Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

---

At 2/21/08 06:56 PM, Al6200 wrote: Sorry Drakim, but I'm going to have to pull with joshhunsaker here.

Hey, don't make it sound like we have sides here. It's all about the debate, or I'll beat you bloody with a stick. :0

Ultimately, human morality and value, which is innately tied to our evolutionary past, cannot be separated from the legal justice system.

I never said that I wanted the make the court into a vulcan-logic based system. I am simply defending the court we already have, while joshhunsaker seems unhappy about it and wants it based more on emotions (or something in that direction).

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.

You have one basic assumption wrong here. Society doesn't exist for society. It exists for the people. The very reason we live in a society isn't so that we can throw our money in a bucket called economy and thrust it up in the sky proudly. We live in a society because it allows standardized laws with are enforcable. If your daughter gets raped, you don't have to get a shotgun to deliver justice yourself. You are part of a group which helps each other to get justice.

So, even if murder was productive to society, that comes secondary. Because the whole point that society exists isn't for the economy. If it was, we would obviously not be democratic, nor have human rights. Those are very counter-productive money-wise.

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.

The pro-life group started! D:
*points finger*

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

This would never work. Pro-Lifers don't see abortions as something small and bad. They see it as murder. How do you justicy murder of X because somebody is bothered by X's existance?

-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.

Very good point.

-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).

I never quite got what people have against the morning after pill. It seems that every pro-lifer I talk to insists that most pro-lifers don't belive life starts at contraception. Yet I see tons of arguments that bases itself at life-at-contraception, such as against the moring after pill.

-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.

Indeed. I don't see how some people see suicide bombing as a valid way to enforce morality.

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.

Hmm, but the question is when. The fetus is a lump of cells at some time, but it's also almost a full baby at some time.

-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.

I can agree to that. But I don't agree that the fetus being dependant on the mother gives it the right to demand her body. If I need your blood to survive, I can't demand it. There simply is no human right that you can demand that other sustain your life.

-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.

How does rape remove the fetus's right to live suddently?

-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.

Really? Is there anybody who really argues for abortion a day before birth? :S

---

At 2/22/08 02:26 AM, Musician wrote:

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.

What makes you think its underdeveloped (compared to what)? It has EEG activity, as you yourself support with scientific evidence.

: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.

How can you prove that fetuses have this property to any significantly higher degree than a 24 week old fetus, or a new born baby?

Ummm... But, by that logic, what's to protect 24 week year old fetuses or even new-born infants. Surely their degree of conscious thought is dramatically superceded by that of an adult, and yet they have civil rights.

Clearly, the precedent in US law is protect the dimmer switch the moment that it starts to turn on, since we protect the right to life of new born infants and late term fetuses.

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

You don't receive sensory input in a conscious sense. Can you hear or see others while you dream?

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.

Wait, all you did is reaffirm your position that consciousness can't occur when the brain is isolated from sensory input... Do you have any support for this, other than the random guess that the author wouldn't have supported my conclusions.

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.

You don't know what a strawman is, do you?

Besides, I could say the same thing about you. That you're really just peddling a religious belief on others but are only using secular defenses since you don't want to look crazy.

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?

Another unsupported presupposition. Obviously, we have many laws which are logical because they benefit individuals and not necessarily the society overall. Such as the right to press and free speech. These laws certainly make it easier for terrorists to congregate, and dissidents breed chaos, yet we accept them because they aid the civil liberties of individuals.

Abortion is such an issue, since there may not be benefits for society, but rather protection for the civil liberties of individuals.

: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).

3/5 was a compromise made with the northern states regarding voting rights, so southern states would get an electoral vote = k * white pop. + (3/5 * black pop.)

:Therefore murder is more than a moral issue, of course it doesn't take a degree in rocket science to :figure that out...

What you're not understanding is that the purpose of the government isn't just to "benefit" society, its to protect individual civil liberties. My point with slavery is that certain issues like the rights of black people and poor citizens is difficult to protect, and may cost society money in the short run, but is still logical. By your reasoning, the civil rights amendment is illogical since a society could be functional without it.

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.

You've claimed that my journals support different conclusions, and have made stabs at what they say, so obviously you've read them, but I'll show them again:

neural development in fetus: http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/Fetal_Pain/
BJOGfetalpain1999.pdf
neural basis of consciousness: http://www.klab.caltech.edu/~koch/Elsevi er-NCC.html

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:

You can be dependent on another human being and still be an individual. You're totally dependent on other human beings at this instant. If other individuals choose to stop selling you food, electricity, or water (I don't know if you are city/country, so its hard to say. But suffice to say, even if you use well water, it will be inaccessible without electricity to power the pump). All human beings would quickly die without the support and cooperation of their fellow man, yet we don't use this to legally void their individuality, do we?

Also, a new born baby is totally dependent, as is a fetus at 24 weeks (third trimester), yet you're arguing for their right to life.

:http://www.thelizlibrary.org/liz/004.ht m ... 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.

Your site is from a person that links to planned parenthood. We don't see any qualifications from this person as a doctor, all we see is a radical pro-abortion activist and an article with 0 sources or citations.

