after-birth abortion

[JD50]

Actually I believe that. Free will has been scientifically proven to be an illusion. It isn't a straw man. We are nothing more than complicated machines. To deny that fact is to deny objective reality. Read some Sam Harris for God's sake.

You don't believe you or anyone else has any value? You don't value your own life? That's what buckshat is implying with his meat machines nonsense. I've read some of Sam's books and I listen to most of his podcasts, but that's not what buckshat is talking about.

 

[Moonbeam]

You don't believe you or anyone else has any value? You don't value your own life? That's what buckshat is implying with his meat machines nonsense. I've read some of Sam's books and I listen to most of his podcasts, but that's not what buckshat is talking about.

I believe bs is talking about a very real and important issue. Is truth subjective or objective. If truth is subjective you become like realbrad, a dilatant moralist whose foundation is built on ever changing quick sand, a projection 'out there' of whatever junk was collected and continues to collect 'in here'. If you are an objectivist you believe there is an absolute truth, one that you have likely been brainwashed into thinking you were lucky to receive. The right answer in my opinion lies in a third way that requires a kind of abandonment of any faith that there is anything to be gotten in those first two delusionary states. But the battle between the two is endless. The is the meat machine that builds its castle on sand and the meat machine that builds itself on the literalism of text. The third was is an unknown state of silence, the ending of dualism and the arrival of the Beloved in a state of perfect unity.

 

[bshole]

You don't believe you or anyone else has any value? You don't value your own life? That's what buckshat is implying with his meat machines nonsense. I've read some of Sam's books and I listen to most of his podcasts, but that's not what buckshat is talking about.

We need free will to have value? I am not getting that argument.

I will say that all of us are very complex machines. However some of us (like Buckshot) are running very simple OSes (think DOS 1.0) while most others are running MUCH more sophisticated OSeS. I am sorry I saw the opportunity for a shot and I felt an obligation to take it. I think it is a legit dig however. In Buckshots world, there is no room for fuzzy logic or gradients, everything is ON/OFF RIGHT/WRONG. Everything is very simple to understand. The only evidence needed for any claim is an assertion that God says so. End of discussion.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Actually I believe that. Free will has been scientifically proven to be an illusion.

No, it hasn't.

 

[Moonbeam]

No, it hasn't.

Yup, there is no other way to account for the fact that every time I pick a grocery line hoping to get out the quickest, it turns out always to be the slowest line in the store. It's hell when even my unconscious needs to remind me how worthless I am. It's just a matter of knowing who calls the shots.

 

[bshole]

No, it hasn't.

Yea I probably overstated that. It certainly SUGGESTS however that free will is an illusion. I expect it to proven at some point. How could there be free will absent random physics? It seems all deterministic to me.

It is quite likely that a large range of cognitive operations are necessary to freely press a button. Research at least suggests that our conscious self does not initiate all behavior. Instead, the conscious self is somehow alerted to a given behavior that the rest of the brain and body are already planning and performing. These findings do not forbid conscious experience from playing some moderating role, although it is also possible that some form of unconscious process is what is causing modification in our behavioral response. Unconscious processes may play a larger role in behavior than previously thought.

It may be possible, then, that our intuitions about the role of our conscious "intentions" have led us astray; it may be the case that we have confused correlation with causation by believing that conscious awareness necessarily causes the body's movement.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

 

[Victorian Gray]

Legal at any point for any reason.

So a healthy woman with a healthy baby can kill her full term baby at the point of birth if she so desires.

And that doesn't trouble you?

I was wondering if anyone would be ignorant enough to go there. Congratulations.

 

[Perknose]

I'm sorry if my post looks like I'm hanging my hat on this [five year old] article. It's true that it popped up in my feed...

I believe I've identified your problem. You need a better (news) diet.

The one in this thread sucks as well. Too much buckshot. Lead is poisonous. It's also extremely dense. I can't emphasize this last fact enough.

From a distance, it can be hard to tell the difference between buckshot and deer pellets.

The key difference is olfactory. Oddly enough, it's seldom the deer poop.

Spent buckshot reeks. Of sulfur. Get it behind you!

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Yea I probably overstated that. It certainly SUGGESTS however that free will is an illusion. I expect it to proven at some point. How could there be free will absent random physics? It seems all deterministic to me.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuroscience_of_free_will

For what it's worth, my money is on many-worlds physics. It's somewhat like determinism in that every reality is necessary, but then choice is a complicated matter of consciously or subconsciously selecting which reality you'll "officially" accept to the exclusion of others. Meanwhile another "you" in a parallel reality has accepted that one, and on, and on.

I hope it's obvious that the above is highly conjectural, of course.

 

[Perknose]

For what it's worth, my money is on many-worlds physics. It's somewhat like determinism in that every reality is necessary, but then choice is a complicated matter of consciously or subconsciously selecting which reality you'll "officially" accept to the exclusion of others. Meanwhile another "you" in a parallel reality has accepted that one, and on, and on.

I hope it's obvious that the above is highly conjectural, of course.

No, no, no, I think you just likened black people to mules!

:biggrin:

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

No, no, no, I think you just likened black people to mules!

:biggrin:

Everything not forbidden is compulsory.

 

[Atreus21]

I was wondering if anyone would be ignorant enough to go there. Congratulations.

Any answer?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Any answer?

I have no answer to what can only be considered a 'straw' situation. It's a medically regulated procedure. Figure out the rest for yourself. Hint: only 0.4% of Canadian abortions are performed after the 20 week mark.

Edit: And yes, I am in agreement with the way abortion is dealt with in Canada. That being, as a medical issue that is between a woman and her doctor(s).

