Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

Why do we debate abortion by moral standards? I don't believe whether you personally find it ethical to kill a fetus should impede a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy to end it. Assuming abortions were legalized across the board, people who were opposed to them, simply could chose NOT to have them while still leaving the option open to those without moral scruples regarding the matter. The only thing I see accomplished by criminalizing abortion is taking away a woman's right to her own body, making it instead government property and leading us down a path toward fewer freedoms.

---

I believe it is the right of the mother to decide whether or not her baby gets abortion or not. The baby is unborn and insentient, so it wouldn't necessarily be murder, per say. Maybe a mother isn't ready to have a child.
Just my 2 cents.

---

At 1/25/08 10:41 PM, NeverRider wrote: Why do we debate abortion by moral standards? I don't believe whether you personally find it ethical :to kill a fetus should impede a woman who has an unwanted pregnancy to end it.

Why does the fetus have no rights in this scenario? I'm not arguing that I dislike abortions for personal reasons, I'm arguing that I dislike them because they go against the constitution and the spirit of this American democracy.

:Assuming abortions were legalized across the board, people who were opposed to them, simply :could chose NOT to have them while still leaving the option open to those without moral scruples :regarding the matter.

By that logic, we should get rid of the speed limit signs. People who oppose driving 120 mph, can simply choose to drive at 40 mph, while still leaving the option open to those without moral scruples (or sanity) regarding the matter.

If it was an operation that only impacted the mother, I agree that it would not be the government's business. It would be fine to base it on her own, individual morality. But abortion is a two-party affair: the mother and the fetus, so the government has a responsibility to apply natural rights and the constitution in resolving the conflict.

:The only thing I see accomplished by criminalizing abortion is taking away a woman's right to her :own body, making it instead government property and leading us down a path toward fewer :freedoms.

Not really, because the fetus isn't part of her body, it's a unique individual. And it's not leading us towards "fewer freedoms", it's leading us towards freedom for all people, even the youngest Americans.

---

At 1/26/08 01:37 AM, Pyropter wrote:

:The baby is unborn and insentient, so it wouldn't necessarily be murder, per say.

The baby is unborn, but what makes you think it's insentient? It has a functioning nervous system, and a complex, developed brain.

---

good points

---

This thread is over a month old man, let it die. A new one will probably be along shortly, just give it a week or two, and I will bet you money one will pop up.

---

At 1/13/08 08:25 PM, JOEBIALEK wrote: On this 35th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade decision, I would like to share my views on the issue of abortion.

Life begins at the point of conception. No one can deny that after a human being is conceived it will develop into the very same being as those debating this issue. What astounds me is that those who favor abortion went through an identical development stage as the being they are condemning to death. Would these very same people agree that a similiar choice should have been made about their own existence? Abortion today is used primarily as a birth control of convenience because people are too self-centered to take precautions. They prefer their own pleasurable self-indulgence over the care and sanctity of the life they created. What ever happened to taking responsibility for one's actions in this country? Is it too much to ask a woman who has conceived to place the child into adoption? Nine months of discomfort is nothing compared to life in prison for voluntary manslaughter! Does the father of the child have a say in this? And what about the constitution of the United States? Are not all people conceived in this country deserving of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I believe abortion is a crime against humanity and should be outlawed. We need to overturn the Roe v. Wade decision and get back to cherishing life in this country. For a country that murders it's children cannot be far from self destruction.

"No one can deny that after a human being is concieved it will develop into the very same beings thatare debating the issue", actually you are able to deny that. After the point of conception (I believe the statistic is....) 1 in 5 fetus' abort themselves and will never develop. Even for those embryos that do develop there are still birth defects that would put them far away from ever having the potential of being functioning human beings. A grotesque example would be harlequin fetus syndrome (in which the childs eyes never develop and are replaced just by muscle mass in the eye sockets, it is born without lips, it's skin is fracture over it's entire body leaving it's muscle exposed thus dooming it to an intense albeit short life of pain). I have also heard accounts of children being born without a functioning brain (or any brain at all) or without hands or feet or a face, many fetus' simply do not develop in time.

---

At 1/26/08 07:44 AM, Al6200 wrote:

At 1/26/08 01:37 AM, Pyropter wrote: The baby is unborn and insentient, so it wouldn't necessarily be murder, per say.

The baby is unborn, but what makes you think it's insentient? It has a functioning nervous system, and a complex, developed brain.

Once a child is more fully developed it has a "complex, developed brain" and "functioning nervous system" but at conception the "baby" is about the size of a grain of sand and has neither. Though I won't deny it will develop them, though at the point it does fully develp both those organs (The 28th week of pregnancy) I don't think a vacuum aspiration abortion (which is the most common and effective) would even be responsible or plausible.

---

just wanted to say

anyone who has ever watched an actual video of a late-term abortion would probably think twice about it before ever doing it. Imagine your child being dismembered and sucked into a vacuum - because that's pretty much it. most people aren't aware of what actually goes on during an abortion - let me tell you...it is not pretty.

---

At 1/14/08 05:54 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

At 1/14/08 04:57 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Yo, I is totally into abortion, I've been responsible for at least 5. You know, I is well up for it.

Has you ever had an abortion? Surely yous should try somethin before you say it is bad.

Haven't tried murder or grand-theft yet. I'll have to put those on my to-do list.

that was probably the silliest thing i've seen written in a very very long time. honestly.

---

At 2/20/08 04:03 AM, joshhunsaker wrote: just wanted to say

anyone who has ever watched an actual video of a late-term abortion would probably think twice about it before ever doing it. Imagine your child being dismembered and sucked into a vacuum - because that's pretty much it. most people aren't aware of what actually goes on during an abortion - let me tell you...it is not pretty.

This is a preatty weak argument, saying that we would think twice because it looks nasty. It's purely an appeal to emotions and isn't based on reasoning like the "the fetus is alive too" argument.

I problaby wouldn't enjoy seeing an animal get slaughtered either, but that doesn't mean I think it's immoral to eat meat. There are a ton of things I don't enjoy to watch here in life, but that doesn't affect the morality of that action. If it did, then apple pie would be immoral if enough people didn't like watching apples being cut up.

---

At 2/20/08 05:27 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 2/20/08 04:03 AM, joshhunsaker wrote: just wanted to say

anyone who has ever watched an actual video of a late-term abortion would probably think twice about it before ever doing it. Imagine your child being dismembered and sucked into a vacuum - because that's pretty much it. most people aren't aware of what actually goes on during an abortion - let me tell you...it is not pretty.

This is a preatty weak argument, saying that we would think twice because it looks nasty. It's purely an appeal to emotions and isn't based on reasoning like the "the fetus is alive too" argument.

I problaby wouldn't enjoy seeing an animal get slaughtered either, but that doesn't mean I think it's immoral to eat meat. There are a ton of things I don't enjoy to watch here in life, but that doesn't affect the morality of that action. If it did, then apple pie would be immoral if enough people didn't like watching apples being cut up.

I think if you ask someone who is a mother - they will tell you that there is a pretty big difference between the unborn child inside their womb and the next cow that tends to end up on their plate. Do you have unconditional love for cows, fish, and chickens?

My very weak argument is based off an emotion which is not so weak - particularly - maternal instinct. I've known people who's fetus' aborted without any of it being their fault - and let me tell you - I don't think they would be nearly as disturbed to see an animal die as the thing that just slipped out of their legs. Think about it.

There are plenty of people in this world who still hunt who would tell you there is a world and a half of difference between a human fetus and that pretty deer that won't grow up to become their legacy.

I suppose you could also tell me that me explaining why someone should not want to murder their family is strictly an appeal to emotion were it not for the laws that were in place. This is why some of this philosophy and sophistry crap is so destructive. Some things are meant to be understood on principles that superceed the fruitlessness that often becomes the misapplication of "logic".

Remember that very good "logic" was used to OJ and Michael Jackson out of prison. But that's just another victory for "logic" eh?

---

At 2/20/08 11:28 AM, joshhunsaker wrote: I think if you ask someone who is a mother - they will tell you that there is a pretty big difference between the unborn child inside their womb and the next cow that tends to end up on their plate. Do you have unconditional love for cows, fish, and chickens?

I understand your argument, but I still think it's an disshonest.

Just look at the words and comparisons you are using. You say "unborn child" which the word child makes people think of those small cute child. When the thing in question is better desribed as a fetus, which, durring most abortions, looks like a lump of cells. I keep seeing lots of pro-life people doing this, usually in accompany with pictures of 1 year old babies to nail the image in.

My very weak argument is based off an emotion which is not so weak - particularly - maternal instinct. I've known people who's fetus' aborted without any of it being their fault - and let me tell you - I don't think they would be nearly as disturbed to see an animal die as the thing that just slipped out of their legs. Think about it.

I wasn't saying that seeing an animal WAS equally nasty as seeing a human die. I can see animals being slaughgered without being affected much, but I can't claim the same for humans (not that I've tried). What I was arguing was that the nastiness of the situation doesn't affect if the situation is good or bad. If seeing an abortion mades you sick and want to stop it, then you can't argue against people who wants to stop apple pies from being made because they get sick when they see apples being cut up. They have the same case as you. (we are only talking about the it-looks-nasty argument here, not the fetus-also-has-rights argument).

It's simply letting your emotions control the situation at hand, something which can be very dangerious. Obviously, we feel much stronger emotions when somebody close to us is murdered (as opposed to somebody unknown), but that doesn't mean that the murderer should get a worse punishment. Emotions shouldn't play a part in things, because emotions cannot be objective.

There are plenty of people in this world who still hunt who would tell you there is a world and a half of difference between a human fetus and that pretty deer that won't grow up to become their legacy.

As I said, I was not talking about the "fetus is a human and is worth more" argument. I was only replying to your "it looks horrible" argument.

I suppose you could also tell me that me explaining why someone should not want to murder their family is strictly an appeal to emotion were it not for the laws that were in place. This is why some of this philosophy and sophistry crap is so destructive. Some things are meant to be understood on principles that superceed the fruitlessness that often becomes the misapplication of "logic".

Emotions are part of who we are, and we cannot escape them. I can never claim to be able to avoid getting angry at times.

The diffrence is that we must not thing that emotions is a justification for anything. Emotions are not objective, and does not follow a global moral.

If a person kills a million humans, he is a mass murderer. You would problaby want such a person to die or be locked up for good. That is your emotion.

He, however, does not what this. He wants to survive and be free. That is his emotion.

There is no global emotion balance that will ensure that the mass murderer will also think that he needs to die or be imprisoned. What he feels is entirely up to him, and what you feel is entirely up to you. It could happen that you don't give a care for millions of people who died, and therefore hold no anger against the murderer. Would he deserve less punishment because your emotions aren't in play? Would he deserve more punishment if you were really angry?

Remember that very good "logic" was used to OJ and Michael Jackson out of prison. But that's just another victory for "logic" eh?

Logic itself is perfect, but that doesn't mean people follow it perfectly. They had DNA evidence against OJ, but it wasn't looked into too much because DNA evidence was fairly new and the jury didn't trust it (even though it was accurate). In that case, it was in fact emotions that let OJ out, as it was the jury's fear or disstrust against the unknown which made the DNA evidence void.

I don't know enough about the Michael Jackson case to say anything for sure. But, do you think justice should be enforced based on what people feel? Should somebody be more likely to be imprisoned if people don't like him?

---

Remember that very good "logic" was used to OJ and Michael Jackson out of prison. But that's just another victory for "logic" eh?

The King of Pop didn't do it, cunt! >:0

---

At 2/21/08 03:54 AM, Kazuhiro wrote:

Remember that very good "logic" was used to OJ and Michael Jackson out of prison. But that's just another victory for "logic" eh?

The King of Pop didn't do it, cunt! >:0

Apparently you've never read the testimonies of literally dozens of people who have had their kids in his vicinity and/or watched by him. The guy is a sick man - just like Pee-Wee Herman. Only difference is that one actually ended up going to jail.

His music is fantastic, sure - but that doesn't change his pedophilic nature.

---

At 2/21/08 03:51 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 2/20/08 11:28 AM, joshhunsaker wrote: I think if you ask someone who is a mother - they will tell you that there is a pretty big difference between the unborn child inside their womb and the next cow that tends to end up on their plate. Do you have unconditional love for cows, fish, and chickens?

I understand your argument, but I still think it's an disshonest.

I don't think my argument was exactly fraudulent but I suppose anything is possible.

Just look at the words and comparisons you are using. You say "unborn child" which the word child makes people think of those small cute child.

This is a tremendous assumption. Just as bad as my appeal to emotion.

when the thing in question is better desribed as a fetus, which, durring most abortions, looks like a lump of cells. I keep seeing lots of pro-life people doing this, usually in accompany with pictures of 1 year old babies to nail the image in.

My original post was about late-term abortions. You might want to look at the following and you'll see how much of a pregnancy term is occupied by a fetus that looks very much like a real baby (they develop quickly).
<img src=http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/upl oads/166bf267eb.gif border=0 alt="Free Image Hosting">

87% of abortions occur within the first trimester - meaning that in at least half of those cases - the fetus will still end up looking like one of the two on the left:
<img src=http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/upl oads/18fffaba67.gif border=0 alt="Free Image Hosting">

not exactly a mass of cells...is it?

If a person kills a million humans, he is a mass murderer. You would problaby want such a person to die or be locked up for good. That is your emotion.

He, however, does not what this. He wants to survive and be free. That is his emotion.

Another assumption which is completely unfounded. If you've ever followed the trials or lives of most genocidal murderers - normally - they either take their own lives after the act, want to die, want to at least be caught, or simply don't care about life anymore.

I really think it would be a tremendous stretch to say "every mass murderer" wants to be free and survive. Psychology would say otherwise.

:Would he deserve less punishment because your emotions aren't in play? Would he deserve more punishment if you were really angry?

I hope you don't try to use this logic argument when you tell your parents that you love them. Try explaining that away through logic and I'm sure it could be broken down just as quickly on the same conceptual basis.

---

The two pictures are here:
i don't know why they won't allow code for images here but anyway...
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/
06/basics_allometry.php

---

At 2/21/08 11:16 AM, joshhunsaker wrote:

At 2/21/08 03:54 AM, Kazuhiro wrote:

Remember that very good "logic" was used to OJ and Michael Jackson out of prison. But that's just another victory for "logic" eh?

The King of Pop didn't do it, cunt! >:0

Apparently you've never read the testimonies of literally dozens of people who have had their kids in his vicinity and/or watched by him. The guy is a sick man - just like Pee-Wee Herman. Only difference is that one actually ended up going to jail.

His music is fantastic, sure - but that doesn't change his pedophilic nature.

But listening to testimonies and using them as evidence is an act of logic, which courtrooms use. It's the same as what they use when they defend people in court too.

"The defendant is guilty because we have a witness who saw him do it"
"The defendant is not guilty because we have a witness which was with him at the night of the murder at the other side of town"

---

At 2/21/08 11:36 AM, joshhunsaker wrote:

At 2/21/08 03:51 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 2/20/08 11:28 AM, joshhunsaker wrote:

This is a tremendous assumption. Just as bad as my appeal to emotion.

Sorry, it seemed so. I stand corrected.

not exactly a mass of cells...is it?

I didn't know that we were talking about late term abortions.

Not perhaps a mass of cells as much as I thought, but I wouldn't exactly say that early fetuses looks human either.

If a person kills a million humans, he is a mass murderer. You would problaby want such a person to die or be locked up for good. That is your emotion.

He, however, does not what this. He wants to survive and be free. That is his emotion.

Another assumption which is completely unfounded. If you've ever followed the trials or lives of most genocidal murderers - normally - they either take their own lives after the act, want to die, want to at least be caught, or simply don't care about life anymore.

Well, that's an argument for another day. I could use another example to avoid this, like a theif. He wants to escape with what he has stolen, and you want him brought to justice. It would serve the same purposes as my example without the "I can't bare to live" problem you pose.

I really think it would be a tremendous stretch to say "every mass murderer" wants to be free and survive. Psychology would say otherwise.

Sorry, I was talking theoretically, just pointing out that every person has his own emotions. Every mass murderer is misleading.

Would he deserve less punishment because your emotions aren't in play? Would he deserve more punishment if you were really angry?

I hope you don't try to use this logic argument when you tell your parents that you love them. Try explaining that away through logic and I'm sure it could be broken down just as quickly on the same conceptual basis.

What? I didn't quite get that.

But equally, should you get less punishment or more reward from your parents because they love you more? Personally, I think the punishment or reward should equal the value of the action, not the relation to the punisher/rewarder.

Should people who are close friends with judges get less punishment?

---

At 2/21/08 11:45 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 2/21/08 11:36 AM, joshhunsaker wrote:

At 2/21/08 03:51 AM, Drakim wrote:

I hope you don't try to use this logic argument when you tell your parents that you love them. Try explaining that away through logic and I'm sure it could be broken down just as quickly on the same conceptual basis.

What? I didn't quite get that.

But equally, should you get less punishment or more reward from your parents because they love you more? Personally, I think the punishment or reward should equal the value of the action, not the relation to the punisher/rewarder.

Should people who are close friends with judges get less punishment?

I'll simply use an analogy to explain my parallel to love and how this shows that emotions can superceed the "logic" of pure justice.

Everyone one of us comes from some sort of family. in some of those families where there are still parents - they may or may not love their children as much as the next family. Let us say there are two families that have both had children where they grew up in a good home, were nutured and taught well, but somehow got out into society and completely failed - they both became drug addicts and were thrown in jail. Both children from these two separate families get out of jail with nothing. They are absolutely without hope of ever making anything out of themselves now without some serious rehabilitation from people who are willing to make huge sacrifices to foster them back into some semblance of an actual decent life. Both children return to their families desperately seeking refuge from the streets that they no longer want their life to be a part of.

Here's where the similarities end. One family - is emotionally uncaring and totally just. Their child is now in their 20's (like the other) and they see that they have no logical reason to take him back as they had disowned their child many years previous. He now has to make it on his own in society or he (they suppose) will simply end up leeching off them for support the rest of their years and never going anywhere. They turn him away and tell him goodbye. He returns to the streets - tries to get a job - and lives many years before dyeing homeless and utterly broken. But - justice was served.

The other family lets their emotions of love and overwhelming desire of hope for their son get in the way of the more logical sense that they are not dealing with a son anymore but a cold criminal. He begs that they have mercy on him and they willfully oblige and even celebrate the fact that they he has returned to them with a change of heart. He spend many many years regaining the trust of the friends and family he had long before - still making mistakes but trying as hard as he can to rectify everything he still does wrong. After much time has past - he has a career and enough confidence to secure himself a place to live with a steady source of income. He rejoices that he has made it back to the light of freedom from a criminal lifestyle without being crushed by it. He lives a full life and is happy. The principle of justice was superseded by the family's tremendous emotional response to the sight of a loved one who has honestly sought forgiveness. Remember that - in a court of law - a plea for forgiveness is not something that you can use in your defense.

Question: which family acted in the best interest of the child? Was it necessarily the one who only administered blind justice?

The principle of mercy - always supersedes that of justice, but can only be administered by a mediator who can act to temporarily bear the load of consequences of the one who is being redeemed in exchange for his love and trust. The second family served justice because in the end they provided society with a rehabilitated individual who could then contribute much value to his surroundings and fellow friends. However, they also provided mercy by allowing him to serve under their tenure before requiring him to go back out into the world.

---

Sorry Drakim, but I'm going to have to pull with joshhunsaker here. Ultimately, human morality and value, which is innately tied to our evolutionary past, cannot be separated from the legal justice system.

For example, take murder in general. Why is it illegal? On one hand, there's a clear economic benefit to the society which can prevent killing. But we also restrict generally productive murder, simply because the pack mentality of mutual benefit and concern is tied to human evolution and morality.

Likewise, the legal concern over

As for the issue of abortion, I think that the Pro-Life and the Pro-Choice sides need to come together and compromise, so that we won't have to ruin future political challenges bickering over social issues instead of dealing with problems like the economy and foreign policy.

