Sandra Day O'Connor Retiring

[MrBadExample]

No link because it's still breaking news.

Do you think Bush is going to try and get bipartisan approval for a nominee or will he got for another far right pick?

[evilmax17]

Do you think Bush is going to try and get bipartisan approval for a nominee or will he got for another far right pick?
:rofl:

[mykevermin]

I'm naive enough to think that any extremist would only serve to make more salient the public's recognitiion that the days of "small government," "state's rights," and "individual rights" Republicans are dead, dead, and dead.

You overturn Roe v. Wade? You kill your party by alienating all but the admittedly large number of religious zealots who think that their religion should be enacted into law.

Let them do it, I say.

myke.

[David85]

She was my favorite too. :(

So goodbye to abortions and hello to god being everywhere.

No Bush gets to fuck up the country for 50 years instead of 8. Why does she have to go? She couldn't wait another 4 years?!

[camoor]

You overturn Roe v. Wade? You kill your party by alienating all but the admittedly large number of religious zealots who think that their religion should be enacted into law.

You think? I would have thought that Schaivo or the censor-friendly FCC would have sounded the alarm, however the GOP keeps steamrollin' on.

[Ruined]

I think the people should have some say in whether a justice on the court is doing a good job or not, therefore being able to fire them much like we do politicans, rather than leaving it up to politicians to put a judge in for life.

Personally, though under our current system I hope Bush puts in a conservative that leans more towards the moderate side, as the court is skewed towards the liberal end ATM.

[Quackzilla]

the court is skewed towards the liberal end ATM.
WTF?

[Scrubking]

So goodbye to abortions and hello to god being everywhere.

Damn straight.

No more baby murders and no more religious supression. The way it should be.

[Ruined]

WTF?

Party affiliation is not always equal to stance on issues.

[David85]

Damn straight.

No more baby murders and no more religious supression. The way it should be.


I'm sure Washington is turning over in his grave.

[alonzomourning23]

I think the people should have some say in whether a justice on the court is doing a good job or not, therefore being able to fire them much like we do politicans, rather than leaving it up to politicians to put a judge in for life.


Ya, I mean who cares what the laws and consitution says, the judges should rule by public opinion! :roll:

[camoor]

Damn straight.

No more baby murders and no more religious supression. The way it should be.

We already have that.

We're concerned about the new Supreme Court taking away a woman's right to an abortion and making decisions based on the christian bible, not the constitution.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

I want to know why liberals can distinguish between a product that may cause a miscarriage and deliberate abortion. I'd also like to know why the pro-death crowd seems so intent on not increasing legal penalties for murders of pregnant women.

You don't mean that if we give some legal standing to an unborn child killed unintentionally might hold to an unborn child being killed intentionally do you???

[camoor]

I want to know why liberals can distinguish between a product that may cause a miscarriage and deliberate abortion. I'd also like to know why the pro-death crowd seems so intent on not increasing legal penalties for murders of pregnant women.

You don't mean that if we give some legal standing to an unborn child killed unintentionally might hold to an unborn child being killed intentionally do you???

Do you wear leather and eat meat?

Weren't you in the Army? (not to mention that time you were sickeningly bragging about how many Arabs you have killed)

Guess what, you're in the pro-death crowd too, now we're just deciding sub-groups.

If we're talking about the legal side of things, it's all a game based on precendents. If you setup the precedent that killing Lacey Peterson was two deaths, and not one, then you are on the Fundie/Catholic/<Insert Radical christian group here> slip-and-slide to making abortion rights illegal.

[PittsburghAfterDark]

There's a world of difference between serving in the armed forces and murdering the unborn. The military is not pro-death, we buy weapons, train hard and care for equipment in the hopes that is enough of a deterrent to never have to fight.

Sickeningly bragging? Reciting your unit's combat record is not sickening. Nor is it bragging, facts are not bragging.

Eating meat is not being pro-death it's called survival. Biologically we're omnivores so now you're saying that to be moral we need to ignore what nature made us. Sorry, won't fly. If we were meant to be vegetarians our dental structure would not have given us incisors and canines, we would also have much thicker enamel on our teeth than we already do. Wearing leather is maximizing the use of the animal you ate for meat. I do draw the line at wearing fur, personally, considering many man made or natural fibers are warmer than fur it's a luxury not a necessity.

Maybe to a panty waste like you that lines his underwear with Kotex maxi-pads these things are all pro death. I'd hate to think what truly leaks out of you after you've been grabbing your ankles for an half hour so keep those pads on! Last thing we need to see are wet stains on your backside.

[camoor]

There's a world of difference between serving in the armed forces and murdering the unborn. The military is not pro-death, we buy weapons, train hard and care for equipment in the hopes that is enough of a deterrent to never have to fight.

Sickeningly bragging? Reciting your unit's combat record is not sickening. Nor is it bragging, facts are not bragging.

Eating meat is not being pro-death it's called survival. Biologically we're omnivores so now you're saying that to be moral we need to ignore what nature made us. Sorry, won't fly. If we were meant to be vegetarians our dental structure would not have given us incisors and canines, we would also have much thicker enamel on our teeth than we already do. Wearing leather is maximizing the use of the animal you ate for meat. I do draw the line at wearing fur, personally, considering many man made or natural fibers are warmer than fur it's a luxury not a necessity.

Where did I say any of my examples were intrinsically amoral (beyond you bragging about enjoying the smell of burning flesh and destruction after you had killed several Arab people)

You're the acting moral police on this one, PAD. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of anti-abortion rights crusaders calling someone pro-death.

[mykevermin]

I particularly like the "eating meat is part of survival" argument. As if there was absolutely *no way* to get by living healthy in our technologically advanced society without consuming flesh. My ass.

In this day and age, eating meat is a *choice*. Will you live if you don't? Damn skippy you will.

As far as facts not being bragging, that's pure horseshit and you know it. When you talk about delivering "500 islamofascists to Allah," you're using metaphor and eggageration (unless, of course, you *believe* in Allah ;)). That is a good percentage fact and a good percentage bragging. Don't deny it.

[Rich]

I particularly like the "eating meat is part of survival" argument. As if there was absolutely *no way* to get by living healthy in our technologically advanced society without consuming flesh. My ass.

In this day and age, eating meat is a *choice*. Will you live if you don't? Damn skippy you will.



Are you trying to justify the eating of meat to abortion analogy?

[alonzomourning23]

As far as facts not being bragging, that's pure horseshit and you know it. When you talk about delivering "500 islamofascists to Allah," you're using metaphor and eggageration (unless, of course, you *believe* in Allah ;)). That is a good percentage fact and a good percentage bragging. Don't deny it.

That's right, there's a way to brag and a way to tell your story as a point of fact, you were bragging PAD. And a particular point of your bragging was killing muslims, not defeating the enemy, not helping your unit win, but killing muslims. And, currently, 97% of iraqis are muslim (the rest mostly christian), I believe (but am not certain) there were more non christians during the gulf war than now. Either way, I'm sure there were at least a few who were clearly not so called "islamofascists" as, statistically, it should be assumed not all killed were muslim.

[Sarang01]

There's a world of difference between serving in the armed forces and murdering the unborn. The military is not pro-death, we buy weapons, train hard and care for equipment in the hopes that is enough of a deterrent to never have to fight.

Sickeningly bragging? Reciting your unit's combat record is not sickening. Nor is it bragging, facts are not bragging.

Eating meat is not being pro-death it's called survival. Biologically we're omnivores so now you're saying that to be moral we need to ignore what <a style='text-decoration: none; border-bottom: 3px double;' href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=24&k=nature%20made" onmouseover="window.status='nature made'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">nature made</a> us. Sorry, won't fly. If we were meant to be vegetarians our dental structure would not have given us incisors and canines, we would also have much thicker enamel on our teeth than we already do. Wearing leather is maximizing the use of the animal you ate for meat. I do draw the line at wearing fur, personally, considering many man made or natural fibers are warmer than fur it's a luxury not a necessity.

Maybe to a panty waste like you that lines his underwear with Kotex <a style='text-decoration: none; border-bottom: 3px double;' href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=24&k=maxi%20pads" onmouseover="window.status='maxi-pads'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">maxi-pads</a> these things are all pro death. I'd hate to think what truly leaks out of you after you've been grabbing your ankles for an half hour so keep those pads on! Last thing we need to see are wet stains on your backside.

I've about had it up to HERE with Conservatives like you. You call Liberals pantywaists but I'm sure you were all sympathetic towards Rush when he admitted he had a drug problem but didn't admit that he was wrong in what he said about drug users.
Now if you're going to use this meat analogy how about you butcher one like the Indians did the Bison and use every part of it. Seriously you're technically right about the Omnivores thing but I don't think we NEED to be Omnivores. The resoures exist now where you can be a Vegetarian and be perfectly healthy plus I think the lifestyle is most likely easier on your stomach and perhaps your whole body.
Now as to my stance on abortion this is to scrub. Scrub how about you grow breasts and a Vagina, then GET pregnant after having protected sex with a condom? It's happened and I see no problem with abortion here. Or how about there being a chance you could die giving birth, then the child is truly lacking their natural parent to be mom. Seriously man take off the blinders. Most of the people, IMO, who seem to have a problem with abortion are men. If you're a woman then I might have a bit more respect for your decision but a man no since it's not your body it's not your call.
But here's one case in point of the problem being men. "Doctors Without Borders" went to Ireland and brought Irish women out to sea to perform abortions since it's not legal there. It seemed MEN were the one's primarily against it.
I weep for O'Connor leaving. Honestly and DON'T laugh, I'm tempted to bake her a cake and write a heartfelt letter to her saying thank you.

[alonzomourning23]

No cake to o'conner for me, sure she supported abortion, which wasn't expected, but she left well before she had to knowing that an pro life judge will likely take her place.

[zionoverfire]

If she's not interested in the position anymore than I'm glad she retired. There is nothing worse than a person with enormous power who hates their job but feels compelled to stay.