 

[Paratus]

For what it's worth, my money is on many-worlds physics. It's somewhat like determinism in that every reality is necessary, but then choice is a complicated matter of consciously or subconsciously selecting which reality you'll "officially" accept to the exclusion of others. Meanwhile another "you" in a parallel reality has accepted that one, and on, and on.

I hope it's obvious that the above is highly conjectural, of course.

So Neal Stephensons Anathem ?

 

[Moonbeam]

No, no, no, I think you just likened black people to mules!

:biggrin:

Not too bad of a comparison really. Wish I could take credit. The mule is known for its capacity to bear tremendous burdens, for its indomitable spirit and for its fantastic strength of will. No wonder a race of such character could produce a man like Martin Luther King.

 

[JD50]

We need free will to have value? I am not getting that argument.

I will say that all of us are very complex machines. However some of us (like Buckshot) are running very simple OSes (think DOS 1.0) while most others are running MUCH more sophisticated OSeS. I am sorry I saw the opportunity for a shot and I felt an obligation to take it. I think it is a legit dig however. In Buckshots world, there is no room for fuzzy logic or gradients, everything is ON/OFF RIGHT/WRONG. Everything is very simple to understand. The only evidence needed for any claim is an assertion that God says so. End of discussion.

No, free will has nothing to do with it. His "meat machine" comments come from his denial of the theory of evolution. You could ask him to clarify his position (good luck) or just find whatever creationist blog it is that he gets all of his material from.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

No, free will has nothing to do with it. His "meat machine" comments come from his denial of the theory of evolution.

Yes this is exactly right, and it's hardly an original idea. The notion is that if we weren't created purposefully with a specific "mission" as humans by some superlatively adjectived inconceivable being, then all moral statements are meaningless.

Coincidentally, the individuals making such claims have an oddly unwavering certainty about that being's commands and desires, even though they rarely have much agreement among them.

Their mistake is to suppose that moral statements need to be factual in order to be meaningful. It's a fundamental error in thinking that's a specific consequence of the level of ignorance it requires to believe in ridiculous things like special creation (or say, vote for Trump).

 

[Atreus21]

I have no answer to what can only be considered a 'straw' situation. It's a medically regulated procedure. Figure out the rest for yourself. Hint: only 0.4% of Canadian abortions are performed after the 20 week mark.

Edit: And yes, I am in agreement with the way abortion is dealt with in Canada. That being, as a medical issue that is between a woman and her doctor(s).

I'm just trying to understand the principle. If hypothetically a Canadian woman wanted to kill her child just before birth, as allowed by law, you would have no objection?

 

[bshole]

Their mistake is to suppose that moral statements need to be factual in order to be meaningful. It's a fundamental error in thinking that's a specific consequence of the level of ignorance it requires to believe in ridiculous things like special creation (or say, vote for Trump).

I agree. In the past it was entirely understandable to believe in special creation. However now that evolution has been absolutely proven beyond ALL doubt, the only reason for belief in special creation is abject FEAR of reality. It is intellectual cowardice. It is understandable (nobody wants to lose immortality). What is not understandable on any level is that a person with this weakness would go onto a board of intelligent literate people and attempt to change their minds by denying reality and denying science. The lack of self-awareness needed to engage in this type of activity is at epically high levels. It requires a VERY VERY simple OS in the brain (God I love that metaphor).

 

[WHAMPOM]

In a sane world a woman goes to her doctor to confirm a suspected pregnancy and schedules either prenatal care or an abortion, options which should be no one's concern other then theirs. All other opinions are crap.

 

[bshole]

In a sane world a woman goes to her doctor to confirm a suspected pregnancy and schedules either prenatal care or an abortion, options which should be no one's concern other then theirs. All other opinions are crap.

Yep and if we want to know how badly we can beat our slaves or who to stone to death for working on the Sabbath, Christians can provide the Biblical answer for us. Their opinion on this topic is of no value. They have no Biblical basis for opposing abortion so their opinion is based solely on their ability to read the mind of God. I deny their ability to do this, it would make them superhuman by definition.

 

[IGBT]

how about choked in the crib abortion??

 

[JD50]

how about choked in the crib abortion??

yellow turtle blue spoon

 

[soulcougher73]

how about choked in the crib abortion??

Can you elaborate more on this knowledge bomb? Sounds intriguing

 

[stormkroe]

If not this article, then what? I'm not aware of anyone talking about "after-birth abortions," let alone actually advocating them. I've never seen anyone here even hint at it. It seems to me to be a completely invented issue.

As far as where do we draw the line, that seems pretty straightforward. The foundation of pro-choice is that a woman has the right to make her own decisions about her body, including a fetus hosted within it. Once that fetus is independent of her body, her rights become more limited. She is now the mother rather than the host.

Sorry for the delay, contract negs for the last 2.5 days have me swamped. I see this thread has ripened nicely. So back on topic, I think your last 2 sentences should be the logic both side can agree on. Once the baby is born, the body-rights are largely absent and the baby should now be allowed the same rights as everyone.
I didn't realize this article would cause so many witty remarks about news feeds, it was just a reference point for the topic. The topic of after-birth abortions is a real thing however, it's definitely not main stream at this time but I'll not be shocked when more people do push for it.
Here's an article from the Journal of Thorasic and Cardiovascular Surgery on the topic http://www.jtcvsonline.org/article/S0022-5223(14)01532-3/abstract
I remember this was a bit of a buzz here in canuckistan, maybe it didn't get any consideration in the US.
I would like to point out that I don't think most posters here would be OK with killing a born-baby, but I think there are some that would, say, for some of the reasons listed in the journal.
Now back to the off topic arguing and omgfunny wit, I guess.
Thanks for the on topic post.