This is What's Wrong With Abortion

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Sloth wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I’m not sure why this even gets to a debate of consciousness. We know that we’re talking about a human already in they’re own life cycle.

…it’s life cycle is, upto a certain point, dependant on the host, the mother. If you want to be consistent with this argument, you’d have to outlaw male masturbation aswell. While you’re at it, unfertilised ovulation should then be unacceptable too. Good luck with that (-:

Not true. We’re not debating the life cycle of a sperm. We’re debating the life cycle of a human.

I forget the term for it, but wasn’t their a belief that some life forms would spontaensouly come into existence? Such a flies from heaps of rubbish? Like one minute there’s not a fly, boom, there’s a fly. I sometimes get that impression in these debate. As if the embryo and fetus aren’t part of a human’s life cycle. It’s just, boom, suddenly there’s a human.

Or, that suddenly some seperate organism, sha-zam!, becomes the organism “human.” Wasn’t such thinking abandoned?

…if you are willing to extend the concept of humanity, and the rights of a fulfledged human being, to something that [before a certain point in it’s development] only has the potential of human life, then you can’t stop there.
[/quote]

It is an individual human life. That’s why it’s now on it’s very own human life cycle.

222

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Sloth wrote:
By the way, are there science texts and journals that describe the parent-child relationship as a parasitic releationship? IS that why “host” is used instead of parent? Are is it not being used here with that in mind?

…i don’t know, but it is fitting, isn’t it? All pregnancies pose real health dangers to the female, but i use it for the same reason pro-lifers call fetus’ unborn babies; to get a point across…

[/quote]

Well, isn’t a fetus nothing but a name for a stage in a human’s life cycle? You speak as if fetus is an entirely seperate organism, that suddenly becomes another organism. Like a rat, becoming a cat.

223

[quote]ephrem wrote:
pat wrote:Whether or not you believe in a soul does not nullify our dualistic nature. Conceptions, thoughts, feelings, consciousness, all exist but are all metaphysical entities.

You can see a bright spot on a brain scan, but that bright spot isn’t happiness, or anger, or a thought, or anything but a measure of heightened activity. That may correlate with something or it may not, but that activity on the brain is not the thing in itself.

…ofcourse it is, how else would anti-depressants work? Or acid? Or drugs that combat schizoprenia? Our bodies generate heat.

You could say that body heat is not the thing [the body] in itself, but it’s a result of the bodies processes, and you can’t separate the two. Consciousness is the same…

…this is actually very interesting to ponder, and even as an intellectual exercise, the consequences can be far reaching for an individual who is generally pre-occupied with the intangible and the unsubstantiated. But that’s just wishful thinking on my part though…
[/quote]

No it is not. Think about it. Is the electo-chemical reaction in your brain a thought, or does it help produce it? Can you recreate the same reaction in someone elses brain and generate the same thought even if they have nothing in common interms of heredity and life experience? No it would not be the same.
Drugs can alter mood, but they are not the mood.

Think of a perfect triangle in your head, then try to draw it, freehand. What are the property differences between the two. Most importantly, the triangle in your head is perfect, you drawn representation is not.

Secondly, if we mapped your brain, while you were thinking of the triangle, and then took that mapped and somehow applied it to somebody else’s brain, would they be thinking of a triangle? Would they think of the same triangle? Chances are against it.

224

…it is, but not just yet. Shall we agree to disagree?

225

…i’ll concede to the point that it’s merely a name for a stage in it’s development, but it’s the correct one. I have no further poin to make here (-:

226

[quote]Sloth wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Sloth wrote:
By the way, are there science texts and journals that describe the parent-child relationship as a parasitic releationship? IS that why “host” is used instead of parent? Are is it not being used here with that in mind?

…i don’t know, but it is fitting, isn’t it? All pregnancies pose real health dangers to the female, but i use it for the same reason pro-lifers call fetus’ unborn babies; to get a point across…

Well, isn’t a fetus nothing but a name for a stage in a human’s life cycle? You speak as if fetus is an entirely seperate organism, that suddenly becomes another organism. Like a rat, becoming a cat.[/quote]

Good point.

227

[quote]pat wrote:ephrem wrote: …ofcourse it is, how else would anti-depressants work? Or acid? Or drugs that combat schizoprenia? Our bodies generate heat.

You could say that body heat is not the thing [the body] in itself, but it’s a result of the bodies processes, and you can’t separate the two. Consciousness is the same…

…this is actually very interesting to ponder, and even as an intellectual exercise, the consequences can be far reaching for an individual who is generally pre-occupied with the intangible and the unsubstantiated. But that’s just wishful thinking on my part though…

No it is not. Think about it. Is the electo-chemical reaction in your brain a thought, or does it help produce it? Can you recreate the same reaction in someone elses brain and generate the same thought even if they have nothing in common interms of heredity and life experience? No it would not be the same.
Drugs can alter mood, but they are not the mood.[/quote]

…actually, it is. The centers of language, memory, touch, motory skills, vision and such, are all located in the same areas of all our brains.