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=ISBN3 5 40655735&id=r0lXOLhd-kAC&pg=PA13&lpg=PA1 :3&dq=%22EEG+activity%22+and+fetus+and+b r ain&sig=6uMfRi6Ql5sW3jBLo6L05h0i1UI#PPA1 3,M1 .

That says that EEGs register at 12 weeks. How on Earth does that support your position of 24 weeks better than it supports my position of 10 weeks?

Also, it doesn't say 14-17 weeks, at least on the pages that you linked to.

The relevant quote is:

"Slow EEG activity can be demonstrated in the fetus even at the conceptual age of 3 months" (3 months = 12 weeks). And then the article moves on to infant development.

Doesn't that support a 12 week figure, rather than the 24 week figure that you're arguing for? Given that my position is to take whatever date that science supports, I'd be willing to change 10 weeks to 12 weeks, since electrical activity is neccessary for consciousness.

I would like to resear

---

90% of abortions are had within 14 weeks( about 3.5 months), but at the same time abortion is legal into 6 months, and in some states later due to Roe v. Wade. So I think Roe v. Wade should be over-turned. If all abortions were banned, adoption centers would be overloaded, but I don't that would be the case if the last %10 were banned(allowing exceptions). There is a strong secularist argument for that. Late abortions have also been shown to affect the psychological well-being of the mother.
Also, no matter what your view on abortion, Roe v Wade was a case of judicial activism with no real scientific or constitutional basis.

---

I agree with early term abortions when the baby cannot survive outside the womb. But later terms where the abortion process entails starting the birthing process and crushing the skull of the baby on the way out is wrong. But is right in certain situations such as if the mother will definitely die from the birthing process. As stated conservatives and liberals need to find a middle ground when it comes to abortion. Also radical pro-lifers that bomb abortion clinics kinda seems like a double standard doesn't it. I mean they say a life is a life from conception and it is wrong to kill it. But if that life grows up to be an abortion doctor or to work in an abortion clinic it is right to kill it. Also I'd like to state i'm not bashing the ideas of people who are pro-life just those who take their views to radicalism.

---

At 2/22/08 04:39 AM, Drakim wrote:

Hey, don't make it sound like we have sides here. It's all about the debate, or I'll beat you bloody with :a stick. :0

Well, I don't really think we have sides. We all agree that abortion should be illegal after the fetus gains person hood, but we can't agree as to when that happens.

I never said that I wanted the make the court into a vulcan-logic based system. I am simply :defending the court we already have, while joshhunsaker seems unhappy about it and wants it :based more on emotions (or something in that direction).

Vulcan-logic = no logic

The court system we have today is based on emotions, although logic is used to draw conclusions from those emotions. Since the jury decides whether a person is guilty or not, and they can decide a case for whatever reason they want, their emotions play a large role.

You have one basic assumption wrong here. Society doesn't exist for society. It exists for the :people. The very reason we live in a society isn't so that we can throw our money in a bucket called :economy and thrust it up in the sky proudly. We live in a society because it allows standardized laws :with are enforcable. If your daughter gets raped, you don't have to get a shotgun to deliver justice :yourself. You are part of a group which helps each other to get justice.

The society does try to protect individual rights and liberties. But the reason why we live in a society is because it allows a person to have a higher reproductive fitness. Think about it: one person decides they want to work within a broader society, and that society is able to build weapons and machines. The other person chooses to live as a loner.

Eventually, the society will be able to overwhelm and crush the individuals since it has more power, organization, and industry.

Getting philosophical, I sort of see a broad pattern in all living things.

DNA used to be free, but now they sacrifice their own reproductive system for the good of the cell
Prokaryotes used to all be free, but today some of them (Mitochondria) live within the social system of the Eukaryotic cell.
Eukaryotic cells used to live in freedom, working only for themselves, but now they live in colonies and collectives that we call organisms
Organisms used to be free, but today many exist in packs and societies, the tightest and most developed being the human one

It's just one big cycle... I sort of laugh when people say that evolution favors competition, since it really doesn't. Many organisms make decisions that dramatically reduce their reproductive fitness (like the cells in your body putting a limit on their reproduction) so that the collective can survive. Nature is cooperative.

So, even if murder was productive to society, that comes secondary. Because the whole point that :society exists isn't for the economy. If it was, we would obviously not be democratic, nor have :human rights. Those are very counter-productive money-wise.

Society does what is productive so that it can increase its reproductive ratio. In the end, individual rights are subordinate to the state, since the individual reproduces less if the state reproduces less.

The pro-life group started! D:
*points finger*

No. You started it!

*Turns away and grumbles*

This would never work. Pro-Lifers don't see abortions as something small and bad. They see it as :murder. How do you justicy murder of X because somebody is bothered by X's existance?

Well, I think that today, since horrific third trimester abortions are legal, the crazies are able to effectively mobilize their base to craziness, even if said base wouldn't be opposed to aborting very early abortions.

If the democrats would be willing to compromise, I think they'd find that the anger and radicalism coming from the right would die down a lot, since they'd feel that the law would be more fair and just. Accepting a ban on third trimester abortion shows that fetal rights are a concern of state policy, and that a compromise is practical and reasonable.

-Make a distinction between views rooted in common law and reason and personal ones

Very good point.

