Deeko
Lifer
- Jun 16, 2000
- 30,213
- 12
- 81
I see the game your playing. You're trying to twist the argument to make your point relevant. Well, as several here have pointed out - it's not gonna fly. The debate over abortion largely lies with when human life begins, which is why your question in the OP is irrelevant.
There's really nothing else you can say, although I'm sure you will.
There's really nothing else you can say, although I'm sure you will.
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,857
- 31,346
- 146
My point is that there are various scientific perspectives for "life," depending on whether you take a genetic, molecular, neurological, or pure developmental approach. This is available. Give me a few minutes to destroy your narrow viewpoint.
Back in 5......
How can you be pro-choice and not be in favor of abortion? When a woman says "I want to have an abortion" is she against it? Saying "pro-choice" is simply giving you the option to be pro-abortion at a specified time, nothing else.
I let carl sagan do my thinking for me. Now answer my question, why are you trolling in OT with an abortion thread?
http://www.2think.org/science_abortion.shtml
"
So, if only a person can be murdered, when does the fetus attain personhood? When its face becomes distinctly human, near the end of the first trimester? When the fetus becomes responsive to stimuli--again, at the end of the first trimester? When it becomes active enough to be felt as quickening, typically in the middle of the second trimester? When the lungs have reached a stage of development sufficient that the fetus might, just conceivably, be able to breathe on its own in the outside air?
The trouble with these particular developmental milestones is not just that they're arbitrary. More troubling is the fact that none of them involves uniquely human characteristics--apart from the superficial matter of facial appearance. All animals respond to stimuli and move of their own volition. Large numbers are able to breathe. But that doesn't stop us from slaughtering them by the billions. Reflexes and motion are not what make us human.
Other animals have advantages over us--in speed, strength, endurance, climbing or burrowing skills, camouflage, sight or smell or hearing, mastery of the air or water. Our one great advantage, the secret of our success, is thought--characteristically human thought. We are able to think things through, imagine events yet to occur, figure things out. That's how we invented agriculture and civilization. Thought is our blessing and our curse, and it makes us who we are.
Thinking occurs, of course, in the brain--principally in the top layers of the convoluted "gray matter" called the cerebral cortex. The roughly 100 billion neurons in the brain constitute the material basis of thought. The neurons are connected to each other, and their linkups play a major role in what we experience as thinking. But large-scale linking up of neurons doesn't begin until the 24th to 27th week of pregnancy--the sixth month.
By placing harmless electrodes on a subject's head, scientists can measure the electrical activity produced by the network of neurons inside the skull. Different kinds of mental activity show different kinds of brain waves. But brain waves with regular patterns typical of adult human brains do not appear in the fetus until about the 30th week of pregnancy--near the beginning of the third trimester. Fetuses younger than this--however alive and active they may be--lack the necessary brain architecture. They cannot yet think.
Acquiescing in the killing of any living creature, especially one that might later become a baby, is troublesome and painful. But we've rejected the extremes of "always" and "never," and this puts us--like it or not--on the slippery slope. If we are forced to choose a developmental criterion, then this is where we draw the line: when the beginning of characteristically human thinking becomes barely possible.
It is, in fact, a very conservative definition: Regular brain waves are rarely found in fetuses. More research would help? If we wanted to make the criterion still more stringent, to allow for occasional precocious fetal brain development, we might draw the line at six months. This, it so happens, is where the Supreme Court drew it in 1973--although for completely different reasons.
"
zinfamous
No Lifer
- Jul 12, 2006
- 111,857
- 31,346
- 146
Here ju go
http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162
Summary for the ADHD:
so, please keep using science to define "life." It makes you look foolish.
http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162
Summary for the ADHD:
so, please keep using science to define "life." It makes you look foolish.
Again, that's a conservative basis for having an argument on abortion. That's where they would like to start. Liberals would like to start elsewhere. Why is this so difficult for you to understand?
If you play sports, do you prefer to have home-court advantage?
destrekor
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2005
- 28,799
- 359
- 126
who cares, it's not a baby. Leave it up to the mother. Her body is FAR more important than an unborn fetus. Besides, should we really force every potential child to be birthed, and thus lead to a potential population crises just because it is then decided that all these kids should just be forced into adoption since the mother obviously doesn't want to/can't raise the child?
And, if it can be shown it is going to have birth defects, should be destroyed too.
It isn't doing any good for humanity to constantly support other humans which could not support themselves, and will not positively contribute to the gene pool.
Sorry, it's most definitely a harsh and brutal concept... but welcome to life.
We have fucked up the most important concept of life: survival of the fittest, which leads to the best genes surviving and leading to more superior offspring over generations.
And, if it can be shown it is going to have birth defects, should be destroyed too.
It isn't doing any good for humanity to constantly support other humans which could not support themselves, and will not positively contribute to the gene pool.
Sorry, it's most definitely a harsh and brutal concept... but welcome to life.
We have fucked up the most important concept of life: survival of the fittest, which leads to the best genes surviving and leading to more superior offspring over generations.
So science has no consensus. That just goes to prove that there is no scientific evidence that there is a single moment in time when life appears. One can only assume it is continuous.
I whole-heartedly disagree. I have seen tons of people who use abortion as a method of birth control. Perhaps unconsciously, perhaps consciously. If people are using the attitude of "Who cares, there's always abortion", then to me they are pro-abortion.
If; however, pro-choice people were MOSTLY pro-choice because of the attitude of "birth control fails", or "what if I get raped?" or "What if incest occurs?", then it's a different story entirely.
I assumed nothing. And you failed terribly at putting words into my mouth. I said "specified" time, meaning not always/
And then there's another difference too. There's the type of girl that wouldn't want to go through it again because a child's life OR the potential for a child's life was lost, depending on your definition. Then there's the type of girl who wouldn't want to go through it again because it's an annoying physical procedure, much in the same way that I wouldn't want to go through getting my wisdom teeth pulled again.
Again, I feel like those are two different attitudes.
you assumed what liberals and conservatives are allowed to believe/argue.
Now answer my question, why are you trolling in OT with an abortion thread?
hanoverphist
Diamond Member
- Dec 7, 2006
- 9,867
- 23
- 76
i wasnt actually disagreeing with you, im just posing a question based on that info. if they made the date i was conceived the factor for "alive/ human/ whatever" would that mean my birthday would now be 9 months early? or 6 months, if i was premature?
and i know that you arent dead per se until birth, but legally you cant really be held accountable, called upon or really "be" until you are born, breathing air. until humans breathe water or some other substance, ill keep that "breathing air" in my post.
Sorry but I don't consider ATOT to be the definitive opinion on the matter from a liberal POV. I look at court cases and partisan groups.
destrekor
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2005
- 28,799
- 359
- 126
Um, the only people who, as you say, simply look at abortion as further means of birth-control, are all immature and retarded. That is far from even a decent minority of people. Almost everyone pro-choice is as you latter described, as the option of 'if birth control fails', or various other concepts. Most women understand that abortion is not an enjoyable procedure, and should simply be there as an option if something goes wrong and they get pregnant and they know they cannot raise the child. But numerous other mothers are then also, well the accident happens, and will raise the child anyhow. Good for them. But it should definitely be pro-choice.
I don't think he's trolling. A quick search shows many abortion threads in OT. I don't think pro-choice vs. pro-life is completely political. It's more a personal decision, like religion (and religion stuff gets talked about all the time in OT). it's more of a social one. And it definitely isn't news anymore.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter