Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Now what a story this is! ..what a doctor said infront of an abortion

page: 4
58
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 




I'm not a devout religious man, and I could probably deal with knowing about the abortion rationally, but what about a father, with a devout faith that is entirely against abortion? It will cause immeasureable suffering to him. What about a father that desperately wanted a child, and conceived a child with a willing mother, and then something happens in the relationship and she changes her mind? Or, what about a mother that would use the baby as leverage against a father?


We have to choose less evil. What would bring more suffering, forcing women to carry and give birth to a child which they do not want, or aborting the conceived child if the father disagrees? I think the mother should have a right to choose.



And, what about the manslaughter charges filed against mothers and fathers for harming a fetus? How can the law say it is ok to abort, but it is murder of someone crashes their car into your driver's door and accidentally kills an unborn child. Conceivably, a mother could be on her way to an abortion clinic to kill a fetus, but halfway there, she is crashed into by a drunk driver and the fetus dies in the accident. Now the person is going to jail for a very long time for killing something that would have been dead in 30 minutes anyway and isn't considered "alive?"


Yes, I agree such law is ridiculous and should be repealed. Killing fetus before the abortion limit should not be murder in any case, since its not a person. Assault, property and health damage, psychological damage etc.. but not murder.




posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
That's is-ought problem (fact-value distinction), or subjectivity of morality, so it probably cannot be justified objectively if thats what you want. I have my reasons why I consider mind valuable, and mind-containing (sentient) life more valuable as mind-less (unsentient) life. I think utilitarian moral theories, for example Sam Harris and his Science of Morality provide good justification.


Utilitarianism is a philosophical dead-end. No utilitarian remains one when he is on the wrong side of the consequences of the argument. And Sam Harris is an idiot. His argument falls short of providing any kind of justification, much less a good one.

Now, let me see if I got it right. You admit that you cannot justify your criteria that the mind what matters, but you feel free to criticize another person's criteria? You admit that you cannot demonstrate that your criteria is superior to any other one, but you feel free to deem another person's criteria as invalid and wrong, and that yours should be used instead, for no reason whatsoever but that you consider it so? Who elected you king of the world and forgot to tell everyone? When was everything in the world put under the jurisdiction of your whims? And, most importantly, have you considered the moral consequences if your criteria is wrong?

To answer your question, I consider my criteria to be superior because it is the null hypothesis. Until you can demonstrate what exactly is consciousness, what exactly is mind, and what causes those things, in order to determine whether a fetus possesses those or not, you cannot rightfully claim that he does not. So, in order to avoid murder, you should avoid killing it.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Leahn
 




You didn't prove that consciousness doesn't evolve in the first weeks. The only thing that you managed to prove is that the brain isn't fully evolved in the first weeks. If you want to prove that consciousness doesn't evolve in the first weeks, then you must demonstrate that consciousness requires a fully functioning brain in order to exist. Heck, you need to actually demonstrate that consciousness require a brain in order to exist.


Current scientific consensus is that consciousness (even less, sentience or mind) requires functioning brain, is a product of the functioning brain. YOU have to prove otherwise, not we. And dont bring metaphysics and religion into this, laws of the state should be secular (based only on scientific consensus), not metaphysical superstitions.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:52 AM
link   
reply to post by Leahn
 


Sorry but you didn't read my answer. It is you'r choice if you want to belive or not I dont care.

I'll give you a hint about conciousness...but

If you dont know what Conciousness is you should use a dictionary, instead of "spamming" ATS with your advanced troll-like questions. (That's just my personal oppinion, which is the same reason I only addressed one of your initial questions with an answer.)

It got something to do with the mind/brain and how it interacts with the world.

edit on 9-11-2011 by Mimir because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Leahn
 




To answer your question, I consider my criteria to be superior because it is the null hypothesis. Until you can demonstrate what exactly is consciousness, what exactly is mind, and what causes those things, in order to determine whether a fetus possesses those or not, you cannot rightfully claim that he does not. So, in order to avoid murder, you should avoid killing it.