Pro-Choicers need to do this too. In fact, everyone needs to do this, on every issue, all the time. In fact, it seems like the problem Pro-Choicers have is that they see legitimate issues that common law should deal with, and write it off as individual morality that shouldn't be imposed by the state.

I never quite got what people have against the morning after pill. It seems that every pro-lifer I talk :to insists that most pro-lifers don't belive life starts at contraception. Yet I see tons of arguments :that bases itself at life-at-contraception, such as against the moring after pill.

I think that a lot of Pro-lifers are afraid of a slippery slope, where making the morning after pill legal leads to a landslide of dehumanization, where people keep trying to chip away at universal humanity. My understanding is that they'd see a conception point as easy to maintain, hard to chip away at, and "safer" in the long run.

I think if we banned third trimester abortions this fear would have less of a base and more Pro-Lifers would come out as being willing to accept a compromise.

Indeed. I don't see how some people see suicide bombing as a valid way to enforce morality.

Well, I should say that it's their vision of common law. They don't see it as a private morality, but as the just version of current US law. But they need to understand the bombings won't solve the problem, and they'll probably just give the Pro-Choice groups more reasons to oppose a compromise and find common ground with their opponents.

I can agree to that. But I don't agree that the fetus being dependant on the mother gives it the right :to demand her body. If I need your blood to survive, I can't demand it. There simply is no human right :that you can demand that other sustain your life.

Okay, so let's say there is a one year old baby. If we're to accept your reasoning here, then the mother would be within her rights to not feed or shelter the baby, allowing it to die.

Parenthood, to some degree, infringes upon the ideal liberties of the parent. But unless we're going to get rid of the concept of legal guardianship entirely, than we must accept that when the child becomes a child worthy of rights, then it is the parent's legal obligation to protect it.

Likewise, the father should be required to pay extra child support for when the woman was pregnant.

How does rape remove the fetus's right to live suddently?

It doesn't. I only put it on there as a compromise, not because it represents my personal belief system. Rape is a tough situation, since the woman didn't actually consent to have a child. And since the child comes into existence during pregnancy, the decision to have sex, not use birth control, and not use the morning after pill, is akin to consenting to have a child - whether it is her desire to have said child or not.

Really? Is there anybody who really argues for abortion a day before birth? :S

Sadly, yes. (But I should also add that there are those who make no distinction between the morning after pill and an abortion the day before birth).

http://glassbooth.org/explore/index/bara ck-obama/11/abortion-and-birth-control/1 6/

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Mike_Huc kabee_Abortion.htm

---

At 2/22/08 04:39 AM, Drakim wrote: You have one basic assumption wrong here. Society doesn't exist for society. It exists for the people. The very reason we live in a society isn't so that we can throw our money in a bucket called economy and thrust it up in the sky proudly. We live in a society because it allows standardized laws with are enforcable. If your daughter gets raped, you don't have to get a shotgun to deliver justice yourself. You are part of a group which helps each other to get justice.

But, the whole point of that man's desire for justice stems off his emotions. That's the entire reason - he's angry and he wants the perp to pay. He's not thinking "well - let's see: logically I suppose this does mean that he needs to be placed in prison so I guess it's time for the legal system to take over." Like you mentioned in the previous sentence up there - he doesn't have to get a shotgun (do you use shotguns on people unless you are very very mad or emotional about something? Hint, Answer = NO) because the justice system PREVENTS him from doing so unless he desires to face the exact same consequences. Vigilante justice was really in prime rule even up into the early 1800's. Not to necessarily bring religion into it - but some of my ancestors that crossed the plains from the east coast had mormon relatives that were having their houses constantly burned, friends killed and raped, and even an extermination order was issued by THE GOVERNOR OF MISSOURI (you can't tell me that's overstepping his bounds just a little there). So needless to say - justice exists so that emotions can be quelled BUT still satisfied in a controlled way. Think of the people who watch the man who killed their loved one. The watch him get the lethal injection because they are emotional. They want closure. They want him to die. That's not logic speaking. It's someone's broken heart.

So, even if murder was productive to society, that comes secondary. Because the whole point that society exists isn't for the economy. If it was, we would obviously not be democratic, nor have human rights. Those are very counter-productive money-wise.

It's kind of like the very declaration of independence itself:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"

Last time I checked - happiness was very much an emotion. The very constitution is emotionally-based.

---

At 2/24/08 03:00 PM, joshhunsaker wrote: But, the whole point of that man's desire for justice stems off his emotions.

or so that society may run smoothly without descending into unhindered chaos.

That's the entire reason - he's angry and he wants the perp to pay.

thats not justice, thats vengeance.

society requires order, rules provide that order and justice maintains that order. emotions are irrelevant to the equation, or should be.
as for vigilante justice and the example of your ancestors while they may have been emotionally motivated to defend themselves it still comes down to the preservation of their society. justice was not being delivered, there were no measures to protect them (or these measures were not upheld) so they were forced to act. of course we could debate the detail of what discerns justice from vengeance in such a situation but a scenario like the one you described is also very particular.