I really hope that one of these days we start electing judges, perhaps for 1 time 10 year positions.

[mykevermin]

Well, her husband's not been doing very well at all, which is compelling her to step down. That's been the hearsay, and although it doesn't change the situation, it's not necessarily related to a love my job/hate my job circumstance.

I didn't want to bring up the issue of abortion, but why is it that anti-abortion activists (since someone who was thrilled to kill so many middle easterns and hates to provide federal help to the ailing can certainly NOT be called pro-life) don't haul people into jail for existing, or showering? Why do they make the argument that ALL life is precious, and that life begins at the moment of conception, yet they willingly commit atrocities everytime they step in the bathtub? They murder millions upon billions of cells everytime they put Pantene with Pro-V in their hair, as their scalp sheds millions of cells. These are cells that have your DNA, cells that have your chromosomes, cells that were living...living, that is, until you decided to take a murdering shower.

So, since at the moment of conception, the existing organism is roughly the same thing (a cell), how are the anti-abortionists able to differentiate between cells that "can" be killed (when you take your deadly vacuum around the house to dust your bookshelf teeming with cells that you murdered as they shed your skin) and those that "can't" be?

I look forward to your response immediately. While you can't stop shedding skin cells, Mr and Mrs. Murder, I fully expect a complete prohibition on bathing and showering. Such activity promotes killing living cells. We want to be consistent and value all life, don't we?

[MrBadExample]

If she's not interested in the position anymore than I'm glad she retired. There is nothing worse than a person with enormous power who hates their job but feels compelled to stay.

I really hope that one of these days we start electing judges, perhaps for 1 time 10 year positions.
I don't think she hates her job. I heard she wanted to spend more time with her ailing husband which you have to respect. The woman has served almost a quarter of a century on the nation's highest court - she's put in her time.

I think electing justices is a bad idea. The rationale behind appointments is that they won't be beholden to anyone - special interests, lobbyists, voters, swaying public opinion. Justices should only be concerned about the Constitution. That's why appointments are so important. I hope Bush is smart enough to pick a moderate.

[elprincipe]

Now as to my stance on abortion this is to scrub. Scrub how about you grow breasts and a Vagina, then GET pregnant after having protected sex with a condom? It's happened and I see no problem with abortion here. Or how about there being a chance you could die giving birth, then the child is truly lacking their natural parent to be mom. Seriously man take off the blinders. Most of the people, IMO, who seem to have a problem with abortion are men. If you're a woman then I might have a bit more respect for your decision but a man no since it's not your body it's not your call.
But here's one case in point of the problem being men. "Doctors Without Borders" went to Ireland and brought Irish women out to sea to perform abortions since it's not legal there. It seemed MEN were the one's primarily against it.

As usual, your opinion doesn't jive with the facts.

http://www.euthanasia.com/poll.html

Women are more pro-life than men -- a trend over the past decade. Sixty-one percent of women hold a pro-life position compared to 53 percent of men. Women under age 34 and over 55 are more pro-life than middle-aged women.

[elprincipe]

Well, her husband's not been doing very well at all, which is compelling her to step down. That's been the hearsay, and although it doesn't change the situation, it's not necessarily related to a love my job/hate my job circumstance.

I didn't want to bring up the issue of abortion, but why is it that anti-abortion activists (since someone who was thrilled to kill so many middle easterns and hates to provide federal help to the ailing can certainly NOT be called pro-life) don't haul people into jail for existing, or showering? Why do they make the argument that ALL life is precious, and that life begins at the moment of conception, yet they willingly commit atrocities everytime they step in the bathtub? They murder millions upon billions of cells everytime they put Pantene with Pro-V in their hair, as their scalp sheds millions of cells. These are cells that have your DNA, cells that have your chromosomes, cells that were living...living, that is, until you decided to take a murdering shower.

So, since at the moment of conception, the existing organism is roughly the same thing (a cell), how are the anti-abortionists able to differentiate between cells that "can" be killed (when you take your deadly vacuum around the house to dust your bookshelf teeming with cells that you murdered as they shed your skin) and those that "can't" be?

I look forward to your response immediately. While you can't stop shedding skin cells, Mr and Mrs. Murder, I fully expect a complete prohibition on bathing and showering. Such activity promotes killing living cells. We want to be consistent and value all life, don't we?

Don't be dense. Skin cells are not a human being.

[camoor]

Don't be dense. Skin cells are not a human being.

Neither is a sperm, egg, or sperm-egg combo under a few months old.

[Rich]

Neither is a sperm, egg, or sperm-egg combo under a few months old.

40 days, actually.

[dmpolska]

Well, her husband's not been doing very well at all, which is compelling her to step down. That's been the hearsay, and although it doesn't change the situation, it's not necessarily related to a love my job/hate my job circumstance.

I didn't want to bring up the issue of abortion, but why is it that anti-abortion activists (since someone who was thrilled to kill so many middle easterns and hates to provide federal help to the ailing can certainly NOT be called pro-life) don't haul people into jail for existing, or showering? Why do they make the argument that ALL life is precious, and that life begins at the moment of conception, yet they willingly commit atrocities everytime they step in the bathtub? They murder millions upon billions of cells everytime they put Pantene with Pro-V in their hair, as their scalp sheds millions of cells. These are cells that have your DNA, cells that have your chromosomes, cells that were living...living, that is, until you decided to take a murdering shower.

So, since at the moment of conception, the existing organism is roughly the same thing (a cell), how are the anti-abortionists able to differentiate between cells that "can" be killed (when you take your deadly vacuum around the house to dust your bookshelf teeming with cells that you murdered as they shed your skin) and those that "can't" be?

I look forward to your response immediately. While you can't stop shedding skin cells, Mr and Mrs. Murder, I fully expect a complete prohibition on bathing and showering. Such activity promotes killing living cells. We want to be consistent and value all life, don't we?


That is the dumbest thing anyone has ever said, ever. How you could write something that stupid is really beyond me. Congratulations for making a fool out of yourself... wow... what an idiot.

[camoor]

40 days, actually.

In the words of Mclaughlin: "Wrong!"

Advancements in medical technology, expected to continue, meant that a fetus might be considered viable, and thus have some basis of a right to life, at 22 or 23 weeks rather than at the 28 that was more common at the time Roe was decided.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States

[camoor]

That is the dumbest thing anyone has ever said, ever. How you could write something that stupid is really beyond me. Congratulations for making a fool out of yourself... wow... what an idiot.

Not really, if you understand the science of biology.

Oooooh, that's right, you're a fanatical christian. Back to Noah's Ark with thee!

[BigSpoonyBard]

As usual, your opinion doesn't jive with the facts.

http://www.euthanasia.com/poll.html

Because a site called euthanasia.net, which got its sources from Pro-Life Infonet, is obviously a non-partisan and reliable place for infromation. Irregardless of any polls or surveys, making abortion illegal would never curb abortion. It would only make women take higher risks to get one if they felt they needed one. Coat hangers, back alley "doctors," these are the things that will become common if abortion is made illegal. Abortions will still happen. In other words, the argument between pro-life and pro-choice factions is redundant and moot.

[alonzomourning23]

As usual, your opinion doesn't jive with the facts.

http://www.euthanasia.com/poll.html


The the extremist pro life groups do tend to be dominated by men, at least they're the ones who seem to do all the protesting.

[Rich]

The the extremist pro life groups do tend to be dominated by men, at least they're the ones who seem to do all the protesting.

Kill them all.

In the words of Mclaughlin: "Wrong!"



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States

Right or wrong, i don't really care--

I support abortion in the first trimester.

[zionoverfire]

I don't think she hates her job. I heard she wanted to spend more time with her ailing husband which you have to respect. The woman has served almost a quarter of a century on the nation's highest court - she's put in her time.

I think electing justices is a bad idea. The rationale behind appointments is that they won't be beholden to anyone - special interests, lobbyists, voters, swaying public opinion. Justices should only be concerned about the Constitution. That's why appointments are so important. I hope Bush is smart enough to pick a moderate.

She probably doesn't hate her job, but her husband's death could have a huge impact on her performance.

Justices will always be concerned with the constiitution and they will always have differing views on it, regardless of who appoints them. Let the people do it but for extended terms of 10 years, you'd be surpised how well that will keep swaying public opinion out of the picture. It will certainly be far less biased than having highly political figures appoint them.

[alonzomourning23]

She probably doesn't hate her job, but her husband's death could have a huge impact on her performance.

Justices will always be concerned with the constiitution and they will always have differing views on it, regardless of who appoints them. Let the people do it but for extended terms of 10 years, you'd be surpised how well that will keep swaying public opinion out of the picture. It will certainly be far less biased than having highly political figures appoint them.

But, if they are elected by the people, they will essentially become just as much of a politician as those who appoint them. Their ruling would more likely be based on public opinion, and it would probably be just a lesser form of what happens when the presidency is up for grabs.

[mykevermin]

That is the dumbest thing anyone has ever said, ever. How you could write something that stupid is really beyond me. Congratulations for making a fool out of yourself... wow... what an idiot.

Thank you for responding to a purely biological argument (a very simplified argument, to be sure) with little more than an ad hominem. Your contribution to the discourse is as existent as your refutation of my argument. That is, to say, your contribution is nonexistent.

Would you like an appropriate response to an ad hominem? Alright, you're a cunt.

myke.
...my argument is this: what is the biological difference between any of the cells that humans naturally or forcibly shed on a daily basis, and a zygote? As both are living organisms, you can't go that logical route. This renders the "life begins at conception" argument moot, since we don't treat hygenic individuals as murderers. At what point *after* conception, then, can you make the *biological* argument that the organism that resulted from two people fucking is more valuable and legally viable than your fucking dandruff? I look forward to your complete and utter nonresponse in the form of a personal insult forthwith.