If you are depressed, and drugs alter that mood into a positive one, you can say that the chemicals responsible for that mood is the mood. That much is obvious…

[quote]Think of a perfect triangle in your head, then try to draw it, freehand. What are the property differences between the two. Most importantly, the triangle in your head is perfect, you drawn representation is not.

Secondly, if we mapped your brain, while you were thinking of the triangle, and then took that mapped and somehow applied it to somebody else’s brain, would they be thinking of a triangle? Would they think of the same triangle? Chances are against it.[/quote]

…if we would be able to pinpoint exact brainmap locations, that would be no problem whatsoever. Science is already able to ascertain from brainscans what you are feeling, seeing or hearing just from the excitement certain areas of the brain are showing.

That means that, in time, science is able, by stimulating areas of the brain, to manipulate how we perceive reality in such a way that you’ll be unable to distinguish between what’s real and manipulation…

228

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Sloth wrote:It is an individual human life. That’s why it’s now on it’s very own human life cycle.

…it is, but not just yet.
[/quote]

?

229

[quote]Sloth wrote:

I forget the term for it, but wasn’t their a belief that some life forms would spontaensouly come into existence? Such a flies from heaps of rubbish? Like one minute there’s not a fly, boom, there’s a fly. I sometimes get that impression in these debate. As if the embryo and fetus aren’t part of a human’s life cycle. It’s just, boom, suddenly there’s a human.
[/quote]

Yes. This was known as “spontaneous generation.”

It was also widely believed that semen constituted a form of “baby seed” that, once sewn in a woman’s womb, would become a baby of its own accord, with no help from the woman other than a convenient spot for gestation.

This fit well with the agricultural paradigm of the day, i.e that the man was the farmer, the woman was the fertile field. Accordingly, it followed that both the field and the subsequent crop (the baby) were the rightful property of the farmer, who was the final and exclusive arbiter of their use.

Good thing our thinking has evolved since then.

Or has it?

230

[quote]Sloth wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Sloth wrote:It is an individual human life. That’s why it’s now on it’s very own human life cycle.

…it is, but not just yet.

?[/quote]

…potential…

231

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:

I forget the term for it, but wasn’t their a belief that some life forms would spontaensouly come into existence? Such a flies from heaps of rubbish? Like one minute there’s not a fly, boom, there’s a fly. I sometimes get that impression in these debate. As if the embryo and fetus aren’t part of a human’s life cycle. It’s just, boom, suddenly there’s a human.

Yes. This was known as “spontaneous generation.”

It was also widely believed that semen constituted a form of “baby seed” that, once sewn in a woman’s womb, would become a baby of its own accord, with no help from the woman other than a convenient spot for gestation.

This fit well with the agricultural paradigm of the day, i.e that the man was the farmer, the woman was the fertile field. Accordingly, it followed that both the field and the subsequent crop (the baby) were the rightful property of the farmer, who was the final and exclusive arbiter of their use.

Good thing our thinking has evolved since then.

Or has it?[/quote]

Right, now the “crop” is the mother’s property. How far we’ve come…hah

232

[quote]Varqanir wrote:
Sloth wrote:

I forget the term for it, but wasn’t their a belief that some life forms would spontaensouly come into existence? Such a flies from heaps of rubbish? Like one minute there’s not a fly, boom, there’s a fly. I sometimes get that impression in these debate. As if the embryo and fetus aren’t part of a human’s life cycle. It’s just, boom, suddenly there’s a human.

Yes. This was known as “spontaneous generation.”

It was also widely believed that semen constituted a form of “baby seed” that, once sewn in a woman’s womb, would become a baby of its own accord, with no help from the woman other than a convenient spot for gestation.

This fit well with the agricultural paradigm of the day, i.e that the man was the farmer, the woman was the fertile field. Accordingly, it followed that both the field and the subsequent crop (the baby) were the rightful property of the farmer, who was the final and exclusive arbiter of their use.

Good thing our thinking has evolved since then.

Or has it?[/quote]

I think it has. Now we see the life of the mother as her own. Yet, some of us have gone even further, recognizing human life in the womb. Not property that is simply owned by a farmer-father. Or property that can simply be discarded by mother-farmer.

But it’s life, as it’s own property, with it’s own inalienable worth and rights. Join the new Abolitionists, we need you man!

233

…allright, please elaborate on how you’d go about retaining [total] control over the pregnancy of women, to prevent any possibility of abortion?

234

[quote]Sloth wrote:I think it has. Now we see the life of the mother as her own. Yet, some of us have gone even further, recognizing human life in the womb. Not property that is simply owned by a farmer-father.