Last time I checked - happiness was very much an emotion. The very constitution is emotionally-based.

and what provides happiness? for one; a stable, well ordered and well run society creates a suitable base for us to pursue whatever we wish. our pursuit of happiness does not uphold society as we often have to limit ourselves to allow for the rights of others but that does not stop us from being happy whereas living in an orderless and lawless society (though no society truly is, since it is what defines a society) may.

---

Ok, First of all:

There should be no debate on whether or not an early fetus is conscious, by any standard definition; consciousness requires the host to be capable of awareness, which a fetus absolutely cannot be until it has senses. Since the common consensus among scientists is that fetal pain cannot occur until 26 weeks, it should be obvious that the 10 week fetus is not conscious.

The fetus does have brain activity, but the only real measurement we have for that is EEG, only starts appearing in measurable trace amounts at around 12 weeks, 2 weeks after you suggest that a fetus should be considered a person.

Secondly:

You said:
Besides, I could say the same thing about you. That you're really just peddling a religious belief on others but are only using secular defenses since you don't want to look crazy.

Only difference being that I support my claims with scientific facts, as opposed to those who claim "life begins at conception", who have nothing to support a claim but their beliefs, thus it is obviously a religious argument.

Thirdly (even if it's not really on topic):

You said:
You don't receive sensory input in a conscious sense. Can you hear or see others while you dream?

Yes, you can, in fact many times things that you dream about are influenced by what you hear, taste, and feel. Seeing, not so much since you usually have your eyes closed, but those who sleep with their eyes open also may experience dreams based on what they see.

Fourthly:

You said:
What you're not understanding is that the purpose of the government isn't just to "benefit" society, its to protect individual civil liberties. My point with slavery is that certain issues like the rights of black people and poor citizens is difficult to protect, and may cost society money in the short run, but is still logical. By your reasoning, the civil rights amendment is illogical since a society could be functional without it.

Banning abortion doesn't isn't beneficial to the individual either in this case, seeing as banning abortions would cause a dramatic increase in crime. And no, the fetus doesn't count as an individual.

And finally:

You said:
Your site is from a person that links to planned parenthood. We don't see any qualifications from this person as a doctor, all we see is a radical pro-abortion activist and an article with 0 sources or citations.

I can't believe you actually deny the fact that pregnancy is detrimental to a woman's health. Whether she cites her sources or not, this is in fact COMMON KNOWLEDGE. Have you never heard of morning sickness? What about the fact that most women rip open their vaginas while giving birth? Why don't you look it up.

In the mean time, I'll be waiting for your response, I'd really like to know how exactly you define when a fetus becomes a person in less vague terms.

---

At 2/23/08 11:35 AM, Al6200 wrote:

At 2/22/08 04:39 AM, Drakim wrote: I never said that I wanted the make the court into a vulcan-logic based system. I am simply :defending the court we already have, while joshhunsaker seems unhappy about it and wants it :based more on emotions (or something in that direction).

The court system we have today is based on emotions, although logic is used to draw conclusions from those emotions. Since the jury decides whether a person is guilty or not, and they can decide a case for whatever reason they want, their emotions play a large role.

My point was, he was using todays courts, saying that these are based on logic and therefore flawed. While I said that basing them on emotions would make it ten times worse. If you come and claim that courts are based on emotinons now already, we have a third viewpoint.

They play a role, as they are part of us, but officially, we try to minimize it. It's pretty damn simple to see that our courts aren't based on emotions.

Try go to court and start appealing to only emotions and don't present a single logical argument and let's see how it goes. Try to get somebody in prison for tax fraud by simply appealing to everybodies emotions, and you simply won't win. Ever. That isn't how our courts work.

Saying that our emotions play a role, sure, that might be true, in the same way our hunger might play a role, or our eyesight. They affect everything we do in some way, but it doesn't actually define how we do things.

You have one basic assumption wrong here. Society doesn't exist for society. It exists for the :people. The very reason we live in a society isn't so that we can throw our money in a bucket called :economy and thrust it up in the sky proudly. We live in a society because it allows standardized laws :with are enforcable. If your daughter gets raped, you don't have to get a shotgun to deliver justice :yourself. You are part of a group which helps each other to get justice.

The society does try to protect individual rights and liberties. But the reason why we live in a society is because it allows a person to have a higher reproductive fitness. Think about it: one person decides they want to work within a broader society, and that society is able to build weapons and machines. The other person chooses to live as a loner.

Not true at all. Reproduction has very little connection with society. We are not required, or prevented from reproducing. You are however required to obey the laws (such as murder), which are set up as purely logical constructs.

DNA used to be free, but now they sacrifice their own reproductive system for the good of the cell

That is because that over time, the DNA that allows total freedom, including the removal of the reproductive system, benefits from this over time. It's hard to imagine, but it's easy to show over a large scale of time. How would humanity do if nobody ever dared test something new? How would we even find new sources of food in fear of poison?

It's just one big cycle... I sort of laugh when people say that evolution favors competition, since it really doesn't. Many organisms make decisions that dramatically reduce their reproductive fitness (like the cells in your body putting a limit on their reproduction) so that the collective can survive. Nature is cooperative.

It can be argued that the goal of life isn't to reproduce, but to survive. And that reproduction is simply one of the best ways to do so. DNA has a bigger chance of surviving the more being that carry it, but if the beings wiped out each other, then the DNA is screwed, so it can't have too many beings around in a too small space.

Society does what is productive so that it can increase its reproductive ratio. In the end, individual rights are subordinate to the state, since the individual reproduces less if the state reproduces less.

If we wish, we can vote away productiveness. It's optimal, and helps us, but not required.

This would never work. Pro-Lifers don't see abortions as something small and bad. They see it as :murder. How do you justicy murder of X because somebody is bothered by X's existance?

Well, I think that today, since horrific third trimester abortions are legal, the crazies are able to effectively mobilize their base to craziness, even if said base wouldn't be opposed to aborting very early abortions.

At least from what I would guess, pro-lifers are against pre-conscious abortion is because they believe the fetus has a soul already, and is therefore alive and a human. I don't see how such a stance could ever compromise.

-Make a distinction between views rooted in common law and reason and personal ones

Very good point.

Pro-Choicers need to do this too. In fact, everyone needs to do this, on every issue, all the time. In fact, it seems like the problem Pro-Choicers have is that they see legitimate issues that common law should deal with, and write it off as individual morality that shouldn't be imposed by the state.

Yes, everybody does it. But I've never seen Pro-Choicers whip out a holy book to justify their arguments. (although I've seen Pro-Choicers say that some holy book supports abortion. But don't mix that up, as justify and support are two very different things)

I think if we banned third trimester abortions this fear would have less of a base and more Pro-Lifers would come out as being willing to accept a compromise.

I'm not as positive. :S

I can agree to that. But I don't agree that the fetus being dependant on the mother gives it the right :to demand her body. If I need your blood to survive, I can't demand it. There simply is no human right :that you can demand that other sustain your life.

Okay, so let's say there is a one year old baby. If we're to accept your reasoning here, then the mother would be within her rights to not feed or shelter the baby, allowing it to die.

No, we have laws allowing you to adopt the baby away if you don't want to raise it. The equal situation in this example would be that you didn't allow adoption, and said that the parents HAD to spend their next 18 years raising the child.

Because, you are demanding that the woman give her body to the fetus for 9 months, which can contain lots of pain and perment damage to the woman's body. She has no option to give the fetus away, no way to have some other people take care of the fetus. There is simply no right for a person to demand that another person sustain his/her life.

If I need your blood to survive, you could still deny it. You could watch me die right in front of you, and it still wouldn't be murder. I simply have no right to demand that you sustain me.

Parenthood, to some degree, infringes upon the ideal liberties of the parent. But unless we're going to get rid of the concept of legal guardianship entirely, than we must accept that when the child becomes a child worthy of rights, then it is the parent's legal obligation to protect it.

Adoption!

---

At 1/13/08 08:25 PM, JOEBIALEK wrote: I believe abortion is a crime against humanity and should be outlawed.

Bravo! In one felt swoop you've taken away every woman's right to her own body. Congratulations you facist.

---

At 2/25/08 09:51 AM, Big-Boss-Inc wrote:

At 1/13/08 08:25 PM, JOEBIALEK wrote: I believe abortion is a crime against humanity and should be outlawed.

Bravo! In one felt swoop you've taken away every woman's right to her own body. Congratulations you facist.

calling someone a facist; makes supporting your claims unnecessary!

---

At 2/24/08 10:58 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 2/24/08 03:00 PM, joshhunsaker wrote: But, the whole point of that man's desire for justice stems off his emotions.

or so that society may run smoothly without descending into unhindered chaos.

That's the entire reason - he's angry and he wants the perp to pay.

thats not justice, thats vengeance.

Says you. This is a semantics issue anyway.

society requires order, rules provide that order and justice maintains that order. emotions are irrelevant to the equation, or should be.

Maybe you haven't looked at the dictionary on this one:
Justice -
3. the moral principle determining just conduct.

Justice just didn't pop into existence at the dawn of time you realize. It evolves because of the emotions of those in 'society'. You notice when Bush swung the idea of terrorists around like a baseball bat after 9/11 - he riled up the emotions of enough people in the country to make it very easy to instate things later like the Patriot Act and almost a dozen executive orders allowing him nearly dictatorship-like power in a time of "crisis" (again - that became within the past few years, a user-definable term by him). All that was accomplished very much by the help of people's emotions. Sure - you can say "bu-bu-bu-bu... that's not how it's supposed to be!". Um. Yes. Right. I think we all get that there are more than a few things wrong with "the system" and "society" (another set of really lame blanket terms...)

Everyone has different moral standards. What determines those standards? Well duh - it's just how they feel about them. A judge who was beat as a child is obviously going to consciously or subconsciously throw the book at child molesters or abusive parents much quicker than someone who had a glorious childhood. Emotions will always get in the way. You realize also - that when a government is overthrown - the idea of justice becomes a completely liquid concept? At that point, it's either utter opinion or "the person with the most guns makes the rules". So when you talk of "justice" being brought about by "society" you seem to have forgotten that not everyone in the history of the world grew up in their perfect little American continent with tons of civil liberties just thrown at them from every side; I can see you are only really talking about YOUR idea of justice, and not the idea of justice that is upheld by the very famous dictators that run south African countries. Oh, I'm sure you'd be right at home during one of their bloody coups...

and what provides happiness? for one; a stable, well ordered and well run society creates a suitable base for us to pursue whatever we wish. our pursuit of happiness does not uphold society as we often have to limit ourselves to allow for the rights of others but that does not stop us from being happy whereas living in an orderless and lawless society (though no society truly is, since it is what defines a society) may.

