this has become overwhelmingly hollow.

I need to be honest with you. You should take a little time to do some introspection. Think about what it is you truly value. Think about what part is more important, the end or the means? Think about your disconnect and try to reconnect. Stop turning a blind eye to some of the uglier parts of your argument. I do not think anyone can claim their way is "perfect" on the abortion issue and it really seems like claiming one is "perfect" on it, takes a lot of the wind out of the sails.

Do yourself a favor. Do all those aborted, and to be aborted children a favor. Really decide if you really care about abortion no longer happening, or just being able to be angry about it. I want to believe your heart lay with the former but I have my reservations. For the sake of argument, let's just say that it is.

Now that you have fully decided what it is about your stance on abortion that is most important, make a list of things you can do to get from the world we have now to the one you would like. Do you want fewer abortions or fewer unwanted pregnancies to begin with? Do you want people to not be able to abort or have a world where no one wants to or feels the need to abort? Do you want these children born to have decent and happy lives, or just born and who cares after that?

See, because here is the thing. No matter which way you answer any of those, your list of solutions should share a common theme. Out of all the things you could actively do with your time, energy, and announced monies to help reach whichever solution to whichever problem you desire, I guarantee you that if you really cared and really thought-
-not a single one of those lists would begin with
"Step 1 - Spend 14 hours a day ranting on and internet forum in an angry and provactative manner."

Just think about that for a bit and when we meet again, I cannot wait to hear about all the amazing proactive steps you are taking in order to achieve your goals. Who knows, maybe I will even help if what you want and your solution makes sense. I am all for a world where no one ever feels the need or desire for an abortion. I am not sure how to get there. I am just positive that living under this ATS bridge is not going to solve anything ever.




P.S. I do hope you realize the kind of taint splashed down upon all subsequent posts stemming from

You gotta know how to spin things...hence my name

reply to post by Sinnthia


Well thank you Dr. Sinnthia...I appreciate your totally delusional views of what you think I should do.

Seems kind of odd coming from someone who blieves in choice so much...tellin me what I should do and all.

But it is consistent with your illogical thought pattern.


Just a note of concern...if you are going outside...watch out for all those penises waiting to rape you

reply to post by MindSpin


Please point out how basing protection on human DNA is less philosophical or arbitrary than basing it on other attributes.

reply to post by MindSpin


I am not sure how it is you can toss around words like "delusional" the way you do. Do you think that helps your case? Given that you have told me that as a woman, I have no right to abort a child and all I did was SUGGEST you actually get off your ass and put your money where your mouth is, delusional and projection seem more fitting than ever.

Forget my suggestion then. Sit here and rant on ATS for another 10 hours because that has really been helping so far.

I do apologize if my post was hard to understand as it was not combative or confrontational, nor hostile in tone. I was simply suggesting there may be a better way to stop abortions than spending all day every day on ATS talking about it. You do you.

Originally posted by Maslo
reply to post by MindSpin

 

Please point out how basing protection on human DNA is less philosophical or arbitrary than basing it on other attributes.

edit on 1/3/11 by Maslo because: (no reason given)

I'm not talking about protecting human DNA. I am talking about protecting human life.

I didn't know "protecting human life" was up for debate.


Does anyone else feel that we should start deciding which human life is worthy of protection???


You are moving goalposts. The debate is when does that human life begin...this has always been the debate...only until you realized that you can't refute the biological definition of life did you start inserting the argument of which human life should be protected.

I am not willing to start deciding who should and who should not be protected. If that is your goal...then you are on a slippery slope. Many say this is what Hitler did...he decided which humans were worthy of life and which were not...the Jews didn't make the cut.

You are trying to merge two different discussions into one...one that is distinctly scientific and one that is distinctly philosophical.

I'll lay out the two topics you are trying to merge.

Which humans should be protected under law? (Philosophical debate).

When does human life begin? (Scientific debate)


My answer for the first topic is that all human life should be protected. My argument that it is a slippery slope to start defining who and who should not be protected. And that it is immoral for anyone to decide what human has the right to life.

Notice in the above, that there was no talk of who IS human...I believe your agrument to the above topic would involve having to define who IS human and how IS NOT human...thus merging the two arguments and trying to merge science and philosophy.


My answer for the second topic is that human life begins at conception. My argument is the biological definition of life. Purely scientific answer to a purely scientific debate.



Now...what are your answers to the above questions...and try not to mix science and philosophy...they don't play well together.

Which humans should be protected under law? (Philosophical debate).

When does human life begin? (Scientific debate)

Originally posted by Sinnthia
reply to post by MindSpin

 

I am not sure how it is you can toss around words like "delusional" the way you do. Do you think that helps your case? Given that you have told me that as a woman, I have no right to abort a child and all I did was SUGGEST you actually get off your ass and put your money where your mouth is, delusional and projection seem more fitting than ever.

Forget my suggestion then. Sit here and rant on ATS for another 10 hours because that has really been helping so far.

I do apologize if my post was hard to understand as it was not combative or confrontational, nor hostile in tone. I was simply suggesting there may be a better way to stop abortions than spending all day every day on ATS talking about it. You do you.

edit on 1-3-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)

Sorry..but as soon as you claimed you live in fear of being raped every second of your life...I kind of wrote you off as delusional.

I would love to go do something else...believe me I would...there is this little thing call work that doesn't allow me to go out and do whatever I want. But ATS is a nice little one minute per post distraction. It really does not consume too much time of my day.

How long does it take you to write a post???

Originally posted by MindSpin
Sorry..but as soon as you claimed you live in fear of being raped every second of your life...I kind of wrote you off as delusional.

That is odd since we have already covered this twice. The only reason to visit it a 3rd time would be to see if your eroneous version of it will finally stick. I think your admission outweighs the one you keep pretending that I made.

Originally posted by MindSpin
You gotta know how to spin things...hence my name

reply to post by MindSpin


So your opinion is no less philosophical than mine, it gets scientific only after you answer the first philosophical question, enabling you to scientifically determine wanted criterion, exactly as mine.

You are moving goalposts. The debate is when does that human life begin...this has always been the debate...only until you realized that you can't refute the biological definition of life did you start inserting the argument of which human life should be protected.

I have NEVER claimed biological human life does not begin at conception, dont lie.

You are trying to merge two different discussions into one...one that is distinctly scientific and one that is distinctly philosophical.

I am not merging anything. You rely on one philosophical point (all human life should be protected) as much as I do (only sentient life should be protected), dont pretend your opinion is somehow more scientific or based only on self-evident biological logic.

Which humans should be protected under law? (Philosophical debate):

Humans which exhibit sustainable brain waves, since sentience is what is important and makes us beings and persons. Nonsentient life should serve sentient life, even if it is from the same species. Thats what my moral philosophy based on maximizing the wellbeing of sentient life (Sam Harris - science of morality) tells me.

When does human life begin? (Scientific debate): At conception of course. But that is irrelevant for the philosophical question "when does human life need to be protected".

Originally posted by MindSpin
reply to post by Kailassa

 

and happens much more often than we hear about.

And how do you know it happens much more often...if you never hear about it

Just a little sample of the wonderful logic you are using.

I also said,

These cases get little media attention because of the tragedy involved. The media prefers medical stories with happy endings.

The logical inference is that when referring to what "we hear about," I was referring to what we hear on the mass media.

As a professional in the medical field, I have sources which the average person does not have access to.

Got any more smart-alec questions, honey bunch?

reply to post by Maslo

Which humans should be protected under law? (Philosophical debate):

Humans which exhibit sustainable brain waves, since sentience is what is important and makes us beings and persons. Nonsentient life should serve sentient life, even if it is from the same species. Thats what my moral philosophy based on maximizing the wellbeing of sentient life (Sam Harris - science of morality) tells me.