[Drocket]

...my argument is this: what is the biological difference between any of the cells that humans naturally or forcibly shed on a daily basis, and a zygote? As both are living organisms, you can't go that logical route. This renders the "life begins at conception" argument moot, since we don't treat hygenic individuals as murderers. At what point *after* conception, then, can you make the *biological* argument that the organism that resulted from two people fucking is more valuable and legally viable than your fucking dandruff? I look forward to your complete and utter nonresponse in the form of a personal insult forthwith.

This is a REALLY BAD argument for abortion here. Dandruff, shed skin cells and other biolgical debris has a 0% chance of ever becoming a human being. The instant an egg becomes impregnated, there exists a chance that it COULD become a human being. That makes a zygote infinitely more viable than dandruff.

[elprincipe]

Because a site called euthanasia.net, which got its sources from Pro-Life Infonet, is obviously a non-partisan and reliable place for infromation.

Please don't talk about something you don't know anything about. It makes you look like a fool. That was just the first site I saw. Here's one referencing a Quinnipac Poll.

http://www.brendoman.com/hippydave/2005/05/31/men_women_and_abortion

While American voters have mixed opinions about abortion, they support the U.S. Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision 63 - 33 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today. Men support it 68 - 28 percent, while women support it 58 - 37 percent.

Irregardless of any polls or surveys, making abortion illegal would never curb abortion. It would only make women take higher risks to get one if they felt they needed one. Coat hangers, back alley "doctors," these are the things that will become common if abortion is made illegal. Abortions will still happen. In other words, the argument between pro-life and pro-choice factions is redundant and moot.

You think abortions would be just as common if they were illegal? That's a dumb opinion. Obviously some people would break the law to do it, but it's a lot less inviting to kill your baby when it's done in a back alley by someone with no qualifications in unsanitary conditions compared to the way it's done today.

And to say the argument is moot is ridiculous. There are millions of lives at stake in this issue, hardly a non-issue.

[elprincipe]

The the extremist pro life groups do tend to be dominated by men, at least they're the ones who seem to do all the protesting.

I'd love to see some statistics on this one, as it seems like this opinion is pure conjecture. I don't know of any statistics to immediately disprove this one, unlike the moronic opinon stated earlier in this thread that men were disproportionately pro-life and women disproportionately pro-baby killing.

[mykevermin]

This is a REALLY BAD argument for abortion here. Dandruff, shed skin cells and other biolgical debris has a 0% chance of ever becoming a human being. The instant an egg becomes impregnated, there exists a chance that it COULD become a human being. That makes a zygote infinitely more viable than dandruff.

What you're pointing out is not the counter argument any anti-abortion person would ever use, since you're differentiating for potential for life and "human being." Since they cannot recognize that a fertilized egg is, biologically, a single-cell organism, they would not discuss it in terms of "potential." For them, it *is* or it *isn't* a living organism; that's the only thing I'm trying to debunk as pure horseshit.

[mykevermin]

I'd love to see some statistics on this one, as it seems like this opinion is pure conjecture. I don't know of any statistics to immediately disprove this one, unlike the moronic opinon stated earlier in this thread that men were disproportionately pro-life and women disproportionately pro-baby killing.

I don't think that's the case at all, since religion has a great deal to do with influencing views on abortion. Also, since women tend to self-identify as being more religious (praying more often, attending services more frequently, etc.) than men, they would logically be more likely to be anti-abortion than men. Of course, there is the far more intimate aspect of femininity to consider, but I don't know much 'bout that.

Perhaps what alonzo is saying is that men are the more visible spokespersons for anti-abortion groups. There may be more women than men in anti-abortion groups, but the men who are part of the organization tend to be placed in positions higher in the organizational structure. If that's the case, it shouldn't be news to anyone. That's good ol' patriarchy, and you'd be a goddamned fool to think that even anti-abortion groups don't have that.

myke.
...besides, when did organizations founded on christian beliefs ever let women take charge (with the exception of perhaps PTAs)?

I can't

[camoor]

I'd love to see some statistics on this one, as it seems like this opinion is pure conjecture. I don't know of any statistics to immediately disprove this one, unlike the moronic opinon stated earlier in this thread that men were disproportionately pro-life and women disproportionately pro-baby killing.

I remember hearing about how the south claimed that many slaves didn't want freedom, and were happy in servitude (the "Uncle Tom" phenomenon). I'm sure they even convinced some slaves to feel this way too. Doesn't make slavery right, and likewise taking away a woman's rights, with or without her consent, is also wrong.

BTW I don't know anyone who is pro-baby killing. If you do, I would suggest you steer them towards the nearest psychiatrist/police station.

[Drocket]

What you're pointing out is not the counter argument any anti-abortion person would ever use, since you're differentiating for potential for life and "human being." Since they cannot recognize that a fertilized egg is, biologically, a single-cell organism, they would not discuss it in terms of "potential." For them, it *is* or it *isn't* a living organism; that's the only thing I'm trying to debunk as pure horseshit.

The vast majority of pro-life people aren't arguing that its a living organism - to argue that its a living organism and therefore should be protected inherently implies that all living organisms should be protected, which directly leads to vegetarianism, which most religious organizations aren't.

The potential to become a human being _is_ what the discussion is about: Human beings are considered to be better than other life forms, and for religious-types, what makes human beings better is that we have a soul (or whatever term you prefer.) Since a embryo may eventually become a human being, it must at some point gain a soul. Exactly when that point is is impossible to determine. Some people believe that the soul begins as soon as the egg is fertalized, while others don't know but think we should play it safe. Either way, dandruff is clearly never going to develop into a human being, and therefore clearly doesn't have a soul. That, ultimately, is what the real debate about abortions is about, and its directly connected to viability, even if its not phrased that way.

[mykevermin]

The vast majority of pro-life people aren't arguing that its a living organism - to argue that its a living organism and therefore should be protected inherently implies that all living organisms should be protected, which directly leads to vegetarianism, which most religious organizations aren't.

The potential to become a human being _is_ what the discussion is about: Human beings are considered to be better than other life forms, and for religious-types, what makes human beings better is that we have a soul (or whatever term you prefer.) Since a embryo may eventually become a human being, it must at some point gain a soul. Exactly when that point is is impossible to determine. Some people believe that the soul begins as soon as the egg is fertalized, while others don't know but think we should play it safe. Either way, dandruff is clearly never going to develop into a human being, and therefore clearly doesn't have a soul. That, ultimately, is what the real debate about abortions is about, and its directly connected to viability, even if its not phrased that way.

If that is truly the case, then, I should hope to never expect to see anything resembling a rational scientific (biological) argument from anti-abortionists (if what "it" boils down to is the existence of a "soul"). Of course, that is not the case (since they use arguments that explain what a fetus has developed by a certain period of growth).

I'll keep this in mind in the future, since such metaphysical (and completely unprovable) implications just seem to make the biological arguments absolutely pointless (for anti-abortionists and pro-choice alike).

[elprincipe]

If that is truly the case, then, I should hope to never expect to see anything resembling a rational scientific (biological) argument from anti-abortionists (if what "it" boils down to is the existence of a "soul"). Of course, that is not the case (since they use arguments that explain what a fetus has developed by a certain period of growth).

I'll keep this in mind in the future, since such metaphysical (and completely unprovable) implications just seem to make the biological arguments absolutely pointless (for anti-abortionists and pro-choice alike).

As you might imagine, pro-lifers aren't a monolith, as pro-abortionists aren't either. There is a lot of variety in reasoning on both sides and quite a few different positions, from those who feel abortion is never acceptable to those who make exceptions in certain cases to those who would allow it in most cases. Some will argue religious viewpoints about souls and the like, no doubt about it. Others will make scientific/biological arguments. The same goes for pro-abortionists. Basically what I'm saying is what Drocket has pointed out is definitely the case for some pro-lifers, but definitely not all.

[Drocket]

If that is truly the case, then, I should hope to never expect to see anything resembling a rational scientific (biological) argument from anti-abortionists (if what "it" boils down to is the existence of a "soul").
You're never going to hear a rational scientific argument from either side because abortion isn't something that is about anything rational. Its about beliefs and feelings, which will never be proven or disproven by either side.

Of course, that is not the case (since they use arguments that explain what a fetus has developed by a certain period of growth).
Of course. That bolsters their claim of 'look, its a human being!'

Lets put it this way: even if we accept that a fetus is a human being, why is killing human beings wrong anyway? If one rejects the existance of a soul (or whatever it is that makes human beings better than, say, a cow. Um, unless you're Hindu, in which case feel free to pick an appropriate animal...), then what scientific reason can you give for why its wrong to kill people? Ok, maybe killing certain people would be disruptive to society, which would be bad overall, so how about bums? Is it wrong to kill bums, who add nothing to society and who's death won't particularly be missed (or even noticed?)

[Sarang01]

My reason is respect Drocket. Treat others the way YOU want to be treated and unless they're trying to kill you or something just as harsh leave them be in terms of an extreme solution.
It honestly annoys the shit out of me that people are don't kill or hurt other people because they're afraid God will punish them. They should do it for a higher reason than that(no pun intended) or perhaps a more evolved reason would be better to say. I have to say if I was God I'd have a LOT more respect for the Atheist that tries to respect and minimize most sins than the Catholic who keeps fucking up and just going to Confession.

[David85]

I'm rubber, you're glue.... :roll:

[alonzomourning23]

I'd love to see some statistics on this one, as it seems like this opinion is pure conjecture. I don't know of any statistics to immediately disprove this one, unlike the moronic opinon stated earlier in this thread that men were disproportionately pro-life and women disproportionately pro-baby killing.

Well, I think to say anyone is pro baby killing would be difficult, hell I think finding pro abortion people would be difficult (to me pro abortion, instead of pro choice, would mean the person likes having abortions and wants everyone to have one, not just have the option). But I've seen multiple anti abortion protests (one outside a clinic in buffalo, one at the dnc, one outside boston city hall, and 2 other ones that I can't remember the reason for), I've seen videos (done by the pro life groups that were protesting), and they all seem to be dominated by men. Maybe my experience would be different if I was in another region of the country, but in the northeast that seems to be the case.

You think abortions would be just as common if they were illegal? That's a dumb opinion. Obviously some people would break the law to do it, but it's a lot less inviting to kill your baby when it's done in a back alley by someone with no qualifications in unsanitary conditions compared to the way it's done today.

And to say the argument is moot is ridiculous. There are millions of lives at stake in this issue, hardly a non-issue.

I think the real question is what would you rather have, more unwanted children, and adult women dying in back allies, or an organism with the potential for human intelligence dying.

Kenya, for example, does not allow abortions unless the mothers life is in danger:
The country is also in the grips of an illegal abortion epidemic. Abortion is only legal in Kenya if the mother's health is in jeopardy. There are an estimated 300,000 illegal abortions every year and about 5,000 women die annually from botched terminations. Sixty per cent of the women in the country's gynecological wards suffer from the consequences of unsafe abortion.

http://www.acpd.ca/acpd.cfm/en/section/acpdmedia/articleID/263

In portugal, where results would probably be closer to what they'd be in the u.s.:


At least 20.000 illegal abortions are performed in Portugal each year. As a result of complications of these illegal abortions around 5000 women are attended in hospitals every year and approximately 100 women have died unnecessary in the last 20 years. (figures of Portuguese health ministry, information AFP). This means a woman in Portugal has an up to 150 times higher risk to die from an abortion than a woman living in the Netherlands.

The restrictive abortion laws in Portugal also result in abortion tourism to Spain. But many women can not afford a journey to Spain or a safe illegal and expensive abortion in Portugal. Especially women without the means for a medically safe abortion (poor women, minors, less-informed women and those living in rural areas) will turn to unsafe abortion practices with little emotional support.

Criminalization of abortion in Portugal

Within Europe, Poland, Malta, Ireland and Portugal have very restrictive abortion laws. But only the Portuguese government actively prosecutes doctors, nurses and women having abortion. Performing an abortion with consent of the woman is punishable by a 3-year jail sentence. Also the woman undergoing the abortion can get a 3-year jail sentence. In 2001 seventeen women were on trial for having an illegal abortion and a nurse was convicted to 7 1/2 years of prison for performing illegal abortions. At this moment two women and one nurse are on trial in Setubal.
http://www.womenonwaves.org/article-1020.52-en.html


Lets put it this way: even if we accept that a fetus is a human being, why is killing human beings wrong anyway? If one rejects the existance of a soul (or whatever it is that makes human beings better than, say, a cow. Um, unless you're Hindu, in which case feel free to pick an appropriate animal...), then what scientific reason can you give for why its wrong to kill people? Ok, maybe killing certain people would be disruptive to society, which would be bad overall, so how about bums? Is it wrong to kill bums, who add nothing to society and who's death won't particularly be missed (or even noticed?)


The killing of another being that thinks, feels, fears etc. is the difference. This allow shades of grey for later abortions, but for earlier abortions the baby is not a thinking being, while practically any full developed human is.

[Drocket]

My reason is respect Drocket.
Their respect for you, or your respect for them? Either way, did you worry about respect when it came to the cow you munched/will munch down on during your 4th of July picnic? Why not? Even if you're a vegetarian, what makes people/cows/chickens/whatever special, while broccoli, which is also a living thing, not special?

Treat others the way YOU want to be treated
Which is to say that you're either afraid of being caught, or believe in some form of universal karma/judgement. The first is a scientific/logical argument (in which case, if I offer you absolutely, complete protection from any repercussions, you should have absolutely no problems with killing a bum), while the later is again religion in an abstract form.

[Drocket]

The killing of another being that thinks, feels, fears etc. is the difference. This allow shades of grey for later abortions, but for earlier abortions the baby is not a thinking being, while practically any full developed human is.
This again brings up the question of whether animals have the same rights as humans. Animals think, feel, and fear just fine. According to this logic, animals deserve the same rights as humans. It also brings into question the rights of plants because there simply isn't a nice, neat dividing line between plants and animals. There are many creatures that exhibit thinking-like activities (the venus fly trap probably being the best-known.)

[alonzomourning23]

This again brings up the question of whether animals have the same rights as humans. Animals think, feel, and fear just fine. According to this logic, animals deserve the same rights as humans. It also brings into question the rights of plants because there simply isn't a nice, neat dividing line between plants and animals. There are many creatures that exhibit thinking-like activities (the venus fly trap probably being the best-known.)

Well, degrees of thought and awareness would draw a line somewhere (ie. killing a chimp, which many researchers want to reclassify as human, vs a mosquito), and I do believe animals should have more rights than they do (though obviously, participating in a human society with all it's rights and responsibilities would be a little ridiculous). Though thinking like and thinking activities are very different, the venus fly trap essentially has triggers hairs. The closest comparison would be putting your hand on a hot stove, you quickly pull your hand back. You react before the signal reaches you brain so there is no actual thought process in that (though the venus fly trap has no brain or nervous center to get to anyway).

But since we are talking about killing organisms, killing any thinking, aware organism should not be a decision taken lightly. No one thinks twice about killing a mosquito, but most people wouldn't kill a dog or a chimpanzee. If the future baby is not yet mentally aware (and reactions, even if controlled by the brain, do not signify awareness), I see no problem in removing it if it is unwanted.

Even if you're a vegetarian, what makes people/cows/chickens/whatever special, while broccoli, which is also a living thing, not special?

Where you drunk when you posted this? You really can't see the difference between a conscious, thinking, cognizant being and a brainless plant?

[Sarang01]

Their respect for you, or your respect for them? Either way, did you worry about respect when it came to the cow you munched/will munch down on during your 4th of July picnic? Why not? Even if you're a vegetarian, what makes people/cows/chickens/whatever special, while broccoli, which is also a living thing, not special?


Which is to say that you're either afraid of being caught, or believe in some form of universal karma/judgement. The first is a scientific/logical argument (in which case, if I offer you absolutely, complete protection from any repercussions, you should have absolutely no problems with killing a bum), while the later is again religion in an abstract form.

You can argue that but in a way we should just recognize respect PERIOD. As human beings we do need to evolve somewhat beyond what we are now in consideration. Honestly I'm sick of this whole "destroy rebuild" cycle. It's happened for hundreds of years and we MUST, not can, MUST do better or we face the same cycle repeating again. I even brought to the idea of "Mini-Revolutions" if the destruction must happen unfortunately I don't think most rich people would approve of me destroying Inherited Wealth even though I believe it hinders Capitalism.

[elprincipe]

Well, I think to say anyone is pro baby killing would be difficult, hell I think finding pro abortion people would be difficult (to me pro abortion, instead of pro choice, would mean the person likes having abortions and wants everyone to have one, not just have the option). But I've seen multiple anti abortion protests (one outside a clinic in buffalo, one at the dnc, one outside boston city hall, and 2 other ones that I can't remember the reason for), I've seen videos (done by the pro life groups that were protesting), and they all seem to be dominated by men. Maybe my experience would be different if I was in another region of the country, but in the northeast that seems to be the case.

Fair enough, anecdotally you've seen more men at them.

I think the real question is what would you rather have, more unwanted children, and adult women dying in back allies, or an organism with the potential for human intelligence dying.

I'd like nobody dying. I think that's a reasonable goal to shoot for. I think we should immediately stop all the preventable dying going on and work towards finding solutions to stop that we currently can't prevent.

In portugal, where results would probably be closer to what they'd be in the u.s.:

At least 20.000 illegal abortions are performed in Portugal each year. As a result of complications of these illegal abortions around 5000 women are attended in hospitals every year and approximately 100 women have died unnecessary in the last 20 years. (figures of Portuguese health ministry, information AFP). This means a woman in Portugal has an up to 150 times higher risk to die from an abortion than a woman living in the Netherlands.

The restrictive abortion laws in Portugal also result in abortion tourism to Spain. But many women can not afford a journey to Spain or a safe illegal and expensive abortion in Portugal. Especially women without the means for a medically safe abortion (poor women, minors, less-informed women and those living in rural areas) will turn to unsafe abortion practices with little emotional support.

Criminalization of abortion in Portugal

[font=Times New Roman][size=1]Within Europe, Poland, Malta, Ireland and Portugal have very restrictive abortion laws. But only the Portuguese government actively prosecutes doctors, nurses and women having abortion. Performing an abortion with consent of the woman is punishable by a 3-year jail sentence. Also the woman undergoing the abortion can get a 3-year jail sentence. In 2001 seventeen women were on trial for having an illegal abortion and a nurse was convicted to 7 1/2 years of prison for performing illegal abortions. At this moment two women and one nurse are on trial in Setubal.

Yep, and these statistics back up my statement that there would be less abortions if it was illegal. Obviously some bad goes with that good, which is women getting illegal abortions and more medical problems from that, but definitely less abortions.

[Drocket]

Where you drunk when you posted this? You really can't see the difference between a conscious, thinking, cognizant being and a brainless plant?
The problem is that you seem to think that there's an absolute dividing line between the two things: there's not. There's a whole lot of shades of grey. Scientists have long since given up on a simplistic classification of everything either being a plant or an animal: Depending on who you ask, there's either 5, 7, 8 or more basic classifications of lifeforms (http://scitec.uwichill.edu.bb/bcs/bl14apl/Plant.htm), and there's STILL things that can't be placed into any of them, calling into question if its even worthwhile to even try to classify things that way.

Its also worth questioning your view of plants as mindless. Technically, yes, they are brainless (though some creatures classified as animals also have no brain (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/invertebrates/echinoderm/Seaurchin.shtml)), but they still demonstrate a remarkably intelligent-seeming stimulus-response reaction (http://www.botanical-online.com/colaborationstropism.htm) to a lot of different situations.

The simply reality is that you can't draw an absolutely dividing line between plants and animals. Its the miracle of evolution.

[Drocket]

Yep, and these statistics back up my statement that there would be less abortions if it was illegal. Obviously some bad goes with that good, which is women getting illegal abortions and more medical problems from that, but definitely less abortions.

Actually, I have to question that. First off, the quoted material states that "AT LEAST" 20,000 illegal abortions occur in Portugal per year. That means that 20,000 is the absolute minimum. Portugal is an extremely small country, with a population of only about 10 million. Scaling that up for the US population, that would be 600,000 abortions per year, roughly 1/2 the number that take place in the US (or more, because of the magical 'at least')

Ok, you say, they've cut abortions in half by making it illegal (and only unnecessarily killed 100 people doing so!) However, that doesn't take into account the number of women who travel to Spain to get a legal, far-safer abortion. How many women is that? No idea, but I would guess that its no small number, probably almost as large as the number of illegal abortions (its quite easy to travel from Portugal to Spain.)

Overall, at most, they've succeeded in minorly decreasing the abortion rate, while putting many, many women's lives in danger. I wouldn't exactly call that a stunning success.

[alonzomourning23]

The problem is that you seem to think that there's an absolute dividing line between the two things: there's not. There's a whole lot of shades of grey. Scientists have long since given up on a simplistic classification of everything either being a plant or an animal: Depending on who you ask, there's either 5, 7, 8 or more basic classifications of lifeforms (http://scitec.uwichill.edu.bb/bcs/bl14apl/Plant.htm), and there's STILL things that can't be placed into any of them, calling into question if its even worthwhile to even try to classify things that way.

Its also worth questioning your view of plants as mindless. Technically, yes, they are brainless (though some creatures classified as animals also have no brain (http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/invertebrates/echinoderm/Seaurchin.shtml)), but they still demonstrate a remarkably intelligent-seeming stimulus-response reaction (http://www.botanical-online.com/colaborationstropism.htm) to a lot of different situations.

The simply reality is that you can't draw an absolutely dividing line between plants and animals. Its the miracle of evolution.

Again, stimulus response reactions do not indicate intelligent thought. And, again, there is a difference between a rose and a dog. The blurry areas exist among organisms that have no real intelligence anyway, when you get into things even as intelligent as a fruitfly there is a clear difference. No one is trying to classify brocoli as an animal, or an organism that has awareness and feelings, and no one is trying to say an orangutan doesn't posses those characteristics. How you can argue that there is no real distinction between something that is clearly an animals (dog, rat, human, parrot etc.) and brocolli is beyond me. If you want to run or show a study indicating that brocolli does or could suffer real pain and agony (not just a reaction to fix a problem) at being cut, and is a thinking being, go ahead, otherwise I can't see how you have an argument.

[Drocket]

If you want to run or show a study indicating that brocolli does or could suffer real pain and agony (not just a reaction to fix a problem) at being cut, and is a thinking being, go ahead, otherwise I can't see how you have an argument.

The respnse of plants to outside action can be quite complicated. Plants 'scream', emitting different tones when injured (http://www.peva.org/images/timesonline/screaming_plants.htm) and emit chemicals can in fact 'warn' other plants who will then prepare for the attack (http://www.edwardwillett.com/Columns/plantcommunication.htm). Plants, in fact, respond to asprin (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/08/980806090010.htm) just as humans/animals do.

What you're saying, essentially, is that because plants experience and respond to pain differently than humans, it simply doesn't count. They don't respond exactly like we do, so whatever - lets hack them down and eat them. What a truly progressive attitude - if it doesn't match your experience, it simply doesn't matter.

[elprincipe]

Actually, I have to question that. First off, the quoted material states that "AT LEAST" 20,000 illegal abortions occur in Portugal per year. That means that 20,000 is the absolute minimum. Portugal is an extremely small country, with a population of only about 10 million. Scaling that up for the US population, that would be 600,000 abortions per year, roughly 1/2 the number that take place in the US (or more, because of the magical 'at least')

Ok, you say, they've cut abortions in half by making it illegal (and only unnecessarily killed 100 people doing so!) However, that doesn't take into account the number of women who travel to Spain to get a legal, far-safer abortion. How many women is that? No idea, but I would guess that its no small number, probably almost as large as the number of illegal abortions (its quite easy to travel from Portugal to Spain.)

Overall, at most, they've succeeded in minorly decreasing the abortion rate, while putting many, many women's lives in danger. I wouldn't exactly call that a stunning success.

I won't make any arguments about these statistics other than the one I did make, because obviously I am not an expert on abortion in Portugal nor on these statistics (which are obviously dubious due to the illegal nature of what they are measuring). However, I would call any statement that making something illegal does not reduce its prevalence dumb, and that would include if abortion was made illegal again in the U.S.

I would also submit that those 100 women killed should not be thought of as "unnecessarily" because they were breaking the law and taking a large risk by using unlicensed doctors (if they even were doctors) outside of a medical facility. They knew they were doing something illegal and without proper certification for the people doing it. Not that their deaths aren't tragic of course, but just to put things in perspective.

[alonzomourning23]

I won't make any arguments about these statistics other than the one I did make, because obviously I am not an expert on abortion in Portugal nor on these statistics (which are obviously dubious due to the illegal nature of what they are measuring). However, I would call any statement that making something illegal does not reduce its prevalence dumb, and that would include if abortion was made illegal again in the U.S.

I would also submit that those 100 women killed should not be thought of as "unnecessarily" because they were breaking the law and taking a large risk by using unlicensed doctors (if they even were doctors) outside of a medical facility. They knew they were doing something illegal and without proper certification for the people doing it. Not that their deaths aren't tragic of course, but just to put things in perspective.


I found the 5,000 women hospitalized a year to be more notworthy than the 100 killed.

[alonzomourning23]

The respnse of plants to outside action can be quite complicated. Plants 'scream', emitting different tones when injured (http://www.peva.org/images/timesonline/screaming_plants.htm) and emit chemicals can in fact 'warn' other plants who will then prepare for the attack (http://www.edwardwillett.com/Columns/plantcommunication.htm). Plants, in fact, respond to asprin (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/08/980806090010.htm) just as humans/animals do.

What you're saying, essentially, is that because plants experience and respond to pain differently than humans, it simply doesn't count. They don't respond exactly like we do, so whatever - lets hack them down and eat them. What a truly progressive attitude - if it doesn't match your experience, it simply doesn't matter.

Essentially, what you're saying, is you haven't shown they have an actual intelligent, thinking capacity, or feel pain as more than something to correct.

I really hope you don't think a carrot and a dog are comparable in mental capacity.

[elprincipe]

I found the 5,000 women hospitalized a year to be more notworthy than the 100 killed.

Yep, not good stuff, but they knew the risks when they set out to break the law and kill their baby. They should feel fortunate to only be hospitalized and not jailed.

[Drocket]

Essentially, what you're saying, is you haven't shown they have an actual intelligent, thinking capacity, or feel pain as more than something to correct.
That's what pain is - your body's way of telling you that something is wrong and that it needs to be fixed. There's nothing magical about it: its just the injured section of your body telling you, 1) that something is wrong and that you need to not use that limb as much for a while, and 2) that your immune system needs to send reinforcements to the area ASAP. The vast majority of your body's reaction to pain occurs without your consious though. People who lose the ability to feel pain (leprosy being the most common example) invariably wind up losing fingers/toes/hands/feet and eventually limbs because their body no longer has the warning signal that it needs to react to injury.

I really hope you don't think a carrot and a dog are comparable in mental capacity.
Of course not. If we define human at 100% and rocks at 0% on the thinking scale, I'd say that dogs are at maybe 60%, while carrots are at maybe 2%. So where exactly do you put the 'Eat nothing beyond this point' label? 5%? 10%? 50%? 99%? No matter where you put it, there's going to be something that's JUST BARELY on one side of that line that's virtually the same as something on the other side. Why should one be edible while the other isn't?

[Drocket]

Yep, not good stuff, but they knew the risks when they set out to break the law and kill their baby. They should feel fortunate to only be hospitalized and not jailed.

I say we kill the mother. Oh, I know what you're going to say: if you kill the mother, the fetus dies too. But the fetus is going to be aborted anyway, so why not let it go down with the ship?


Bonus points to anyone who can identifying the quote :)

[alonzomourning23]

Yep, not good stuff, but they knew the risks when they set out to break the law and kill their baby. They should feel fortunate to only be hospitalized and not jailed.

So, for example, if I said "I hate saddam" to an iraqi soldier in 1994, I should be grateful that I'm just arrested and not tortured or killed? Just because it's illegal and the result is not as bad as it could be, doesn't mean that they should feel lucky or that they should have to face that penalty.

[camoor]

Yep, not good stuff, but they knew the risks when they set out to break the law and kill their baby. They should feel fortunate to only be hospitalized and not jailed.

I feel fortunate that I don't live in your christian-right dictatorship fantasy world. I love the term "compassionate conservativism" - this is what it's all about folks.

[alonzomourning23]

That's what pain is - your body's way of telling you that something is wrong and that it needs to be fixed. There's nothing magical about it: its just the injured section of your body telling you, 1) that something is wrong and that you need to not use that limb as much for a while, and 2) that your immune system needs to send reinforcements to the area ASAP. The vast majority of your body's reaction to pain occurs without your consious though. People who lose the ability to feel pain (leprosy being the most common example) invariably wind up losing fingers/toes/hands/feet and eventually limbs because their body no longer has the warning signal that it needs to react to injury.

Yes, but the body of people who do not feel pain still reacts. If I cut myself and feel no pain, that cut will still clot and eventually heal itself, because blood cells are designed to clot the wound.


Of course not. If we define human at 100% and rocks at 0% on the thinking scale, I'd say that dogs are at maybe 60%, while carrots are at maybe 2%. So where exactly do you put the 'Eat nothing beyond this point' label? 5%? 10%? 50%? 99%? No matter where you put it, there's going to be something that's JUST BARELY on one side of that line that's virtually the same as something on the other side. Why should one be edible while the other isn't?

