[quote]ephrem wrote:
No brain, no person. Obviously I don’t believe in souls and I don’t believe that a person’s properties are in there prior to birth. That’s, if you meant by properties the character traits of a person.
[/quote]
I think this way too.
[quote]kneedragger79 wrote:
[quote]Raw Finn wrote:
Yes, if you are right about the state of consciousness developing at that time and the life of the baby would not be desirable to the people (parents) already having a conscious mind. 2. So? 3. I disagree. I think future is pretty much everything we have. The present is already gone and one with the past. 4. Nothing. 5. I disagree. I have some moral (I think, hehheh). 6. okey-dokey[/quote]
[/quote]
Life has no value but I value all life. I explain this in my other post (albeit poorly).
I disagree.
Well how long does the present last until it is a part of the past? The present is practically the past right away.
okey-dokey
A) Equality of all life forms but at the same time favoring our own species. (This is wrong in general but not considering that we have to be wrong. If there was a way to avoid all suffering, for example synthetic meat, I would be all for it.) B) Striving for good as best as you can. What is this good? That’s a personal thing based on one’s whole life.
But no conscious mind. There can never be anything black or white in the world. Each day I learn new shades of gray. Sometimes you have to choose between two wrongs. Sometimes it is better to have an abortion if it would be a lesser evil than having the child. You cannot blindly favor one thing over another. There are no absolutes. I do think an abortion is a bad thing and a good thing. Sometimes more of the first and sometimes more of the second. I think most people have a good reason for an abortion so it is often a good thing.
It is acceptable to kill someone if that person threatens you or anyone you care about. You should try to find another way most of the time, though.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Raw Finn wrote:<<< For one I value all life, even insects because of the primal urge for survival and equal treatment of all life forms. At the same time I acknowledge life has no value. If I would have been given the choice to have been aborted at an unconscious point as a fetus (yeah I realize this statement contradicts itself but I hope your minds are multidimensional enough to get my point) I would have gladly chosen to be terminated because life is pointless. I have 2 reasons not to commit a suicide. 1. because my loved ones would suffer and 2. I have a natural urge to live.
Have you considered life might not be a “good thing”? Not everyone likes to have be born. I think it is cruel to force life. And if one will never become conscious to realize there is life, then there is absolutely no harm done if one were aborted. The only thing that matters is the people who already live.[/quote]
From the standpoint of anti-Christian unbelief this may be the best post I’ve ever read here. This man has just declared the unavoidable conclusion of Elder Forlife’s entire view of reality. Raw Finn simply owns what nobody else will. All is meaningless. Estranged from the living God indeed it is. Of course his growing torment is that he cannot and will not actually live that way. So actually he and Elder Forlife are first cousins.
Elder Forlife universally denies certainty and then mentally manipulates himself into accounting for the purpose and meaning he unavoidably sees all around him. This guy here states outright that nothing has any meaning and then asserts his value for life. Mirror opposite versions of the same despairing unbelief. Elder Forlife builds certain significance for himself on a foundation of utter uncertainty while Raw Finn, who actually sounds a bit over cooked, says that life has no meaning while he values it, seemingly oblivious to the uneven mental state of someone who values that which has no meaning.
Ephrem old friend, you’re in here too.
Every time I think my belief system cannot possibly become more cemented in my soul I live a bit longer and observe a few more unbelievers.
[/quote]
I am an agnostic.
I don’t “see meaning around me”.
I know it sounds insane when I say I value life and in the same breath don’t. Extremely hard to explain.
I have no idea who Elder Forlife is.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Raw Finn wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Raw Finn wrote:
…I have my ideology based on the trust towards scientists…
[/quote]
Salient point.
A very sad, sad commentary on how some folks formulate the foundations of their ideology.
[/quote]
That’s fine because the growing consensus among scientists are agreeing that in utero life is human life…It’s kinda tough to deny. It’s not a lizard.[/quote]
Let me finish this sentence: “I have my ideology based on the trust towards scientists” …regarding the development of the consciousness. I only take what they have observed, not their take on ethics.[/quote]
And what they observe is that human life begins at conception. That there is no discernible break in the human life cycle between that and death. Do you have a scientific proof that you rely on that tell you something different? If so, please present it.