True happiness is not what most people think. I don't think I've ever heard the story about the guy who robbed the bank, stood up in a trial and told ever in a very heartfelt way that he was just doing what made him "happy". Maybe that's just because the media is so biased though - I don't know. Happiness comes because of order, so we seek order because we want to be happy. That's the whole point. It's a circular path that leads to itself. That's why people who want to be happy usually become happier as they establish a better sense of order. It's "self-fulfilling".

---

At 2/25/08 09:51 AM, Big-Boss-Inc wrote:

At 1/13/08 08:25 PM, JOEBIALEK wrote: I believe abortion is a crime against humanity and should be outlawed.

Bravo! In one felt swoop you've taken away every woman's right to her own body. Congratulations you facist.

You could make the EXACT same argument to legalize suicide. Smart move.

---

At 2/24/08 11:45 PM, Musician wrote: Ok, First of all:

Yay, a constructive.

There should be no debate on whether or not an early fetus is conscious, by any standard definition; :consciousness requires the host to be capable of awareness, which a fetus absolutely cannot be :until it has senses.

The second part of this is a total non-sequitor. You can have thought and awareness, and hence consciousness, without the ability to feel pain. For example, let's say I injected some novacaine into your lip. Are you still conscious? Let's say I do that to your whole body. Are you still conscious?

Moreover, even if I did that to every bodily sensation, you'd still be thinking. You'd still be a unique individual and a person (all neural structures and patterns are preserved), and you'd still be aware because your neurons are computing stored data and information.

If I put you on Novocaine and killed you, would I be able to get off of charges with the excuse "he was on Novocaine, so he wasn't aware of the pain".

:Since the common consensus among scientists is that fetal pain cannot occur until 26 weeks, it :should be obvious that the 10 week fetus is not conscious.

I agree that it doesn't feel pain until that point, but that has no bearing on his consciousness. Logically, if pain was requisite feature of consciousness, a pain-killer would have to knock you unconscious in order to work.

Obviously consciousness can exist without pain, and you can experience that yourself with any pain-killing medicine.

Only difference being that I support my claims with scientific facts, as opposed to those who claim :"life begins at conception", who have nothing to support a claim but their beliefs, thus it is obviously :a religious argument.

So all non-scientific thought is religious? Clearly you can't be serious, we have plenty of customs and arts that aren't scientific and don't rely on facts. But surely you wouldn't say that drawing a smile is religious just because it doesn't rely on facts?

Also, there are philosophical arguments to support that claim.

Yes, you can, in fact many times things that you dream about are influenced by what you hear, taste, :and feel. Seeing, not so much since you usually have your eyes closed, but those who sleep with :their eyes open also may experience dreams based on what they see.

Well, yes. That's actually quite true, but like you said, it's off topic, and you aren't necessarily "conscious" of these sensations in your dream.

Fourthly:

You said:
What you're not understanding is that the purpose of the government isn't just to "benefit" society, its to protect individual civil liberties. My point with slavery is that certain issues like the rights of black people and poor citizens is difficult to protect, and may cost society money in the short run, but is still logical. By your reasoning, the civil rights amendment is illogical since a society could be functional without it.

Banning abortion doesn't isn't beneficial to the individual either in this case, seeing as banning :abortions would cause a dramatic increase in crime. And no, the fetus doesn't count as an individual.

If we agree that the fetus is an individual, than my reasoning does make sense. And also, the benefit to society is irrelevant if we're killing an individual, the same way slavery (cheap labor) may have benefited certain societies, but was still wrong because it took away an individual's freedom.

Therefore, this point of the argument hinges on the consciousness of the fetus, which is the central issue. If agree that IF the fetus is not an individual, then banning abortions neither protects the individual nor benefits society in any significant way. The person hood of the fetus, however, is still a point of contention.

I can't believe you actually deny the fact that pregnancy is detrimental to a woman's health. Whether :she cites her sources or not, this is in fact COMMON KNOWLEDGE. Have you never heard of morning :sickness? What about the fact that most women rip open their vaginas while giving birth? Why don't :you look it up.

To actually support the abortion of a conscious fetus on the grounds of morning sickness is tantamount to supporting the murder of a 4-year old on the grounds that the mother and father caught the flu from the child!

In the mean time, I'll be waiting for your response, I'd really like to know how exactly you define :when a fetus becomes a person in less vague terms.

10 weeks. 12 weeks would make sense if we used a functionalist philosophy of mind, but since current US law uses structuralism, 10 weeks is the correct time frame.

---

At 2/25/08 01:08 PM, joshhunsaker wrote:

At 2/25/08 09:51 AM, Big-Boss-Inc wrote: Bravo! In one felt swoop you've taken away every woman's right to her own body. Congratulations you facist.

You could make the EXACT same argument to legalize suicide. Smart move.

So, when it all comes down, you aren't in charge of your own body?

---

At 2/25/08 12:48 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 2/25/08 09:51 AM, Big-Boss-Inc wrote:

At 1/13/08 08:25 PM, JOEBIALEK wrote: I believe abortion is a crime against humanity and should be outlawed.

Bravo! In one felt swoop you've taken away every woman's right to her own body. Congratulations you facist.

calling someone a facist; makes supporting your claims unnecessary!

What else needs to be said? You're trying to control other people's actions, that's facism.

---

At 2/25/08 01:29 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 2/25/08 01:08 PM, joshhunsaker wrote:

At 2/25/08 09:51 AM, Big-Boss-Inc wrote: Bravo! In one felt swoop you've taken away every woman's right to her own body. Congratulations you facist.

You could make the EXACT same argument to legalize suicide. Smart move.

So, when it all comes down, you aren't in charge of your own body?

I'm pretty sure that's not what I said. In the United States - attempting suicide is a direct violation of the law. People who are seen as a danger to themselves are also the people most likely to become a danger to others (ask a psychologist). If you attempt suicide you will be arrested and put in a mandatory psychiatric hold for evaluation for a set period of time after which you cannot own or buy a firearm for a number years after. For you to twist my words to make it seem that me insinuating suicide is wrong equates to having zero control over our bodies is not only unfounded but almost makes it seem like you've got some kind of agenda.

Anyone knows you can essentially take two paths with any argument - the semantic, sophistic lawyer route where you try to trip people up in their words or a route where you state facts to back up a particular viewpoint while not trying to be overtly clever. I'll pretend it wasn't a rhetorical question and answer that - No - We are in control to a certain extent. What if you have cancer? Are you in control then? That's your body too. Why don't you just fix it? I mean - it is YOUR cancer.

---

Ick political blogs on newgrounds, just disgusting. I have strong opinions on the matter of abortion. I'm for it, actually. I'm probally gonna get a lot of shit for this message but . . . here it goes. The 69 to 98 year old men in the government shouldn't decide what women can and cannot do with their bodies, and secondly the whole "Well its your fault bitch, deal with it" shtick just sickens me, if your not ready, go ahead do what you want, don't give up the rest of your life just cause ya accidentally got pregnant. And if people do get abortions, Great more study for stem cell research. Advances in that could really make a difference in america, helping people like Michael J. Fox and paralyzed peeps like Christopher Reeves (May he rest in peace). Well those are my thoughts, and now i'm off. "Fo shizzle in the Nizzze fo Rizzle"

---

At 2/25/08 01:29 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 2/25/08 01:08 PM, joshhunsaker wrote:

At 2/25/08 09:51 AM, Big-Boss-Inc wrote: Bravo! In one felt swoop you've taken away every woman's right to her own body. Congratulations you facist.

You could make the EXACT same argument to legalize suicide. Smart move.

So, when it all comes down, you aren't in charge of your own body?

Bad move, Josh, in reality, You could make the EXACT same argument to support any time or murder or assault. Since the best evidence we have today, applied consistently with current US law, leads to the conclusion that the fetus deserves protection, the "bodily control" idiocy is equivalent to saying that it's okay to shoot someone since you have the right to tell your own body's muscles to pull the trigger.

If anyone tries to stop you from pulling the trigger, they're trying to tell you what you want to do with your own body, and that's wrong. </sarcasm>

---

At 2/25/08 02:56 PM, Big-Boss-Inc wrote:

What else needs to be said? You're trying to control other people's actions, that's facism.

Lol. So by that logic, if I have a speeding sign, I'm trying to control your actions (how fast you drive), and I'm a fascist.

What incredible reasoning! I guess we should just get rid of all the laws that control other people's actions (i.e., all of them)...

---

I see my Fearsome Lollypop Symbol has intimidated some of you. Well to AI6, Lemme just point out that the reference you made to the Stop sign shit was a bad move on you part, buddy. The situations are nothing alike, Right to abortions is what america is about, Freedom of choice, to decide what you wanna do with your body. . . This message has been brought to you by "Pepsi Cola" "Pepsi Cola we totally taste better than coke"

---

At 2/25/08 04:46 PM, KingsHighway wrote:

Ick political blogs on newgrounds, just disgusting. I have strong opinions on the matter of abortion. :I'm for it, actually. I'm probally gonna get a lot of shit for this message but . . . here it goes. The 69 to :98 year old men in the government shouldn't decide what women can and cannot do with their :bodies

Heh. Everyone in the population,

By your logic, women shouldn't have to follow any laws, and should be allowed to murder anyone they want, just because a woman didn't directly make the law.

Btw, women can vote just like men can, so to say that women aren't directly supporting the law is bullocks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in _the_United_States#By_trimester_of_pregn ancy

68% of Americans support the position that abortion should be illegal in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters, which is a clear majority. 2nd trimester = 14 weeks, which is dramatically closer to my 10 week figure than Musician's 24 week figure.

:and secondly the whole "Well its your fault bitch, deal with it" shtick just sickens me, if your not :ready, go ahead do what you want, don't give up the rest of your life just cause ya accidentally got :pregnant.

Totally irrelevant. One could use that same argument to support infanticide, which is 100% illegal in the United States.