If you define a rock at 0%, and want to argue any stimulus-response is a form of thought and intelligence, then 60% should be occupied by zooplankton and worms. A carrot has no brain, no emotions, and no conscious awareness of any pain. The border between plants and animals consists of things such as zooplankton. There are things such as sea anemones which, while animals, probably are more like a plant than most other animals. In an area where the debate over vegetarianism is concerned, those borderline species aren't the ones being discussed. The line for vegetarianism is drawn at animal, you can question whether non thinking animals such as sea anemones and jellyfish (animals which have no brains but do have systems of nerves with controls reactions and movements, but do not involve though) should stand apart from a carrot or apple, but anything that actually has a brain at least has the potential for actual thought and emotions (I'm sure you could get into a long debate over whether the thought produced by fruit flies and krill equals feelings and emotion), not just reactions.

I can't decide whether you actually believe brocolli thinks, or if you're simply trying to play devil's advocate.

[Drocket]

Yes, but the body of people who do not feel pain still reacts. If I cut myself and feel no pain, that cut will still clot and eventually heal itself, because blood cells are designed to clot the wound.
Healing is a lot more complicated than that. Yes, the blood will clot, eventually (but not as fast as it would if you could feel: when you're injured, your body releases chemicals to make your blood clot easier, and sends white blood cells to the area to help cut off the bleeding), but its simply not going to heal correctly. The cells in the area will keep growing and will eventually wind up covering up the hole (in a mis-mash sort of way, almost certainly leaving a giant scar), but it won't be the directed healing that's induced by pain (which increases bloodflow near the region injured once the clot is formed and causes the cells to reproduce faster.)

Healing is not a simple process by any measure. Its one that involves a lot of different systems, all of which act in response to the pain stimulus. This is why leprosy is such a damaging disease. Ultimately, leprosy does little more than dim your perception of pain - and without a lot of medical care, its essentially a death sentence.

A carrot has no brain, no emotions, and no conscious awareness of any pain.
It has no brain, granted, but who says that a brain is necessary? As you said, jellyfish have no brain either, yet they react to a lot of different stimuses in an 'intelligent' fashion. As for emotions and consciousness - prove that they don't have them (and actually, a lot of scientists and philosophers would be interested if you could prove humans have them, beyond random chemical interactions in the brain.)

The border between plants and animals consists of things such as zooplankton. There are things such as sea anemones which, while animals, probably are more like a plant than most other animals. In an area where the debate over vegetarianism is concerned, those borderline species aren't the ones being discussed. The line for vegetarianism is drawn at animal
The point I'm making is what you've admitted: there ISN'T a line where you can easily say "this is an animal, and that's not." We have some stuff that we can classify as animals, some stuff we can classify as plants, and a whole big fuzzy area in between.

I can't decide whether you actually believe brocolli thinks, or if you're simply trying to play devil's advocate.
The question revolves entirely around the existance of 'souls'. If you don't believe in the existance of souls, then human 'thought' is nothing more than a chemical process. A complex chemical process, but a chemical process never-the-less. Why should the chemical process involved in human thought be special, while the chemical processes in carrots isn't?

[alonzomourning23]

Healing is a lot more complicated than that. Yes, the blood will clot, eventually (but not as fast as it would if you could feel: when you're injured, your body releases chemicals to make your blood clot easier, and sends white blood cells to the area to help cut off the bleeding), but its simply not going to heal correctly. The cells in the area will keep growing and will eventually wind up covering up the hole (in a mis-mash sort of way, almost certainly leaving a giant scar), but it won't be the directed healing that's induced by pain (which increases bloodflow near the region injured once the clot is formed and causes the cells to reproduce faster.)

Healing is not a simple process by any measure. Its one that involves a lot of different systems, all of which act in response to the pain stimulus. This is why leprosy is such a damaging disease. Ultimately, leprosy does little more than dim your perception of pain - and without a lot of medical care, its essentially a death sentence.

I know absolutely nothing about leprosy. I know that in cartoons and comedies they have limbs falling off, which I would guess doesn't happen. That's the extent of my knowledge. I do know there are rare instances of children born without the ability to feel pain (these children often die due to not knowing what is harmful), and their wounds heal like everyone else. I know a little about that, and that's what I've essentially been thinking of when arguing this portion.


It has no brain, granted, but who says that a brain is necessary? As you said, jellyfish have no brain either, yet they react to a lot of different stimuses in an 'intelligent' fashion. As for emotions and consciousness - prove that they don't have them (and actually, a lot of scientists and philosophers would be interested if you could prove humans have them, beyond random chemical interactions in the brain.)

I think you miss the point. The chemical basis of emotions and feelings do not mean they don't exist, and I would be suprised if you could find scientists who argue feelings and emotions don't exists, regardless of their cause.

And the evidence to indicate plants think and have consciousness is essentially zero. They have reactions, repair damage etc., but there is nothing to support your argument that I'm aware off, one I doubt you yourself believe.


The point I'm making is what you've admitted: there ISN'T a line where you can easily say "this is an animal, and that's not." We have some stuff that we can classify as animals, some stuff we can classify as plants, and a whole big fuzzy area in between.

But, again, the whole fuzzy area is occupied by things that aren't in the vegetarian debate anyway. Salmon, pork, beef etc. are well beyond that. Jellyfish (which may enter into the debate in some cultures) may be completely lacking in emotion and consciousness, and in that sense be similar to a plant, but they are biologically a world apart.

The question revolves entirely around the existance of 'souls'. If you don't believe in the existance of souls, then human 'thought' is nothing more than a chemical process. A complex chemical process, but a chemical process never-the-less. Why should the chemical process involved in human thought be special, while the chemical processes in carrots isn't?

I don't see what this has to do with chemical processes or souls. You and I live life everyday, we feel and have emotions, whatever the basis to that (and I don't believe in souls), they exist in us and without question in many animals (I have pet rats who ignore food at the prospect of human attention, I know iguanas have occasionally refused to eat, to the point of starvation, when given up by a previous owner etc.). The very fact that we can sit here, with different opinions and reactions, shows that, and whatever basis it has does not change that.

At best the question of plant awareness and thought is relegated to the highly unlikely, like most other unproved things with practically zero evidence.

[Drocket]

I know absolutely nothing about leprosy. I know that in cartoons and comedies they have limbs falling off, which I would guess doesn't happen.
They don't randomly fall off, like they always show as a comedy gag in movies and the like. Usually the limbs have to be amputated because of infection - even a minor scrape can cause infection when the body's 'oh crap' alert doesn't go off. It actually is possible for the body's minor extremities (fingers, toes, nose, earlobes, etc) to rot and fall off on their own, though.

I think you miss the point. The chemical basis of emotions and feelings do not mean they don't exist, and I would be suprised if you could find scientists who argue feelings and emotions don't exists, regardless of their cause.
Of course emotions and feelings exist, but if they're nothing more than a chemical reaction to a stimulus, do they have any real meaning? If I poke you real hard with a stick, you're probably either going to get mad or afraid. If that's simply a chemical reaction to a stimulus, why does that have meaning or importance while, if I poke a carrot with a stick and it has its own chemical reaction, that doesn't have meaning?

If fear is nothing more than a chemical/biological reaction to a bad stimulus, then if a plant has it own (different) chemical/biological reaction to a bad stimulus, why is it ridiculous to also call that fear?

[alonzomourning23]

Of course emotions and feelings exist, but if they're nothing more than a chemical reaction to a stimulus, do they have any real meaning? If I poke you real hard with a stick, you're probably either going to get mad or afraid. If that's simply a chemical reaction to a stimulus, why does that have meaning or importance while, if I poke a carrot with a stick and it has its own chemical reaction, that doesn't have meaning?

If fear is nothing more than a chemical/biological reaction to a bad stimulus, then if a plant has it own (different) chemical/biological reaction to a bad stimulus, why is it ridiculous to also call that fear?

Emotions and feelings have as much meaning as an organism gives them, and are created by an organism either on their own or in reactions to a stimulus (internal or external). We give them meaning, chimps, dogs, cats, mice etc. give them meaning. There is nothing to indicate that a plant has the capacity to think, have emotions etc., they have none of the things that we know are associated with emotions (mainly a brain), they do not appear to have a comparable alternative, and there isn't evidence that something requiring intelligent thought is occuring.

[Drocket]

Emotions and feelings have as much meaning as an organism gives them and are created by an organism either on their own or in reactions to a stimulus (internal or external).
Therefore, you're saying that emotions exist independant of thought. They only matter if the being in question is capable of the level of thought necessary to realize that they're experiencing a given emotion.

We give them meaning, chimps, dogs, cats, mice etc. give them meaning.
That we humans give them meaning, I don't doubt (well, for most people at least...) Chimps are most likely capable of this, and cats and dogs are at least possible. However, it seems somewhat of a stretch to claim that mice are capable of the thought necessary to recognize that they're afraid. Something makes a loud noise, mouse runs away. That seems to pretty much be the extent of mouse intelligence, as far as I can tell. I can't particularly see mice standing around thinking, "Boy, that noise scared me. There doesn't seem to be anything around to hurt me, though, so I guess its OK." So why does mouse fear matter?

[alonzomourning23]

Therefore, you're saying that emotions exist independant of thought. They only matter if the being in question is capable of the level of thought necessary to realize that they're experiencing a given emotion.

Emotions are the product of many things, thought, external stimuluses etc. They are simultaneous with thought, the ability to reflect on that emotion and such would probably require more intelligence.


That we humans give them meaning, I don't doubt (well, for most people at least...) Chimps are most likely capable of this, and cats and dogs are at least possible. However, it seems somewhat of a stretch to claim that mice are capable of the thought necessary to recognize that they're afraid. Something makes a loud noise, mouse runs away. That seems to pretty much be the extent of mouse intelligence, as far as I can tell. I can't particularly see mice standing around thinking, "Boy, that noise scared me. There doesn't seem to be anything around to hurt me, though, so I guess its OK." So why does mouse fear matter?