In many cases, knowing that it’s a human hasn’t stopped people supporting the ‘right’ to kill it. So I don’t know that matters to much to abortionists. It’s just not human enough. [/quote]
No.
Yes. Not human enough. It really comes down to the situation and how you feel about it when it is at hand.
[quote]pat wrote:
I am stating fact ;)[/quote]
Nice argument.
Ok people, I like to thank all of you for participating and helping me, and hopefully you as well, to develop a more deeper understanding about the subject, as well as provide me with some intellectual stimulation. (Although I found pushharder calling me repeatedly indirectly a nazi a bit lame.) I realize this is a topic that makes people get angry at each other, but I don’t think that helps anyone.
I find debate to be all about widening one’s perspectives.
It bears no meaning to me who “wins” this debate, if anyone. It doesn’t prove anything. I think in some things you can’t even know what is the “right” or “wrong” answer. I have a saying: “Prove me right and I could not care less, prove me wrong and I am happy for the chance to learn.”
Debates should not be about the people arguing but about the ideas arguing against each other.
I don’t know if I will be interested in debating here anymore. I have school work to do.
Again, thanks everyone!
Oh, I really have to add one thing. An example to maybe help you guys understand what I mean - or confuse you further.
When I say I value life and don’t value it, you can compare it to this:
If someone guesses something and is right, does it make that person right? In my opinion no. It only makes the thing he said right but the person would be wrong. One would not be “purely” right.
Then again, maybe I’m just too clever for myself and full of shit, heheh. Gotta go.
The government is the one who supports the research. Not me! In fact I oppose the research, hence my opposition of the science.
[quote]orion wrote:
As long as someone is willing to do it and someone shells out the money?[/quote]
How can you value life, while with the same breath you state “life has no value?” You fail to explain your position while I can easily define and explain my stance. Why would that be?
If you fail to do that, you are wrong, because the position you have cannot be defended.
Practically is not instantaneous.
When unable to define your position, you are wrong and therefore your whole stance fails.
Do you even understand the jumble that leaves your mouth? I sure don’t after reading that to others.
You claim that you cannot have absolutes all while your absolute in choosing abortion ALWAYS ends in death. Giving a child the chance at life gives them an opportunity. Interesting. In addition science will prove the definition of life earlier and earlier. It already has!
I have never once said that death is in any way shape or form acceptable. Thanks for trying to define my position for me. Is this how you expect to win this debate? You are falling way behind anyway so good luck with that.
[quote]Raw Finn wrote:
Life has no value but I value all life. I explain this in my other post (albeit poorly).
I disagree.
Well how long does the present last until it is a part of the past? The present is practically the past right away.
okey-dokey
A) Equality of all life forms but at the same time favoring our own species. (This is wrong in general but not considering that we have to be wrong. If there was a way to avoid all suffering, for example synthetic meat, I would be all for it.) B) Striving for good as best as you can. What is this good? That’s a personal thing based on one’s whole life.
But no conscious mind. There can never be anything black or white in the world. Each day I learn new shades of gray. Sometimes you have to choose between two wrongs. Sometimes it is better to have an abortion if it would be a lesser evil than having the child. You cannot blindly favor one thing over another. There are no absolutes. I do think an abortion is a bad thing and a good thing. Sometimes more of the first and sometimes more of the second. I think most people have a good reason for an abortion so it is often a good thing.
It is acceptable to kill someone if that person threatens you or anyone you care about. You should try to find another way most of the time, though.[/quote]
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
No.
Neither does yours.
[/quote]
I am stating fact ;)[/quote]
You are alluding to your opinion that a human body without a brain is a person, and that that brainless person has the same rights a person with a brain has.[/quote]
You do understand the difference between a developing human and a grown human in that the latter, with out a brain is dead. A developing human isn’t less so, because it hasn’t reached a certain threshold you deemed it should.
There is no consensus on your arbitrary threshold, scientific or otherwise.
[quote]Raw Finn wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Raw Finn wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]Raw Finn wrote:
…I have my ideology based on the trust towards scientists…
[/quote]
Salient point.