So here's what both sides should do in my opinion:

Pro-Life:

-Acknowledge that abortion laws do, to some degree, violate the privacy of a woman (I'm not implying that this outweighs fetal rights, but it certainly should be acknowledged)

-Accept that laws and efforts should be focused primarily on reducing the incidence of abortion, and social programs to help the underprivileged women who choose to get abortions

-Make a distinction between views rooted in common law and reason, which should be applied to a nation, and views that are based on personal opinions and faiths. The belief that consciousness and personhood comes from the brain, is generally accepted and supported by the overwhelming body of scientific evidence. The belief that person hood starts at conception, however, is somewhat non-sensical, and doesn't really hold up on rational grounds - mainly since the cells at that point are capable of separating into two separate people. It doesn't make sense to say that you're one person when you can easily become two or more different and unique people.

-Accept the free use of the morning after pill, perhaps with a warning label saying that it kills a small group of stem cells, which have unique DNA but no brain (to make sure that the woman's morality doesn't conflict with her decision).

-Acknowledge that the law today allows abortion, and respect it while trying to change the law. Doing otherwise only gives Pro-Choice people a "bunker" mentality, and will prevent the nation from agreeing to a more sensible compromise.

Pro-Choice:

-Acknowledge that the fetus does undergo some degree of development over the course of pregnancy, and therefore is not just a "lump of cells" at the time at which many abortions occur.

-Accept that abortion, especially in later terms of pregnancy, is not just a matter of the woman's civil liberties and right to choice, but is also a matter of fetal civil liberties and rights.

-Agree to a sensible ban on late and middle term abortions, especially after the fetus has extensive neurological development and is capable of feeling pain. Many Republicans, such as John McCain, are very willing to make exceptions for rape and maternal health (http://glassbooth.org/explore/index/joh n-mccain/10/abortion-and-birth-control/1 6/) , so the democrats should be willing to make compromises too.

-Agree to a timetable on abortion that bases the degree of restriction the development of the fetus.

Today, with Republicans arguing for an outright ban on ALL abortions, and democrats arguing for absolutely NO restrictions on abortions, no room exists for sensible compromises that our nation needs.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/
issues.abortion.html

---

At 1/26/08 07:42 AM, Al6200 wrote: Why does the fetus have no rights in this scenario? I'm not arguing that I dislike abortions for personal reasons, I'm arguing that I dislike them because they go against the constitution and the spirit of this American democracy.

Because the fetus can't be considered a living being by any scientific standards, they can't be considered a conscious being either until the beginning of the third trimester, where it's already illegal to abort the fetus. The dominant argument that's being pushed on the side of pro-life is a religious one, and the constitution strictly forbids US law from being defined in preference for a certain belief.

For all logical, legalization of abortion is productive. For example, when abortion was legalized in the US we experienced dramatic drops in crime.

By that logic, we should get rid of the speed limit signs. People who oppose driving 120 mph, can simply choose to drive at 40 mph, while still leaving the option open to those without moral scruples (or sanity) regarding the matter.

The only problem is that abortion is simply a moral issue (and on the side of pro-life has no substantial backing in research), while the argument for speed limits is a much more logical issue with plenty of uncontroversial evidence supporting it.

Not really, because the fetus isn't part of her body, it's a unique individual. And it's not leading us towards "fewer freedoms", it's leading us towards freedom for all people, even the youngest Americans.

The fetus is a part of the mothers body, until late in it's term it can't be considered an individual.

I agree that there should be some limit on abortion, but the limits I agree with are already in place, completely banning abortion would set women back 40 years

---

At 2/21/08 07:04 PM, Musician wrote:

At 1/26/08 07:42 AM, Al6200 wrote: Why does the fetus have no rights in this scenario? I'm not arguing that I dislike abortions for personal reasons, I'm arguing that I dislike them because they go against the constitution and the spirit of this American democracy.

Because the fetus can't be considered a living being by any scientific standards

WHOA WHOA WHOA... Didn't we already debate this? It's almost like you've backtracked to forget everything I showed you about science and reasoning.

It's obviously alive. No one is disputing that. The scientific definition of alive is:

"avoids the decay into equilibrium"

according to Erwin Schrodinger, physicist who is famous for discovering the wave function for locating electrons in a hydrogen atom, http://www.astrobio.net/news/article226

For someone not well grounded in thermodynamics, that means next to nothing. But thermodynamics (Gibbs free energy) essentially states that reactions tend to be spontaneous if they give off energy and increase the chaos within the system.

Although life abides by these rules, it has the unique ability to recruit the energy from its environment to increase its own complexity and copy itself is unique and is not exhibited by non-living matter.

For example, a star takes hydrogen atoms with a high binding energy due to the lack of nucleons to provide a great deal of strong nuclear force, and fuses them together to make lower energy atoms like Iron that have more nucleons and a stronger nuclear force, and hence more stability.

So high energy atoms are converted to low energy atoms, and the excess energy is released.

Compare this to a living system, like a plant, which takes energy from the light in its environment, and then converts that energy into chemical potential energy, which it uses to selectively raise the energy state of certain molecules so as to copy its DNA and reproduce.

Living matter is unique, and fetuses obviously exhibit this quality. Their cells copy and multiply, as the organism grows.

:they can't be considered a conscious being either until the beginning of the third trimester, where :it's already illegal to abort the fetus.

1. Where's your proof that it becomes conscious at that point? The cerebral cortex and a complex neural network develop late in the 1st trimester (well established in the long debate we had a while ago, backed up by numerous sources and the

2. It's not illegal, Roe vs. Wade just says that states are allowed to make it illegal. Also, Pro-Choice groups are actively trying to oppose the partial birth abortion ban, which prohibits these late term abortions.

:The dominant argument that's being pushed on the side of pro-life is a religious one, and the :constitution strictly forbids US law from being defined in preference for a certain belief.

That's an outright lie and you know it. I, nor any other person on this board or in this debate, has pushed for a religious reason for making abortion illegal. Moreover, all of the major pro-life organizations use secular arguments against abortion.

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.htm l
http://www.prolifeaction.org/providers/h ill.htm (note that this man is a Christian, like many Americans, but his reasons for stopping abortion procedures was moral, and not religious).

In fact, if you can find a Christian argument against abortion (not just a Christian against abortion, an actual religiously based argument that opposes abortion) than I'll concede the point that Pro-Life movements are almost entirely secular.

For all logical, legalization of abortion is productive. For example, when abortion was legalized in the :US we experienced dramatic drops in crime.

Obviously, by promoting the killing and euthenization of the lowest income Americans, crime will be reduced. But at what cost? Aren't we a creative and resourceful enough people that we can fight crime without denying the most disadvantaged Americans a chance to make their own choice - a chance to be an individual person.

You just think that your position is logical because it includes a number, even though said number does not logically support your position on any sensible system of ethics.

The only problem is that abortion is simply a moral issue

Like all other forms of murder, but does that justify taking away those laws?

:(and on the side of pro-life has no substantial backing in research)

WTF are you talking about? How is the Pro-Choice position of "Woman's Choice" any more researched than "Fetal development is sufficient to grant the child certain civil liberties"?