Consciousness is a product of the brain neural network. Welcome to 21st century, please leave your dualist and metaphysical superstitions behind. Mind is material, as everything else.


We can determine with 100% certainty there is no mind in the first trimester embryo/fetus, since there is no neural network that is a prerequisite of any possibity of mind in terrestrial animals.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 10:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Leahn
 




Utilitarianism is a philosophical dead-end. No utilitarian remains one when he is on the wrong side of the consequences of the argument.


I agree with donating to charity and even paying taxes to help the poor, even if it diminishes my wellbeing (but it helps their wellbeing much more). Try again. Utilitarianism is by far not a dead end, its the most popular moral theory nowadays.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 11:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Leahn
 




Now, let me see if I got it right. You admit that you cannot justify your criteria that the mind what matters, but you feel free to criticize another person's criteria? You admit that you cannot demonstrate that your criteria is superior to any other one, but you feel free to deem another person's criteria as invalid and wrong, and that yours should be used instead, for no reason whatsoever but that you consider it so? Who elected you king of the world and forgot to tell everyone? When was everything in the world put under the jurisdiction of your whims? And, most importantly, have you considered the moral consequences if your criteria is wrong?


I am not the one wanting to force others, those who disagree with my morality, to kill their fetuses. Prolifers are the ones who want to force others, those who disagree with their morality, to not kill their fetuses. You think you are the king of the world.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 11:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
I have known that factoid pops up in this discussion. The 40 weeks fetal brain waves claim is bogus.


He didn't say 40 weeks. 40 weeks is about 10 months. He said 40 days (6 weeks) but it is bogus all the same.


Originally posted by Maslo
Current scientific consensus is that consciousness (even less, sentience or mind) requires functioning brain, is a product of the functioning brain.


Claiming so doesn't make it true. Claiming that "scientific consensus says so" doesn't make it any less true than if I claimed the opposite. Also, it did not escape me that you veinly removed the "fully" from the "fully functioning" premise, downgrading it to a merely "functioning" instead. You may pretend that they mean the same thing, but they don't. You fail again. Prove your statement. Claiming that scientists agree with you is not proving it.

You haven't even defined consciousness yet, but you purpote to claim that you know what it requires.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 11:09 AM
link   
reply to post by Natame
 




a womans body is hers and hers alone.

And the child's body is theirs and theirs alone and what gives anyone the right to kill a person that is helpless and unable to defend themselves.
edit on 9-11-2011 by ACTS 2:38 because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-11-2011 by ACTS 2:38 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mimir
I'll give you a hint about conciousness...but

If you dont know what Conciousness is you should use a dictionary,

It got something to do with the mind/brain and how it interacts with the world.
edit on 9-11-2011 by Mimir because: (no reason given)


The dictionary defines it as "relationship between the mind and the world with which it interacts." It says nothing about a brain. If you believe that mind and brain are the same thing, or in any way dependent on each other, you need to prove it.


Originally posted by Maslo
Consciousness is a product of the brain neural network. Welcome to 21st century, please leave your dualist and metaphysical superstitions behind. Mind is material, as everything else.


Prove.


Originally posted by Maslo
I agree with donating to charity and even paying taxes to help the poor, even if it diminishes my wellbeing (but it helps their wellbeing much more). Try again. Utilitarianism is by far not a dead end, its the most popular moral theory nowadays.


Christiany already preached charity two thousand years ago. If your "most popular theory" could only reach the same conclusion than a bunch of sheep herders two thousand years ago, then you are not only a philosophical dead-end, but also an useless philosophy.

You have now basically proven what I said. Utilitarianism only exists to utilitarians insofar they are on its good side.


Originally posted by Maslo
I am not the one wanting to force others, those who disagree with my morality, to kill their fetuses. Prolifers are the ones who want to force others, those who disagree with their morality, to not kill their fetuses. You think you are the king of the world.


You ignored all my questions, did you not? Can't answer them? Consequences are too bad to consider?



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 11:26 AM
link   
reply to post by Leahn
 




He didn't say 40 weeks. 40 weeks is about 10 months. He said 40 days (6 weeks) but it is bogus all the same.