A very sad, sad commentary on how some folks formulate the foundations of their ideology.
[/quote]
That’s fine because the growing consensus among scientists are agreeing that in utero life is human life…It’s kinda tough to deny. It’s not a lizard.[/quote]
Let me finish this sentence: “I have my ideology based on the trust towards scientists” …regarding the development of the consciousness. I only take what they have observed, not their take on ethics.[/quote]
And what they observe is that human life begins at conception. That there is no discernible break in the human life cycle between that and death. Do you have a scientific proof that you rely on that tell you something different? If so, please present it.
In many cases, knowing that it’s a human hasn’t stopped people supporting the ‘right’ to kill it. So I don’t know that matters to much to abortionists. It’s just not human enough. [/quote]
No.
Yes. Not human enough. It really comes down to the situation and how you feel about it when it is at hand.[/quote]
‘Not human enough’, Push we need your gold bars…
Tell me when does one become ‘human enough’…Oh no life has value, so I guess never.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
HOWEVER, your posts plainly and succinctly establish you hold some basic tenets IN COMMON WITH Nazis.
[/quote]
Many here have. This whole notion of offing those deemed to be imperfect humans is very nazi-ish.
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
You are alluding to your opinion that a human body without a brain is a person, and that that brainless person has the same rights a person with a brain has.[/quote]
You do understand the difference between a developing human and a grown human in that the latter, with out a brain is dead. A developing human isn’t less so, because it hasn’t reached a certain threshold you deemed it should.
There is no consensus on your arbitrary threshold, scientific or otherwise.[/quote]
There’s a big difference between a developing human without a brain and a developed human with a brain. There’s also little discussion in the scientific world whether the brain is the seat of human consciousness, because it is.
If you’re of the opinion that an undeveloped human without a brain is the same as a developed human with a brain then that’s not fact but opinion.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
You are alluding to your opinion that a human body without a brain is a person, and that that brainless person has the same rights a person with a brain has.[/quote]
You do understand the difference between a developing human and a grown human in that the latter, with out a brain is dead. A developing human isn’t less so, because it hasn’t reached a certain threshold you deemed it should.
There is no consensus on your arbitrary threshold, scientific or otherwise.[/quote]
There’s a big difference between a developing human without a brain and a developed human with a brain. There’s also little discussion in the scientific world whether the brain is the seat of human consciousness, because it is.
If you’re of the opinion that an undeveloped human without a brain is the same as a developed human with a brain then that’s not fact but opinion.
[/quote]
I didn’t say it’s the same, I said it’s just as human and that is a fact.
[quote]pat wrote:
I didn’t say it’s the same, I said it’s just as human and that is a fact.[/quote]
So what?
The ear they grew on the back of a mouse a few years ago was human too. Should that ear have the same rights aswell?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
I didn’t say it’s the same, I said it’s just as human and that is a fact.[/quote]
So what?
The ear they grew on the back of a mouse a few years ago was human too. Should that ear have the same rights aswell?[/quote]
Parts aren’t people, people are made of parts. Like a brain for instance. I don’t care if you want to chop your arm off, I do care if you want to kill your kid.
The fetus is a complete human, in developement, just as much as born human, just further along. Newborns are still pretty useless people. Hell, they can’t even roll over, how useless can you be? All they do is suck, sleep and grab.
[quote]pat wrote:
Parts aren’t people, people are made of parts. Like a brain for instance. I don’t care if you want to chop your arm off, I do care if you want to kill your kid.
The fetus is a complete human, in developement, just as much as born human, just further along. Newborns are still pretty useless people. Hell, they can’t even roll over, how useless can you be? All they do is suck, sleep and grab.[/quote]
No brain = not people.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Parts aren’t people, people are made of parts. Like a brain for instance. I don’t care if you want to chop your arm off, I do care if you want to kill your kid.
The fetus is a complete human, in developement, just as much as born human, just further along. Newborns are still pretty useless people. Hell, they can’t even roll over, how useless can you be? All they do is suck, sleep and grab.[/quote]
No brain = not people.[/quote]
By whose standard?