Moreover, I've cited plenty of sources to support my position, and I've used research and evidence where it is relevant. You on the other hand... oh yeah, you don't have evidence or reasoning, you just have non-sequitors and unsupported conclusions.

:while the argument for speed limits is a much more logical issue with plenty of uncontroversial :evidence supporting it.

Abortion is a logical and a moral issue, the same way speed limit signs are a logical and a moral issue. (Is it right for the government to tell people how to drive their own car? Where does public safety outweigh individual civil liberties in a public context? )

Your entire argument is unsupported and poorly thought our presuppositions that in no way support your conclusions.

Not really, because the fetus isn't part of her body, it's a unique individual. And it's not leading us towards "fewer freedoms", it's leading us towards freedom for all people, even the youngest Americans.

The fetus is a part of the mothers body, until late in it's term it can't be considered an individual.

No. It has unique DNA, a unique brain (fetuses do have brains, since its 9+ weeks), and unique thoughts/feelings. It's a different person.

I also enjoy how you throw around the word "late term" without a specific date. I would confuse it for carelessness, but I'm really more inclined to think that you're specifically using that word so you can have it mean 9 weeks on one issue, 20 weeks on another issue, and third trimester on another.

I agree that there should be some limit on abortion, but the limits I agree with are already in place, :completely banning abortion would set women back 40 years

Here is the argument you just presented;

Presupposition:

Abortion is wrong and should be limited to some degree, which I don't specify clearly or consistently.

Support:

None.

Presupposition:

Abortion is already limited in the late term

Support:

None. Many states don't have such limits, and Pro-Choice groups rabidly oppose their implementation.

Constructive:

Banning abortion would set women back 40 years

Reasoning:

None.

Support:

None.

I'm not even sure what that statement is supposed to mean. How are you defining "set back"? Are you suggesting that women would have social status reminiscent of 1968 just because women can't

Naturally, you avoid using specifics or evidence, and instead use non-sequitors and unsupported vague conclusions to avoid a substantive debate about the issue. And even when you do bring up pertinent issues, you just declare your position (fetus isn't alive) without supporting it with evidence or reasoning. And then you claim that my position isn't grounded in research or science!

---

At 2/21/08 07:04 PM, Musician wrote:

The fetus is a part of the mothers body, until late in it's term it can't be considered an individual.

Not so fast here. Foetal movements can occur within the first 9TH WEEK of the woman's pregnancy. WELL within even the first trimester. The very fact alone that the unborn baby/child/thing/whatever we'll-call-it can move of it's own accord at that point in time would likely be evidence enough (in a court of law) to prove that the fetus could be definitely be identified as an individual. You'll notice that even those with severe metal retardation, people in comas, and those who are vegetables are still identified as individuals. In the end - such nomenclature has relatively little to with brain capacity beyond that required to accomplish slight movements or registrable brain activity.

Now - the fetus may depend upon the mother for nutrients through the umbilical cord, but that also does not necessarily make the baby part of the mother any more than a person who lives off of a breathing machine would call it "part" of them. It is a temporary source of sustenance that is meant to be cutoff within 9 months time. While someone is "always" part of a family - a baby is not "always" part of a mother.

---

I agree with everything you say Joshuskner, except one could argue that the fetal motions are involuntary muscle spasms - which you could get if you pulled the leg off of a spider very quickly. (I've never tried to do it, but with daddy long legs, I've sometimes seen the dismembered legs twitch).

The early fetal motions are most definitely involuntary, but that's not to say that all of them are. Remember that the 10 week fetus has a cerebral cortex and a relativly complex neural network, but that neural network is not connected to the rest of the brain, so it can't get sensory input or send output.

What does it think about if it has never experienced anything? An exciting philosophical question, but not one that marginalizes the fetus's right to life once it has sufficient neural development.

---

At 2/21/08 08:09 PM, Al6200 wrote: 1. Where's your proof that it becomes conscious at that point? The cerebral cortex and a complex neural network develop late in the 1st trimester (well established in the long debate we had a while ago, backed up by numerous sources and the

not completely, as your own link proved in our last debate there isn't any scientific evidence to prove that the fetus aquires consciousness within the first trimester. In fact a large amount of your own assumptions were discredited by the very link you provided, seeing as during the 10th week (I believe thats what you were considering the point where a fetus gains consciousness) the cerebral cortex is completely isolated from the rest of the brain, making consciousness impossible.

2. It's not illegal, Roe vs. Wade just says that states are allowed to make it illegal. Also, Pro-Choice groups are actively trying to oppose the partial birth abortion ban, which prohibits these late term abortions.

Then I don't care if those are changed to ban abortions after the third trimester. But I don't support any ban during the 2nd and 1st trimester, and I still believe abortion should be allowed in the Third trimester for certain situations like guarding the mother's health.

That's an outright lie and you know it. I, nor any other person on this board or in this debate, has pushed for a religious reason for making abortion illegal. Moreover, all of the major pro-life organizations use secular arguments against abortion.

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.htm l
http://www.prolifeaction.org/providers/h ill.htm (note that this man is a Christian, like many Americans, but his reasons for stopping abortion procedures was moral, and not religious).

In fact, if you can find a Christian argument against abortion (not just a Christian against abortion, an actual religiously based argument that opposes abortion) than I'll concede the point that Pro-Life movements are almost entirely secular.

Sure, I'd like to know what the secular argument is for banning all abortions in any term starting from conception. I'd like to see if theres even a shred of evidence to show that from the moment the sperm touches the egg that the egg is an individual deserving of equal rights.

If you can't find a logical argument to support that, then we can assume that anyone who holds that belief isn't basing it off of anything logical, and is mostly making that argument due to their faith. I'll also expect an apology for calling me a liar.

Obviously, by promoting the killing and euthenization of the lowest income Americans, crime will be reduced. But at what cost? Aren't we a creative and resourceful enough people that we can fight crime without denying the most disadvantaged Americans a chance to make their own choice - a chance to be an individual person.

Crime MIGHT be reduced by killing the lowest working americans, but by doing that you also destroy the foundation of our economy seeing as you would also destroy anyone working at minimum wage. Yes there are moral objections to killing the lowest income americans, but the are also logical reasons, something that is absent from pro-life arguments. Also, humans after birth are considered conscious and independent (uncontroversially).

You just think that your position is logical because it includes a number, even though said number does not logically support your position on any sensible system of ethics.

Whatever jacks you off.

Like all other forms of murder, but does that justify taking away those laws?

Nope, murder is much more than a moral issue, abortion is not. There are so many examples of why you're wrong, for example: no government can EVER function properly if murder is openly legal.

WTF are you talking about? How is the Pro-Choice position of "Woman's Choice" any more researched than "Fetal development is sufficient to grant the child certain civil liberties"?