Yeah, I meant days. Yes, it is bogus prolife propaganda, the brain waves appear no sooner than in 5th month of fetal development.



Claiming so doesn't make it true. Claiming that "scientific consensus says so" doesn't make it any less true than if I claimed the opposite.


Neural correlates of consciousness + Occams Razor (do not multiply entities beyond necessity) is enough to prove it as the most rational explanantion. Material brain seems to be all there is to mind, and there is no credible evidence of something more being required, much less existing.



Also, it did not escape me that you veinly removed the "fully" from the "fully functioning" premise, downgrading it to a merely "functioning" instead.


Even damaged brain can be conscious. I dont see your point.



You haven't even defined consciousness yet, but you purpote to claim that you know what it requires.


I know a rock, a plant or a bacteria is certainly not conscious and born human or higher animal certainly is. I am not a dictionary, if you want definitions, use google:


Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or to have subjective experiences.


I think thats good definition for us, of sentience (this is a more fitting term than consciousness). Or better yet, mind:

The collective conscious and unconscious processes in a sentient organism that direct and influence mental and physical behavior.


Enough?



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 11:33 AM
link   
For those against abortion, the matter is simple. If someone wants to kill their offspring, let them.
Meanwhile, raise your own family to be stable and self-sacrificing and see which family produces more "godly fruit."

For those advocating abortion, the matter is simple. Keep killing your offspring (regardless of how you categorize it's development).

[edited to add - I can imagine there being cases in which even the most godly person may wish, at least, for the option of abortion to be available. There are certain deformations and circumstances that certainly can warrant the termination of a human life. However, abortion is often weighed out foolishly in our culture, and it is to the foolish that I am speaking in the second paragraph of this post.]

I rejected many offers for sexual activity before I lost my virginity. Mating is for procreation and extends into emotional expression. If it is treated otherwise, the foolish will reap the chaos they sow. Simple. Live and let live (or destroy for this matter).
edit on 11/9/2011 by Dasher because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Leahn
 




Christiany already preached charity two thousand years ago. If your "most popular theory" could only reach the same conclusion than a bunch of sheep herders two thousand years ago, then you are not only a philosophical dead-end, but also an useless philosophy.


You are implying consequentialist moral theories and deontologic moral theories are equivalent just because they give the same answers to some moral questions? Motivation for the answer is completely different in utilitarianism vs. divine command theory, and in many questions, their answers differ.
Just to be sure, your "bunch of sheep herders two thousand years ago" were OK with abortion, prolife stance in christianity is a relatively new train of thought.



You ignored all my questions, did you not? Can't answer them? Consequences are too bad to consider?


If I change my moral philosophy, I might be sad for being wrong and advocating evil. But there will be no "consequences".

The same question - have you considered the moral consequences if your criteria is wrong?



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by marg6043
 

Why don't we take it one step further and genetically modifie monkeys to carry implanted fertilized eggs of humans than we can harvest the eggs of women so that man doesn't need a woman to procreate. Get real! I suppose nothing is sacred anymore.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 12:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
Neural correlates of consciousness + Occams Razor (do not multiply entities beyond necessity) is enough to prove it as the most rational explanantion. Material brain seems to be all there is to mind, and there is no credible evidence of something more being required, much less existing.


Correlation doesn't imply causation. I read the article twice to be sure. While the article claims that the NCC cause consciousness, it is begging the question, as they simply decided that it does.

Your last sentence is incorrect. According to you, "there is no evidence of something more being required" but the article disagrees with you. It says, and I quote: "Discovering and characterizing neural correlates does not offer a theory of consciousness that can explain why particular systems experience anything at all, why they are associated with consciousness and why other systems of equal complexity are not" (emphasis mine)

If you were correct, and material brain was all that there is to mind, any other system of equal complexity would exhibit a similar characteristic. As it is, they do not. This is your evidence that something more is necessary.


Originally posted by Maslo
Even damaged brain can be conscious. I dont see your point.


My point is that you justified killing unborn babies prior to a certain threshold because they didn't have fully functioning brains, and you used that to argue that they are not conscious. Do you still defend this idea?