And now you must define "sentience"...your definition is presence of brain waves...I have yet to find an official definition of sentience that relies only on brain waves.

But if that is your definition, I have some questions for you.

1) You do realize even our most sensetive instruments can not detect the most faintest brain waves even in a human adult, correct? Would you also agree that detecting brain waves in a fetus is much more difficult than detecting brain waves in an adult? If so, how do you know exactly when a brain wave is present in a fetus?

2) We all know that all humans develop at different rates. If brain waves is your criteria for protected life, do you agree that all women should have to have some sort of test done to confirm no brain waves are present before having an abortion? If not, why?

3) Since you believe that brain waves are important and not the fact that the beings DNA is human, do you also think it is wrong for anyone to kill any life that has brain waves for any reason? Are you a vegetarian? If not, why not?

When does human life begin? (Scientific debate): At conception of course. But that is irrelevant for the philosophical question "when does human life have need to be protected".

You are correct...it is irrelevant to your philosophical stand point.

But you have other questions to answer...preferably with some science and not more philosophy.


We know how you define sentience (although you didn't back up your definition with anything...just your personal opinion), And now let's look at how the rest of the world defines "sentience"

www.thefreedictionary.com...

sen·tient (snshnt, -sh-nt)
adj.
1. Having sense perception; conscious: 2. Experiencing sensation or feeling.

dictionary.reference.com...

sen·tient  –adjective
1. having the power of perception by the senses; conscious.
2. characterized by sensation and consciousness.

www.merriam-webster.com...

Definition of SENTIENT
1: responsive to or conscious of sense impressions
2: aware
3: finely sensitive in perception or feeling

www.oxforddictionaries.com...

sentient(sen|tient)
Syllabification:OnOffEntry from World dictionary

Pronunciation:/ˈsɛnʃ(ə)nt/
adjective
able to perceive or feel things:

None of these mention "brain waves"...again this is just you arbitrarily redefining a word to tie it to a semi-measurable bodily function. What all these definitions DO have in common is some type of "perception", being "aware", or "feeling". You have resisted these definitions in the past, but facts are facts. They are making a distinct difference between "sentient" animal life and non-sentient animal life...the presence of brain waves are not enough according to these definitions.

Now, you also have the difficulty of trying to prove that newborn babies are "sentient" and are, under your definition, worthy of protection.

So, more questions.

What IS sentience?

When does a human become sentient?

Can a person lose his "sentient" status and thus no longer be protected? Technically...a person in a coma is not sentient...you may argue that they have the "potential" to become sentient again...but that argument sounds very familiar and something that has been dismissed by you I believe.

So how exactly do you prove that newborn babies are "sentient", that they are aware, they percieve, and have feelings? How do they differ from a newborn dog?




My position is much much more simple...I have nothing more to clarify to you. Did you have any questions for me about my position? Anything at all that may show that it is illogical and hard to define? All human life should be protected...human life begins at conception. Done...period...QED.


So please...clarify your points by answering my questions. If you think my position is illogical, please give me some questions to clarify my points.

reply to post by Kailassa

As a professional in the medical field, I have sources which the average person does not have access to.

Then please share those sources...or are we just supposed to take you on your word???


The fact that the only case you mentioned was one of the most known cases of cojoined twin surgery because of the controversy...makes me doubt your "inside information".


But please "professional in the medical field"...which makes me assume you are not a doctor...most likely a nurse trying to sound more educated/experienced than you really are...give us these sources that only you are privy to.

Originally posted by MindSpin
Just a note of concern...if you are going outside...watch out for all those penises waiting to rape you

Now I get it. You spend all day inside on your computer because that is the only place you are safe from all the women out there trying to trick you into getting them pregnant so they can abort it your child against your will. I keep forgetting your hyperbolic points make more sense than mine do.