Or property that can simply be discarded by mother-farmer. But it’s life, as it’s own property, with it’s own inalienable worth and rights. Join the new Abolitionists, we need you man![/quote]

…allright, please elaborate on how you’d go about retaining [total] control over the pregnancy of women, to prevent any possibility of abortion?

235

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Sloth wrote:I think it has. Now we see the life of the mother as her own. Yet, some of us have gone even further, recognizing human life in the womb. Not property that is simply owned by a farmer-father.

Or property that can simply be discarded by mother-farmer. But it’s life, as it’s own property, with it’s own inalienable worth and rights. Join the new Abolitionists, we need you man!

…allright, please elaborate on how you’d go about retaining [total] control over the pregnancy of women, to prevent any possibility of abortion?[/quote]

I can’t retain control of Suzy Six-pack in her home when she decides to slam her infant’s head into the side of a bathtub, killing it. But, it’s still illegal to do.

236

[quote]ephrem wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote: Right, now the “crop” is the mother’s property. How far we’ve come…hah

…allright, please elaborate on how you’d go about retaining [total] control over the pregnancy of women, to prevent any possibility of abortion?

[/quote]

It was a joke.

237

[quote]Sloth wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Sloth wrote:I think it has. Now we see the life of the mother as her own. Yet, some of us have gone even further, recognizing human life in the womb. Not property that is simply owned by a farmer-father.

Or property that can simply be discarded by mother-farmer. But it’s life, as it’s own property, with it’s own inalienable worth and rights. Join the new Abolitionists, we need you man!

…allright, please elaborate on how you’d go about retaining [total] control over the pregnancy of women, to prevent any possibility of abortion?

I can’t retain control of Suzy Six-pack in her home when she decides to slam her infant’s head into the side of a bathtub, killing it. But, it’s still illegal to do.[/quote]

…let me rephrase that: do you think we’ll see a significant decline in abortions performed when abortion becomes illegal?

238

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Sloth wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Sloth wrote:I think it has. Now we see the life of the mother as her own. Yet, some of us have gone even further, recognizing human life in the womb. Not property that is simply owned by a farmer-father.

Or property that can simply be discarded by mother-farmer. But it’s life, as it’s own property, with it’s own inalienable worth and rights. Join the new Abolitionists, we need you man!

…allright, please elaborate on how you’d go about retaining [total] control over the pregnancy of women, to prevent any possibility of abortion?

I can’t retain control of Suzy Six-pack in her home when she decides to slam her infant’s head into the side of a bathtub, killing it. But, it’s still illegal to do.

…let me phrase that differently: do you think we’ll see a significant decline in abortions performed when abortion becomes illegal?

[/quote]

I would think so.

239

[quote]ephrem wrote:
pat wrote:ephrem wrote: …ofcourse it is, how else would anti-depressants work? Or acid? Or drugs that combat schizoprenia? Our bodies generate heat.

You could say that body heat is not the thing [the body] in itself, but it’s a result of the bodies processes, and you can’t separate the two. Consciousness is the same…

…this is actually very interesting to ponder, and even as an intellectual exercise, the consequences can be far reaching for an individual who is generally pre-occupied with the intangible and the unsubstantiated. But that’s just wishful thinking on my part though…

No it is not. Think about it. Is the electo-chemical reaction in your brain a thought, or does it help produce it? Can you recreate the same reaction in someone elses brain and generate the same thought even if they have nothing in common interms of heredity and life experience? No it would not be the same.
Drugs can alter mood, but they are not the mood.

…actually, it is. The centers of language, memory, touch, motory skills, vision and such, are all located in the same areas of all our brains.
[/quote]
You failing to separate the center of activity from the the thing that it creates. A memory center isn’t the specific memory. Visual activity isn’t the vision. It is a stimulus/response. You can’t carve up someones brain and see what they were thinking.

So you believe, by stimulating parts of the brain, you can trigger the exact same visions in peoples minds from one to another, even if there entire life experience is dissimilar? Hardly likely.

This got way off topic.

240

[quote]ephrem wrote:
Sloth wrote:
ephrem wrote:
Sloth wrote:I think it has. Now we see the life of the mother as her own. Yet, some of us have gone even further, recognizing human life in the womb. Not property that is simply owned by a farmer-father.

Or property that can simply be discarded by mother-farmer. But it’s life, as it’s own property, with it’s own inalienable worth and rights. Join the new Abolitionists, we need you man!

…allright, please elaborate on how you’d go about retaining [total] control over the pregnancy of women, to prevent any possibility of abortion?

I can’t retain control of Suzy Six-pack in her home when she decides to slam her infant’s head into the side of a bathtub, killing it. But, it’s still illegal to do.

…let me rephrase that: do you think we’ll see a significant decline in abortions performed when abortion becomes illegal?

[/quote]

Yes. Precisely. Significantly fewer…Oh people will still do it, but far less.