Mice family have had mice all my life, I personally have had rats for about ten years (and therefore know a lot more about mice). Rats are smarter, but not by much. They regularly ignore food in favor of attention. Their reaction to fear does differ depending which human is around (ie. me or another family member), their surrounding, familiarity with the noise etc. Make a loud noise 3 or 4 times and nothing happens to them, they stop being afraid. Today, one of my rats was on the couch. She walked to the edge, looked at the coffee table, then at the chair, then the coffee table, then the foot rest, then the chair (did this for about a minute). She then quickly leaps off the couch, onto the coffee table, then the foot rest, then the chair, without stopping. Things like that are relatively normal for rats (the only difference is she has particularly good eyesight for a rat, since they normally have horrible eyesight). They regularly move around houses and toys in their cage to reach some of the difficult to access higher areas of their cage. When I put a new hammock in their cage, they immediately go to work at cutting a hole in it so they can get inside of the two layers of cloth, instead of just sleeping on top of it. On the other hand, my dog can't figure out that when he goes around a telephone pole and gets stuck, all he has to do is walk back the other way. No matter how many times I show him, he can't figure it out. Out of my 5 rats, I'm pretty sure 2 are smarter than my dog (and most studies put rats somewhere near dog territory in terms of intelligence).

I've had animals all my life, and I've studied their intelligence in psychology classes and on my own. The easiest way to guess an animals intelligence is to overestimate it, cause it will usually measure up. You think crows are dumb, but then you hear they can spontaneously construct tools to reach objects out of reach (link even has a movie!). (http://www.sciencemag.org/feature/data/crow/) Think no other animal uses tools for war, you hear about how baboons used sticks and stones to stage a violent show of protest/revenge at the death of a baby baboon:

Baboons "protesting" at the killing of one of their group have disrupted traffic on the busy Tororo-Jinja highway in eastern Uganda

This is the second time the animals have behaved in such a manner on the same road.

The trouble began after a speeding lorry ran over a huge female baboon, who died instantly in the Busitema Forest Reserve, 15 kilometres from the Uganda-Kenya border.

According to eyewitnesses, the driver deliberately swerved across the road to hit the female who was eating white ants.

Soon afterwards, an infuriated group of baboons converged at the scene of the killing and surrounded her body.

They sat in the middle on the road for about 30 minutes causing a temporary traffic jam.

'Hunger-strike'

A similar incident happened on this very stretch of the road late last year, when baboons hurled sticks and stones at motorists after a baby baboon was knocked over and killed by a vehicle.

When I arrived at the scene of the incident early on Wednesday afternoon, I met an evidently angry family of young and adult baboons sitting close to the body of the dead female.

Usually, the baboons in this forest area rush to pick up any edible items thrown to them by motorists and other road users.

But this time, the story was quite different.

I threw a piece of sugarcane to the bereaved baboons, but none of them rushed to pick it up.

Later in the afternoon, some unknown person managed to wrap the lower part of the baboon's body with a spotless white cloth of the type used for burying human beings in the region.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2989425.stm

and here's another one (I love this story, saw a video of them hurling sticks at another troop to fend off an attack on national geographic once), this particular passage taken from the "descent of man":

Brehm [40] states, on the authority of the well-known traveller Schimper, that in Abyssinia when the baboons belonging to one species (C. gelada) descend in troops from the mountains to plunder the fields, they sometimes encounter troops of another species (C. hamadryas), and then a fight ensues. The Geladas roll down great stones, which the Hamadryas try to avoid, and then both species, making a great uproar, rush furiously against each other. Brehm, when, accompanying the Duke of Coburg-Gotha, aided in an attack with firearms on a troop of baboons in the pass of Mensa in Abyssinia. The baboons in return rolled so many stones down the mountain, some as large as a man's head, that the attackers had to beat a hasty retreat; and the pass was actually closed for a time against the caravan. It deserves notice that these baboons thus acted in concert. Mr. Wallace [41] on three occasions saw female orangs, accompanied by their young, "breaking off branches and the great spiny fruit of the Durian tree, with every appearance of rage; causing such a shower of missiles as effectually kept us from approaching too near the tree." As I have repeatedly seen, a chimpanzee will throw any object at hand at a person who offends him; and the before-mentioned baboon at the Cape of Good Hope prepared mud for the purpose.

http://pubpages.unh.edu/~jel/tool.html

Hey, we all knew baboons were smart, nothing too suprising. Now octopus though, they can't do anything intelligent. Then again, that's if observational learning isn't a form of intelligence:

In 1992 two Italian researchers, Fiorito and Scotto, used food and mild electric shock to train a group of octopus vulgaris to grab for a red ball rather than a white ball. The scientists also allowed untrained octopuses to watch from adjoining tanks as the experiments were conducted. The researchs noted that the watching group of octopuses reached for the red ball immeadiately when the experiment was conducted with them. The waiting group of octopuses had somehow learned to pounce upon the red ball, simply from observing the octopuses in the first set of experiments. This "learning by watching" has never before been observed in any other invertebrate..........

In yet another experiment a scientist presented an octopus with a lobster contained in a bottled closed with a cork. The octopus immeadiately examined the bottle with its arms, then wrapped its arm around it and clamped one arm on the cork. The octopus was soon able to remove the cork, slide into the bottle and engulf its prey.


http://people.cornellcollege.edu/b-popelka/MarineScience/intelligence.htm

I should stop now, I could go on for pages and pages when discussing animal intelligence. Though to make my point, brocolli is a far cry from any of these animals. I think most animals are more intelligent than you give them credit for.

[E-Z-B]

Should the Republicans push a radical right-wing judge as a nominee, that's when the democrats WILL fillibuster, the Republicans WILL go "nukular", and the democrats WILL shut down the senate.

[alonzomourning23]

Should the Republicans push a radical right-wing judge as a nominee, that's when the democrats WILL fillibuster, the Republicans WILL go "nukular", and the democrats WILL shut down the senate.

I should probably hold a candlelight vigil to women's rights tonight.

[Drocket]

I should stop now, I could go on for pages and pages when discussing animal intelligence. Though to make my point, brocolli is a far cry from any of these animals. I think most animals are more intelligent than you give them credit for.

Ok, I'm going to concede defeat. I'm still not convinced of the argument that, if life is nothing more than a chemical reaction, that one chemical reaction can be called better than another simply because its more complex. However, you've done an excellent job arguing your position, far better than most on this board would be capable of, and for that you deserve some congratulations.

:applause:

[PittsburghAfterDark]

Since there were statistics thrown out earlier about 100 women dying and 5,000 hospitalized due to illegal aboritions let's look at another statistic.

40,000,000 abortions since 1972. So let's kill the 100 women per year= 3,300. Let's hospitalize the 5,000 per year= 165,000. 1,212,121 abortions per year.

Seems to me the needs of the many (The aborted.) outweigh the needs of the few (Women killed.) I mean with 40,000,000 more citizens we probably wouldn't need to address Social Security this year, we'd have enough citizens producing wages to cover the program for a few more years.

What do I know, let's kill more unviable tissue masses. Who cares if the medical team that may have cured cancer or AIDS is 13 year old medical waste in New Jersey. We want the right to kill without remorse.

[Drocket]

Or possibly more likely, the 13 year old medical waste in New Jersey would have turned out to be a criminal (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=174508) who wound up shooting the guy who's going to cure cancer during a holdup for drug money. Lets face it, a woman who wants/is willing to kill her unborn kid isn't going to sudden turn into a wonderful mother if you force her to raise it against her will.

I have absolutely no idea how that logic goes: 'Sasha, the 15 year old, drug-addict, Paris Hilton wanna-be, was GOING to have her child hacked to pieces in her womb, but since that was illegal, she instead raised it in a loving home, joined the PTA and baked cookies and brownies every day.' Suuuuure...

[E-Z-B]

Looks like Rehnquist is retiring now, too, although it's no surprise:

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45166

Looks like we'll be seeing two ultraconservatives shortly.

[elprincipe]

So, for example, if I said "I hate saddam" to an iraqi soldier in 1994, I should be grateful that I'm just arrested and not tortured or killed? Just because it's illegal and the result is not as bad as it could be, doesn't mean that they should feel lucky or that they should have to face that penalty.

They did something they knew was illegal and unsafe and they paid by being hospitalized (or killed). I have sympathy for the misfortune of others, but they were being irresponsible and paid for their irresponsibility. They chose to gamble and lost. Unfortunately for them, the stakes were higher than just money, but they made that decision.

[elprincipe]

Since there were statistics thrown out earlier about 100 women dying and 5,000 hospitalized due to illegal aboritions let's look at another statistic.

40,000,000 abortions since 1972. So let's kill the 100 women per year= 3,300. Let's hospitalize the 5,000 per year= 165,000. 1,212,121 abortions per year.

Seems to me the needs of the many (The aborted.) outweigh the needs of the few (Women killed.) I mean with 40,000,000 more citizens we probably wouldn't need to address Social Security this year, we'd have enough citizens producing wages to cover the program for a few more years.

What do I know, let's kill more unviable tissue masses. Who cares if the medical team that may have cured cancer or AIDS is 13 year old medical waste in New Jersey. We want the right to kill without remorse.

The real question is how pro-abortion people live with it. They say they want less abortions. If the baby isn't a person, why are they concerned about having less abortions? I believe most of them just rationalize away the facts for their own convenience and know deep down that what they are doing/supporting is wrong.

Well, at least the vast majority of us can agree that an ideal world would have 0 abortions.

[alonzomourning23]

The real question is how pro-abortion people live with it. They say they want less abortions. If the baby isn't a person, why are they concerned about having less abortions? I believe most of them just rationalize away the facts for their own convenience and know deep down that what they are doing/supporting is wrong.

Well, at least the vast majority of us can agree that an ideal world would have 0 abortions.

I personally don't care about how many abortions we have unless the child is fully aware, then you should do what you can to minimize them. But, it's not black and white, there's degrees of worth. The mother is always more important than the future child that is part of her body, and as the child grows it gradually gains more value as its mind develops. If it is not yet a conscious being, then, in my eyes, it has no value other than what the mother places (or others) on it.

Getting rid of a baby is a hell of a lot better than neglecting or abusing it. Or turning a mistake or accident into a life ruining event (ie. girl gets kicked out of parents home, or no longer has the time for education etc.). Also, in the big picture, there is an economic and social impact with poor, uneducated mothers, and banning abortions will only increase the amount (back to education, time etc.)

[alonzomourning23]

They did something they knew was illegal and unsafe and they paid by being hospitalized (or killed). I have sympathy for the misfortune of others, but they were being irresponsible and paid for their irresponsibility. They chose to gamble and lost. Unfortunately for them, the stakes were higher than just money, but they made that decision.

Sometimes it doesn't work out the way you plan it, no matter how responsible you are.

[elprincipe]

I personally don't care about how many abortions we have unless the child is fully aware, then you should do what you can to minimize them. But, it's not black and white, there's degrees of worth. The mother is always more important than the future child that is part of her body, and as the child grows it gradually gains more value as its mind develops. If it is not yet a conscious being, then, in my eyes, it has no value other than what the mother places (or others) on it.

So, just wondering, how do you define when the baby is a "conscious being"? This is not exact science here. And does that mean you feel someone like Terri Schiavo, massively brain-damaged, is not a "conscious being" and therefore not a person?

[alonzomourning23]

So, just wondering, how do you define when the baby is a "conscious being"? This is not exact science here. And does that mean you feel someone like Terri Schiavo, massively brain-damaged, is not a "conscious being" and therefore not a person?

She's a person, but should not be kept alive in that state. A month old baby has never reached the status of fully developed "person", it's merely a possibility at this point. With schiavo, for a while anyway, there was something to protect, something to attempt to restore, and then there's also concern for her loved ones. An embryo has never had that. If the child has yet to reach the point of cosciousness, then there's little to protect.

[elprincipe]

She's a person, but should not be kept alive in that state. A month old baby has never reached the status of fully developed "person", it's merely a possibility at this point. With schiavo, for a while anyway, there was something to protect, something to attempt to restore, and then there's also concern for her loved ones. An embryo has never had that. If the child has yet to reach the point of cosciousness, then there's little to protect.

So someone who had concsiousness and lost it is still a person, but someone who doesn't yet have consciousness (not that we know for sure or anything at what point this occurs) but will in a short period of time is not a person? What about a child who is born with severe brain damage? Are they not a person because the never became "concsious"?

[alonzomourning23]

So someone who had concsiousness and lost it is still a person, but someone who doesn't yet have consciousness (not that we know for sure or anything at what point this occurs) but will in a short period of time is not a person? What about a child who is born with severe brain damage? Are they not a person because the never became "concsious"?

The term person is tricky. Technically a fetus may qualify, but if you want to include everything that goes along with the term "person" and what it means to be human, then an unborn, unconscious, child is not a person. Either way, it definately is not more valuable, or equal to, an adult, fully conscious, thinking, feeling woman. It's not even close

There is a point where biology overrides that, schiavos mind was essentially dead, what it meant to be human, and to be mentally alive was gone. A child born severely brain damaged and without consciousness shouldn't have been allowed to be born. It should still be the mothers choice, but I don't think having that child would be the correct decision in my mind. Either way, they would be biologically a person, but not in the special sense it's often used to describe.

Though there are definate periods, where the brain is so immature or nonexistent, that consciousness has not been attained and yet you (I'm assuming, your anti abortion beliefs were a bit suprising to me so I'm not sure how deep they are) still oppose abortions in those cases.

[E-Z-B]

Rawstory is reporting that Rehnquist has resigned: http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Rehnquist_may_resign_0708.html

[camoor]

And does that mean you feel someone like Terri Schiavo, massively brain-damaged, is not a "conscious being" and therefore not a person?

Sure, she's a person, and that's why it's cruelty beyond torture to keep her alive in that state. Even if her brain was 75% dead.

I know what you're going to say "All life is sacred, every sacred sperm etc etc" Spare us the American christian rhetoric for once...

[alonzomourning23]

I know what you're going to say "All life is sacred, every sacred sperm etc etc" Spare us the American christian rhetoric for once...

You tell em! Only us liberals can have worthless rhetoric!

[camoor]

You tell em! Only us liberals can have worthless rhetoric!

You used to have a point to your posts, what are you even talking about anymore?

[alonzomourning23]

You used to have a point to your posts, what are you even talking about anymore?

Just saying you do the same thing you're accusing him of.

[camoor]

Just saying you do the same thing you're accusing him of.

Alonzo, I think you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that other people venture to take a stand on issues. We all don't want to make friends with everyone, sometimes a real man needs to fight for what's right instead of sitting in his ivory tower and making judgements on everyone else.

[alonzomourning23]

Alonzo, I think you're going to have to come to terms with the fact that other people venture to take a stand on issues. We all don't want to make friends with everyone, sometimes a real man needs to fight for what's right instead of sitting in his ivory tower and making judgements on everyone else.

If taking a stand means shouting about how the christian right is coming to get us, and various other rants, then go ahead, but you'll never get anyone to actually listen to you.

You're also the first person to ever tell me I don't take a stand.

[elprincipe]

The term person is tricky. Technically a fetus may qualify, but if you want to include everything that goes along with the term "person" and what it means to be human, then an unborn, unconscious, child is not a person. Either way, it definately is not more valuable, or equal to, an adult, fully conscious, thinking, feeling woman. It's not even close

There is a point where biology overrides that, schiavos mind was essentially dead, what it meant to be human, and to be mentally alive was gone. A child born severely brain damaged and without consciousness shouldn't have been allowed to be born. It should still be the mothers choice, but I don't think having that child would be the correct decision in my mind. Either way, they would be biologically a person, but not in the special sense it's often used to describe.

You're skirting around the issue. Surely a pro-"choice" person such as yourself wouldn't want to dictate to the mother that the child should not be allowed to be born. And if they are a person, and I believe most people would describe them that way, then why isn't a baby inside the womb a person, and why wasn't Terri Shiavo a person?

Is the "special sense" you refer to consciousness? How do you know exactly when a baby gains concsiousness, or when Schiavo lost it? Shouldn't we err on the side of not killing them?

[alonzomourning23]

You're skirting around the issue. Surely a pro-"choice" person such as yourself wouldn't want to dictate to the mother that the child should not be allowed to be born. And if they are a person, and I believe most people would describe them that way, then why isn't a baby inside the womb a person, and why wasn't Terri Shiavo a person?

Is the "special sense" you refer to consciousness? How do you know exactly when a baby gains concsiousness, or when Schiavo lost it? Shouldn't we err on the side of not killing them?

I said, in my mind, the child shouldn't be born, but the final say should be up to the mother. It has major ramifications on the mothers life, it could end their schooling, they could be immature, or just not want a child. The last thing we need is more children in abusive, neglectful, incompetent homes, and more single, uneducated, rarely home (due to work or other reasons) parents.

Though, being forced to spend every day of life your life without communication and real movement would be hell, no one should have to suffer that. Scientific information availabale suggested she was not conscious and her brain was damaged (a point shown in the autopsy), and that there was no hope for recovery. Add this to the fact that the only possible evidence of her wishes suggested she didn't want to be alive in that state.

But I think you skirted the issue. I said that the mother is, always, the more important of the two. Already answered what is the difference between schiavo and you or me. There are periods of development where there is clearly no real consciousness. Brain waves aren't detected until about 2 months, and if you or I lacked brain waves we'd be declared dead. The only question that appears unnanswered is one that I asked, which would we be what's wrong with aborting a future baby that clearly is not a conscious being. You have a 6 or 7 month old child who may be able to survive outside the womb and has awareness then obviously much more thought would need to go into it, but if you have an unwanted month old child, then there isn't much reason to keep it.

If you still think I'm skirting the issue, then one of use isn't understanding the other.

[elprincipe]

I said, in my mind, the child shouldn't be born, but the final say should be up to the mother. It has major ramifications on the mothers life, it could end their schooling, they could be immature, or just not want a child. The last thing we need is more children in abusive, neglectful, incompetent homes, and more single, uneducated, rarely home (due to work or other reasons) parents.

Though, being forced to spend every day of life your life without communication and real movement would be hell, no one should have to suffer that. Scientific information availabale suggested she was not conscious and her brain was damaged (a point shown in the autopsy), and that there was no hope for recovery. Add this to the fact that the only possible evidence of her wishes suggested she didn't want to be alive in that state.

But I think you skirted the issue. I said that the mother is, always, the more important of the two. Already answered what is the difference between schiavo and you or me. There are periods of development where there is clearly no real consciousness. Brain waves aren't detected until about 2 months, and if you or I lacked brain waves we'd be declared dead. The only question that appears unnanswered is one that I asked, which would we be what's wrong with aborting a future baby that clearly is not a conscious being. You have a 6 or 7 month old child who may be able to survive outside the womb and has awareness then obviously much more thought would need to go into it, but if you have an unwanted month old child, then there isn't much reason to keep it.

If you still think I'm skirting the issue, then one of use isn't understanding the other.

First of all, I'd disagree with you that the mother is always the more important of the two. I'd say they are equally important because one life isn't worth more than another. That is why I believe abortion is only a morally acceptable choice when the mother's life is in danger. In such a case the mother is the only one of the two who can make the choice of whether the risk should be borne or reduced, since obviously the baby cannot.

Your usage of "future baby" amazes me. You're saying that a baby who is 100 days old is not a baby, yet a baby who is 101 days old is a baby, for example (although the time frame isn't necessarily like that). Since all humans are different, you never know, even under your system of "consciousness," when a baby becomes conscious. Therefore, you would never know if it was still "okay" to kill him/her.

Although I would note I don't agree with your "consciousness" system because it renders a mentally disabled person as not a person, and it renders an innocent baby in an early period of development not a person as well.