I know a rock, a plant or a bacteria is certainly not conscious and born human or higher animal certainly is. I am not a dictionary, if you want definitions, use google:


Sentience is the ability to feel, perceive, or to have subjective experiences.


I think thats good definition for us, of sentience (this is a more fitting term than consciousness). Or better yet,
mind:


The collective conscious and unconscious processes in a sentient organism that direct and influence mental and physical behavior.


Enough?


Enough. According to this criteria then, you must be ok with the killing of MCS patients, or people in coma or vegetative states, as they don't meet your criteria of sentience. Are you?



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 


1. The whole abortion schtick was ENGINEERED by the globalists to foster several things consistent with their larger global government tyrannical goals:

A) help reduce the population down to 200 million globally.

B) help foster rampant sexual acting out to facilitate the destruction of the family and social order based on Judeo-Christian values in order to more easily and more quickly establish a global government worshiping satan.

C) focus more on pleasure and hedonism vs responsibility and consequences. See B) above.

D) reduce the number of slaves to more manageable numbers. See A) above.

E) satan simply loves killing babies. Whether through the fires as sacrificial offerings to demon Gods in the Old Testament or through buggering toddler boys and then torturously sacrificing them in initiation ceremonies to join the upper ranks of the global ruling elite or through abortion--satan loves murdering infants. It's one of his beloved hobbies.

F) And when he can seduce humans to focus on their pleasures more than their responsibilities--as well as mix in some baby murder in the process--he absolutely loves trashing God's favorite creatures that way as about the only way he can throw sand toward God's eyes for kicking satan out of Heaven.

G) It also helps reduce the populations of the globalists' hated outgroups faster as well--blacks, and other minorities (and women) etc.
edit on 9/11/2011 by BO XIAN because: add an item



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
You are implying consequentialist moral theories and deontologic moral theories are equivalent just because they give the same answers to some moral questions?


No. I am implying that if you like utilitarianism because if advances something that Christianity already did two thousand years ago, then utilitarianism is useless. Why should I move from Christianity to Utilitarianism if I will just keep doing what I already am doing? What good did it do? None since nothing changed.


Originally posted by MasloJust to be sure, your "bunch of sheep herders two thousand years ago" were OK with abortion, prolife stance in christianity is a relatively new train of thought.


No, they weren't. Sorry, but you don't know more about my religion than I do.


Originally posted by Maslo
If I change my moral philosophy, I might be sad for being wrong and advocating evil. But there will be no "consequences".


All actions have consequences. Pretending they do not exist do not change this fact. If you are incorrect, you just sanctioned the death of 1.2 million human beings, yearly. In fact, you would have actively fought for the right of people to kill 1.2 million human beings yearly. If "sad" is the emotion that such evokes on you, I fear what kind of atrocity you must support in order to cause you to feel either regret or guilty.


Originally posted by Maslo
The same question - have you considered the moral consequences if your criteria is wrong?


There are no moral consequences for allowing life to run its course. People are born naturally and die naturally, and there are no moral considerations on such events. However, killing people is wrong.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 12:23 PM
link   
Abortion is not even done by animals, even those savage animals do not abort their offspring, only time this ever happens is when fetus dies from violent physical activities or when a male from another territory attacks a pregnant female to either takeover the territory or mate with her.

Is there anything else the animals don't do but humans does and think its good?



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


Animals don't have a way to "abort" their fetuses, but the do often eat their own young! I'm sure there is some biological or environmental aspect that makes it a logical choice. Maybe the environment won't support the mother and cubs, so she eats the cubs until things improve and then she'll get pregnant again? Maybe the male doesn't like the size of the litter, so he eats them to put her back in heat and try again? I don't know, but they certainly do kill their own young.



posted on Nov, 9 2011 @ 12:42 PM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


Taking care of other species of animals en masse.
Destroying other species of animals en masse.

I think you might be using a poor form of logic here. Many creatures eat their offspring. Instead of contrasting the killing of offspring with animal conduct, it is more wise to liken it to the same.
edit on 11/9/2011 by Dasher because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
58
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join