Simple, there is no research to suggest that fetus'/zygote's are conscious (with the exception of the fetus in its late stages). Since a fetus is not an individual being during these stages, forcing a woman to go through dramatic physical changes (which are almost always detrimental to health)

Moreover, I've cited plenty of sources to support my position, and I've used research and evidence where it is relevant.

Nope

Abortion is a logical and a moral issue, the same way speed limit signs are a logical and a moral issue. (Is it right for the government to tell people how to drive their own car? Where does public safety outweigh individual civil liberties in a public context? )

How exactly is abortion a logical issue on the pro-life side? Just curious

Your entire argument is unsupported and poorly thought our presuppositions that in no way support your conclusions.

What's your argument again? that fetus' are conscious within 10 weeks of conception? Despite OWN SOURCE saying that consciousness at 10 weeks is IMPOSSIBLE due to an entirely underdeveloped brain? YOUR entire argument is false and take all sorts of liberties.

No. It has unique DNA, a unique brain (fetuses do have brains, since its 9+ weeks), and unique thoughts/feelings. It's a different person.

It is not capable of consciousness, and is completely dependant on another being. It is not an individual.

I also enjoy how you throw around the word "late term" without a specific date. I would confuse it for carelessness, but I'm really more inclined to think that you're specifically using that word so you can have it mean 9 weeks on one issue, 20 weeks on another issue, and third trimester on another.

LMAO, I specifically said at the beggining of the post that I support abortions before the third trimester. You would do well to stop making faulty and unfounded accusations.

Here is the argument you just presented;

Presupposition:

Abortion is wrong and should be limited to some degree, which I don't specify clearly or consistently.

"I agree that there should be some limit on abortion, but the limits I agree with are already in place"

As I said above

"they can't be considered a conscious being either until the beginning of the third trimester, where it's already illegal to abort the fetus"

Looks like you're incapable of critical reading.

Support:

None.

More like: Support - A fetus is conscious during the third trimester, therefore I agree that abortion should not be allowed after the third trimester.

Constructive:

Banning abortion would set women back 40 years

Reasoning:

None.

Support:

None.

More like women will be set back 40 years because they'll be forced into the baby maker role. Women will not be able to terminate early term abortions and will be forced to stop working in order to have the baby, which means more women will lose their jobs. School girls who get pregnant who get pregnant will be forced to take leave on school to have the baby, possibly even be forced to quit school in order to support a family. Women will slowly descend back into the role of the homemaker and will be considered subordinate to men.

I'm not even sure what that statement is supposed to mean. How are you defining "set back"? Are you suggesting that women would have social status reminiscent of 1968 just because women can't

Yep, that's what I'm suggesting. Banning abortion restricts and condescends women in all sorts of ways.

you claim that my position isn't grounded in research or science!

Because it isn't, you have presented no compelling evidence to support your "10 weeks consciousness" theory. In fact your entire argument in that regard has been dismantled.

---

At 2/21/08 09:53 PM, Musician wrote:

At 2/21/08 08:09 PM, Al6200 wrote:

not completely, as your own link proved in our last debate there isn't any scientific evidence to :prove that the fetus aquires consciousness within the first trimester.

Another unsupported presupposition. Sophisticated neural networks cause consciousness, since all humans have such neural networks, and the brain is generally considered the source of individuality. In other words, when you receive a heart transplant, you retain your individuality, because you have the same brain.

It's no leap of logic that the development of the complex neural network is the point at which the dimmer switch of consciousness begins to turn on.

:seeing as during the 10th week (I believe thats what you were considering the point where a fetus :gains consciousness) the cerebral cortex is completely isolated from the rest of the brain, making :consciousness impossible.

I agree, it is isolated from the rest of the brain, but how does that make consciousness impossible? When you sleep, do you control your muscles? Do you get sensory input and calculate it consciously? Are you still a human being worthy of rights?

The fetus I'd suppose would be in a thinking state, although I have no clue what it would be thinking about, given that it's never seen or felt anything. But if it still has that brain, it ought to have rights because of that unique consciousness.

Sure, I'd like to know what the secular argument is for banning all abortions in any term starting :from conception. I'd like to see if theres even a shred of evidence to show that from the moment the :sperm touches the egg that the egg is an individual deserving of equal rights.

Ugh, no. They have a logical reason, which is that the stem cell is a unique person that will one day become a conscious individual. It's weak reasoning in my opinion, but it's by no mean religious. It's not like the Bible says "And thou shalt not abort ye fetus".

Have you seen this religious argument against abortion than? Someone arguing against it on strictly biblical or scriptural grounds?

Crime MIGHT be reduced by killing the lowest working americans, but by doing that you also destroy :the foundation of our economy seeing as you would also destroy anyone working at minimum wage. :Yes there are moral objections to killing the lowest income americans, but the are also logical :reasons, something that is absent from pro-life arguments. Also, humans after birth are considered :conscious and independent (uncontroversially).

It's perfectly logical to say that all human life has intrinsic value, because it is conscious and feeling. It's no less logical than being cold and calculated, with no regards to ethics.

Like all other forms of murder, but does that justify taking away those laws?

Nope, murder is much more than a moral issue, abortion is not. There are so many examples of why ;you're wrong, for example: no government can EVER function properly if murder is openly legal.

Abortion is a type of murder... Also, many governments have functioned quite well and have denied specific subsets of the population the right to life. Look at the Confederate States of America. They were quite able to function properly until they were invaded by the union, and yet they denied the right to life to a large portion of their population. Your point is moot, governments can function while denying the right to life, the same way our government does so today while denying the right to fetuses.

Simple, there is no research to suggest that fetus'/zygote's are conscious (with the exception of the :fetus in its late stages).

Other than the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and all of the research we have regarding neural development in fetuses.

:Since a fetus is not an individual being during these stages, forcing a woman to go through dramatic :physical changes (which are almost always detrimental to health)

More unsupported presuppositions. Prove that pregnancy is "almost always" detrimental to a woman's health. Prove that it's not an individual "during these stages".

Moreover, I've cited plenty of sources to support my position, and I've used research and evidence where it is relevant.

Nope

Ummm... Is that the best you can do? I've pointed out how you've just stated a position and failed to support it in the past, but just declaring "Nope" is a new low.

What's your argument again? that fetus' are conscious within 10 weeks of conception? Despite OWN :SOURCE saying that consciousness at 10 weeks is IMPOSSIBLE due to an entirely underdeveloped :brain?

My own source never said such a thing. And besides, what does undeveloped mean anyway? It said that consciousness is like a dimmer switch, and proceded to describe the phases of cerebral development, starting with 10 weeks.

LMAO, I specifically said at the beggining of the post that I support abortions before the third :trimester. You would do well to stop making faulty and unfounded accusations.

And yet you throw around the term consciousness, without conclusivly proving that it develops in the 3rd trimester. Essentially this debate boils down to one issue: does consciousness develop at 10 weeks or 28 weeks (start of the 3rd trimester). You've shown no evidence that consciousness begins at 28 weeks, while I've cited the development of specific neural structures around that time period that underlie consciousness.