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by MindSpin
Just a note of concern...if you are going outside...watch out for all those penises waiting to rape you

Now I get it. You spend all day inside on your computer because that is the only place you are safe from all the women out there trying to trick you into getting them pregnant so they can abort it your child against your will. I keep forgetting your hyperbolic points make more sense than mine do.

It's funny...I don't ever remember saying I was personally afraid of that. I stated it was a legal reality.

On the other hand...you did state you were afraid every second of you life of being raped. I like watching you try to back peddle though. I could go quote you again if you want a refresher.

reply to post by MindSpin

And now you must define "sentience"...your definition is presence of brain waves...I have yet to find an official definition of sentience that relies only on brain waves.

Sentience probably requires a little more than simple fetal brain waves, but that is the basic thing required for it, and as long as we cannot determine those other variables, I am taking the safest route, and as inverse of legal death (brain death), also most logical. Even if we take only the appearance of this basic criterion for sentience as fully formed sentience, abortions till 4th month are still allowed.
Remember that for our purpose all we need is determine when sentience surely does not yet appear (lack of basic prerequisite is a proof of that), not when it appears with 100% certainty.

1) You do realize even our most sensetive instruments can not detect the most faintest brain waves even in a human adult, correct? Would you also agree that detecting brain waves in a fetus is much more difficult than detecting brain waves in an adult? If so, how do you know exactly when a brain wave is present in a fetus?

I know that measurement is not absolutely sensitive, but that is not a problem. We dont need to know it exactly for our purposes, since all that we must know is where brain waves are surely NOT present. Thats in the first trimester, and that should be legal limit for abortion.

2) We all know that all humans develop at different rates. If brain waves is your criteria for protected life, do you agree that all women should have to have some sort of test done to confirm no brain waves are present before having an abortion? If not, why?

No, that would be too resource consuming. The limit should be set legistativelly as average appearance of brain waves, minus one month, just to be sure we dont kill abnormal babies. That is cca 3 months. Overwhelming majority of abortions happen far before this limit eitherway (at least over here), so it really doesnt have to be higher.

3) Since you believe that brain waves are important and not the fact that the beings DNA is human, do you also think it is wrong for anyone to kill any life that has brain waves for any reason? Are you a vegetarian? If not, why not?

Yes, I believe its wrong. I am not a vegetarian, since I would not change anything in practice about killing higher animals, even if I was. But the fact that the world does not adhere to part of my morality (protecting all sentient life) does not mean I cannot support it adhering to the other part (not protecting unsentient life)

able to perceive or feel things:

Being sentient about ones inner mindworld or a dream is still sentience, even if no external sensory input is active.

Now, you also have the difficulty of trying to prove that newborn babies are "sentient" and are, under your definition, worthy of protection.

Thats why the criterion used to determine sentience in practice should be the only biological and measurable basic requirement for it over which there is no doubt - brain waves. Since what we need for our purpose is not knowing when sentience appears, but knowing when sentience surely does NOT appear, and only till then allow abortions. And that can be easily determined by lack of at least one basic reqirement.

an a person lose his "sentient" status and thus no longer be protected? Technically...a person in a coma is not sentient...you may argue that they have the "potential" to become sentient again..

Person cannot loose sentience reversibly, it can probably just "pause" it for example in a deep coma (you are sentient in a dream), but it is still there, saved in neural connections, and brain waves as a requirement for it are still present, so sentience as we define it for our purpose was not lost.
If brain waves are not present, its brain death and legal death.

Did you have any questions for me about my position? Anything at all that may show that it is illogical and hard to define?

You claim defining human protection on something other than human DNA, thus allowing abortions is dangerous slippery slope. Why havent all countries where abortion in some form is legal descended into eugenic nazi dicatorships yet? And when will it happen? Is it possible that slope is not slippery anymore? For example having some basic form of welfare does not have to slip to socialist dictatorship either.