More like women will be set back 40 years because they'll be forced into the baby maker role.

Even though they could:

A. Not have sex
B. birth control pill
C. Have a partner with a vasectomy
D. Condom
E. Morning after pill

All of these options, especially if used together, for all practical purposes eliminate any chance of an unwanted pregnancy - and without killing a conscious child.

Again, you state that it would force women into a child-bearing role if we illegalized abortions after a certain time-table, even though there are plenty of ways that a woman could prevent having a child without having a conscious child and then killing it.

:Women will not be able to terminate early term abortions and will be forced to stop working in order :to have the baby, which means more women will lose their jobs.

They could always use birth control. And just to reaffirm my position, I have nothing wrong with abortions before 10 weeks (although I respect that others do).

:School girls who get pregnant who get pregnant will be forced to take leave on school to have the :baby, possibly even be forced to quit school in order to support a family. Women will slowly descend :back into the role of the homemaker and will be considered subordinate to men.

Just because they'll have to get an abortion earlier or use birth control methods? Surely, if we improved the distribution of contraceptives we could avoid these problems for women without having to kill children in the process. Besides, many of your arguments could be applied to infanticide (killing of new born babies), since they too might force a woman to quit her job - yet infanticide is illegal.

Yep, that's what I'm suggesting. Banning abortion restricts and condescends women in all sorts of :ways.

Um. Such as?

Because it isn't, you have presented no compelling evidence to support your "10 weeks :consciousness" theory. In fact your entire argument in that regard has been dismantled.

And you've provided no evidence (compelling or otherwise) to support 28 weeks. Moreover, the text from the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology clearly says that consciousness begins like a dimmer switch, and proceeds to chronicle the development of the cerebral cortex at 10 weeks.

The question isn't whether we can prove that consciousness begins at point A with 100% accuracy, rather, as good scientists, the question is whether point A or point B better reflects the evidence

---

At 2/21/08 10:48 PM, Al6200 wrote: Another unsupported presupposition. Sophisticated neural networks cause consciousness, since all humans have such neural networks, and the brain is generally considered the source of individuality. In other words, when you receive a heart transplant, you retain your individuality, because you have the same brain.

Just because you have a brain does not mean that you have consciousness. An extremely underdeveloped brain (such as the one present in the early fetus) cannot be considered conscious. Let me paint a picture for you: some people (due to accidents or some other event) end up with traumatizing head injuries that they can never recover from. In fact these people lie in hospital beds allowing machines to feed, provide air, ect for them. These people don't have consciousness, they are in fact damaged beyond the point of having a brain that can comprehend anything.

That doesn't mean that their brain isn't still functioning and sending electrical signals allowing their body to continue functioning, even if there is no conscious entity left in their brain.

It's no leap of logic that the development of the complex neural network is the point at which the dimmer switch of consciousness begins to turn on.

There is a certain point where we seperate brain function from higher brain function though. It may turn on like a dimmer, that doesn't mean it's bright enough to see when it's only half a milimeter up.

I agree, it is isolated from the rest of the brain, but how does that make consciousness impossible? When you sleep, do you control your muscles? Do you get sensory input and calculate it consciously? Are you still a human being worthy of rights?

Actually yes, when you fall asleep you still do recieve sensory input from your body. The major change in your brain when you fall asleep is that the dominant process switches to the creative right side of your brain instead of the logical left. Which would also explain why dreams are so strange and nonsensical most of the time

Anyways, the cerebral cortex's primary function is to interpret sensory data, so to suggest that it is functioning at a level that could be considered consciousness when it's still isolated from the rest of the brain isn't logical or supported. In fact, you have nothing to support this conclusion, and I don't think the author of that article that you linked would support the conclusions that you've come to.

The fetus I'd suppose would be in a thinking state, although I have no clue what it would be thinking about, given that it's never seen or felt anything. But if it still has that brain, it ought to have rights because of that unique consciousness.

You'd suppose, though despite this you have nothing substantial to support it.

Ugh, no. They have a logical reason, which is that the stem cell is a unique person that will one day become a conscious individual. It's weak reasoning in my opinion, but it's by no mean religious. It's not like the Bible says "And thou shalt not abort ye fetus".

The only problem is that for all "logical" intents and purposes, a fertilized egg is not a person. The only reason they believe the fertilized egg to be a new person at conception is because of what they have heard from the leaders of their religion.

Have you seen this religious argument against abortion than? Someone arguing against it on strictly biblical or scriptural grounds?

It does happen but it is rare, most people realize that they wont be taken seriously if they base their arguments purely on religion. They resort to strawman arguments like "a fertilized egg is a person at conception, therefore to remove it is murder" because they think it give thier argument more credibility, when in reality they are being motivated by religious beliefs.

It's perfectly logical to say that all human life has intrinsic value, because it is conscious and feeling. It's no less logical than being cold and calculated, with no regards to ethics.

Sure, but when it comes to laws we don't use logic philisophically, we use logic to determine was is more benificial for our society as a whole. Logically speed limits are benificial to our species, logically banning abortion is NOT benificial to our society. You taking notes?

Abortion is a type of murder... Also, many governments have functioned quite well and have denied specific subsets of the population the right to life. Look at the Confederate States of America. They were quite able to function properly until they were invaded by the union, and yet they denied the right to life to a large portion of their population. Your point is moot, governments can function while denying the right to life, the same way our government does so today while denying the right to fetuses.

The confederate states actually did have laws prohibiting murder of their citizens, I'm not sure which history book you were reading. If you're talking about slaves then you should know that they were not considered citizens, and weren't granted the same rights as the confederate citizens, they didn't even consider them to be part of thier population (or were they considered 3/5ths of a person? I forget). The point I've made is simply that if we were to allow anyone to murder anyone, society couldn't function... at all. Therefore murder is more than a moral issue, of course it doesn't take a degree in rocket science to figure that out...

Also about you considering abortion to be Murder. that's great, I'm glad you think so, but I disagree, and the law supports my opinion and not yours.

Other than the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, and all of the research we have regarding neural development in fetuses.

Why don't you provide it then? I'd love to see these journals.

More unsupported presuppositions. Prove that pregnancy is "almost always" detrimental to a woman's health. Prove that it's not an individual "during these stages".

First of all, I've already adressed as to why the fetus is not an individual, it is not conscious and completely dependant on another human being. Secondly, your first point: http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.htm ... Do you know nothing about pregnancy? it causes the woman to go through dramatic physical changes, the most common of which is obesity which has been proven TIME AND TIME AGAIN to be significantly detrimental to ones health. This is common knowledge.

Ummm... Is that the best you can do? I've pointed out how you've just stated a position and failed to support it in the past, but just declaring "Nope" is a new low.

I shouldn't even have to respond. You've completely and utterly failed to support your argument with anything other than speculation and false presumptions.

And yet you throw around the term consciousness, without conclusivly proving that it develops in the 3rd trimester. Essentially this debate boils down to one issue: does consciousness develop at 10 weeks or 28 weeks (start of the 3rd trimester). You've shown no evidence that consciousness begins at 28 weeks, while I've cited the development of specific neural structures around that time period that underlie consciousness.

You mean besides the fact that the first measurable amounts of EEG signs occur 2 weeks after you suggest consciousness begins? And the fact that significant EEG signs don't occur until 14-17 weeks after consciousness begins? Well shucks, I guess there is evidence to support my case: http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN35 40655735&id=r0lXOLhd-kAC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA1 3&dq=%22EEG+activity%22+and+fetus+and+br ain&sig=6uMfRi6Ql5sW3jBLo6L05h0i1UI#PPA1 3,M1 .

---

Even though they could:

A. Not have sex

We're only human, sex is a basic human need. Why should women be the only ones responsible if they have sex? And don't give me that crap about the man also having to take responsibility for the child

- he can leave illegally, he isn't physically bound to the pregnancy
- he isn't the one who has to go through 9 months of torture

B. birth control pill

Can fail

C. Have a partner with a vasectomy

Can undo itself

D. Condom

Can fail

E. Morning after pill

Can fail

All of these options, especially if used together, for all practical purposes eliminate any chance of an unwanted pregnancy - and without killing a conscious child.

if you don't include sex, then actually no you can't eliminate any chance of an unwanted pregnancy, seeing as all of these options can fail.

Again, you state that it would force women into a child-bearing role if we illegalized abortions after a certain time-table, even though there are plenty of ways that a woman could prevent having a child without having a conscious child and then killing it.

Only problem is that it doesn't always work that way. First of all, like I've said, birth control fails. Second of all, our current society makes obtaining birth control a very shameful practice, which discourages women from using it. Thirdly, mistakes happen, a woman shouldn't be forced to bear a bastard child that will ultimately ruin her (and the child's) life because she made a mistake.

Just because they'll have to get an abortion earlier or use birth control methods? Surely, if we improved the distribution of contraceptives we could avoid these problems for women without having to kill children in the process. Besides, many of your arguments could be applied to infanticide (killing of new born babies), since they too might force a woman to quit her job - yet infanticide is illegal.

Yes we could avoid most of these problems, but not altogether. I've always been an advocated of providing US citizens with free, governmend funded, easily available birth control. But even having that, there will still be incidents that occur. I'm not willing to ignore those pregnant women just because they're a minority.

Um. Such as?

I had already explained this earlier, like RIGHT above that.

And you've provided no evidence (compelling or otherwise) to support 28 weeks. Moreover, the text from the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology clearly says that consciousness begins like a dimmer switch, and proceeds to chronicle the development of the cerebral cortex at 10 weeks.

Something which you have obviously misinterpreted unintentionally, or intentionally skewed, either way your argument has no more validity now then it would have if you had provided nothing to "support" your claims.

The question isn't whether we can prove that consciousness begins at point A with 100% accuracy, rather, as good scientists, the question is whether point A or point B better reflects the evidence.

Well it should be obvious that my point does, seeing as mine currently has more support than yours.

---

At 2/21/08 05:57 PM, joshhunsaker wrote:

At 2/21/08 11:45 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 2/21/08 11:36 AM, joshhunsaker wrote:

At 2/21/08 03:51 AM, Drakim wrote:

I hope you don't try to use this logic argument when you tell your parents that you love them. Try explaining that away through logic and I'm sure it could be broken down just as quickly on the same conceptual basis.

What? I didn't quite get that.

But equally, should you get less punishment or more reward from your parents because they love you more? Personally, I think the punishment or reward should equal the value of the action, not the relation to the punisher/rewarder.

Should people who are close friends with judges get less punishment?

I'll simply use an analogy to explain my parallel to love and how this shows that emotions can superceed the "logic" of pure justice.

Everyone one of us comes from some sort of family. in some of those families where there are still parents - they may or may not love their children as much as the next family. Let us say there are two families that have both had children where they grew up in a good home, were nutured and taught well, but somehow got out into society and completely failed - they both became drug addicts and were thrown in jail. Both children from these two separate families get out of jail with nothing. They are absolutely without hope of ever making anything out of themselves now without some serious rehabilitation from people who are willing to make huge sacrifices to foster them back into some semblance of an actual decent life. Both children return to their families desperately seeking refuge from the streets that they no longer want their life to be a part of.

Here's where the similarities end. One family - is emotionally uncaring and totally just. Their child is now in their 20's (like the other) and they see that they have no logical reason to take him back as they had disowned their child many years previous. He now has to make it on his own in society or he (they suppose) will simply end up leeching off them for support the rest of their years and never going anywhere. They turn him away and tell him goodbye. He returns to the streets - tries to get a job - and lives many years before dyeing homeless and utterly broken. But - justice was served.

The other family lets their emotions of love and overwhelming desire of hope for their son get in the way of the more logical sense that they are not dealing with a son anymore but a cold criminal. He begs that they have mercy on him and they willfully oblige and even celebrate the fact that they he has returned to them with a change of heart. He spend many many years regaining the trust of the friends and family he had long before - still making mistakes but trying as hard as he can to rectify everything he still does wrong. After much time has past - he has a career and enough confidence to secure himself a place to live with a steady source of income. He rejoices that he has made it back to the light of freedom from a criminal lifestyle without being crushed by it. He lives a full life and is happy. The principle of justice was superseded by the family's tremendous emotional response to the sight of a loved one who has honestly sought forgiveness. Remember that - in a court of law - a plea for forgiveness is not something that you can use in your defense.

Question: which family acted in the best interest of the child? Was it necessarily the one who only administered blind justice?

I think you are missing a part of the big picture here. These people have already been imprisoned and jailed for X amount of time. Justice has already been served. The children are now classified as innocent and normal. You can't get punished two times for the same crime, thus, the first family isn't upholding justice, but applying their own preference to the situation.

Secondary, emotions are more than just love. It's also fear and hate.

If a Judge ruled by his emotions, and his daughter had been raped in the past, it seems likely to think that he would be stricter upon rapists in court than other judges. Should justice be a random lottery like this?

The principle of mercy - always supersedes that of justice, but can only be administered by a mediator who can act to temporarily bear the load of consequences of the one who is being redeemed in exchange for his love and trust. The second family served justice because in the end they provided society with a rehabilitated individual who could then contribute much value to his surroundings and fellow friends. However, they also provided mercy by allowing him to serve under their tenure before requiring him to go back out into the world.

Justice is dictated based on the laws that we have set. Thus, mercy can be incorporated into justice, and it already is. If a defendant admits and says that he knows what he did was wrong, he may get lower punishment. So it doesn't need to be all black and white like you paint it.