:And if people do get abortions, Great more study for stem cell research. Advances in that could :really make a difference in america, helping people like Michael J. Fox and paralyzed peeps like :Christopher Reeves (May he rest in peace). Well those are my thoughts, and now i'm off. "Fo shizzle :in the Nizzze fo Rizzle"

The stem cells for research come from embryos, not fetuses.

---

At 2/25/08 05:22 PM, KingsHighway wrote: I see my Fearsome Lollypop Symbol has intimidated some of you. Well to AI6,

Nah, I just felt like a challenge, rather than an easy K.O.

:Lemme just point out that the reference you made to the Stop sign shit was a bad move on you part, :buddy. The situations are nothing alike

In the context of your argument, they're roughly equivalent.

:Right to abortions is what america is about, Freedom of choice, to decide what you wanna do with :your body. . . This message has been brought to you by "Pepsi Cola" "Pepsi Cola we totally taste :better than coke"

Right... Even though it's the woman making a choice for her child, even though she's affecting not only her body, but the body of her unborn child?

---

First Off, did ya have to include the unnecessary pepsi cola and fo rizzle? Secondly . . . aw I'm just gonna come out and say this, The only thing that can get through your thick sick (Rhyme Point) heads.
1. Fetuses (is that the plural sense of the word?) are NOT alive
2. They have no concious mi gringo amigo
3. You are truly ignorant my friend
4. Are you a woman?
5. A law against abortion is a law against Freedom
6. When was Albert EinStein Born?
All of these questions and more answered on the New Episodes of "Political Blog!"

---

Bring on the Hate, Beyotch. Also this will be my last comment here, Political Blogs bring nothing but arguments from ill-tempered children (not calling you one, uhhh what ever your name was), So buh-Bye

---

At 2/25/08 05:38 PM, KingsHighway wrote: 1. Fetuses (is that the plural sense of the word?) are NOT alive

I'll save you the pwnage, but suffice to say, by any definition of the word, they are alive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Since the definition of life is really not-controversial (with the exception of certain gray zones, like viruses that dramatically smaller and simpler than a single eukaryotic cell), I think the link to the wikipedia article suffices.

A fetus is a complex, multi-cellular organism with a developed brain, a beating heart, and numerous other organisms. It is obviously living, and it clearly fits the thermodynamics definition since it grows and develops by absorbing nutrients and resources.

2. They have no concious mi gringo amigo

This point has been thoroughly debated Drakim, Musician, and I. You can't just declare your position as if it was truth, without considering the enormous amount of discussion on that topic.

3. You are truly ignorant my friend

How so?

4. Are you a woman?

No, but how is this relevant? People should be able to study an issue no matter what their role in it is.

5. A law against abortion is a law against Freedom

No, it's a law that protects the fetus's right to life

6. When was Albert EinStein Born?

totally irrelevant

All of these questions and more answered on the New Episodes of "Political Blog!"

That's great...

---

LO-Fuckin' L . . . Pwnage, gotta love nerds, I've tried being nice, addin' a little comic relief once in a while, but theres no point with you, your a fuckin facist, drink bleach =\

---

At 2/25/08 01:28 PM, Al6200 wrote: The second part of this is a total non-sequitor. You can have thought and awareness, and hence consciousness, without the ability to feel pain. For example, let's say I injected some novacaine into your lip. Are you still conscious? Let's say I do that to your whole body. Are you still conscious?

First of all, the reason i say that pain defines the beginning of consciousness is because it's the first sense to develop that the fetus can use. You'd in fact in your example have to include removing all senses, and even then it would be incorrect (see below)

Moreover, even if I did that to every bodily sensation, you'd still be thinking. You'd still be a unique individual and a person (all neural structures and patterns are preserved), and you'd still be aware because your neurons are computing stored data and information.

Yes but in the example, you're using me, an adult male, who's already become self aware. What it takes to start awareness are not based on the same standards required to end awareness. I've already become aware, thus if I have my senses taken away from me, I can still remember a time when I had senses, and i would still be sentient.

A fetus however has no senses until pain at 26 weeks, thus eliminating any chance at there being a conscious 10 (or 12) week fetus.

I agree that it doesn't feel pain until that point, but that has no bearing on his consciousness. Logically, if pain was requisite feature of consciousness, a pain-killer would have to knock you unconscious in order to work.

The prerequisite for consciousness is not necessarily pain, but it is sensory input. The fact that pain is the first sense to produce input for the fetus is why I think pain is significant.

Obviously consciousness can exist without pain, and you can experience that yourself with any pain-killing medicine.

Comparing a fetus to a grown aware adult doesn't work in this case.

So all non-scientific thought is religious? Clearly you can't be serious, we have plenty of customs and arts that aren't scientific and don't rely on facts. But surely you wouldn't say that drawing a smile is religious just because it doesn't rely on facts?

But is there anything cultural that goes against aborting fetus' other than religion? and even if there is, do you deny that the vast majority of these people ARE basing their beliefs off of religion.

Also, there are philosophical arguments to support that claim.

I'd like to hear them, but even if there are, it doesn't mean that Pro-lifers aren't religiously driven. I don't think you can really deny this fact.

Well, yes. That's actually quite true, but like you said, it's off topic, and you aren't necessarily "conscious" of these sensations in your dream.

You are aware while sleeping, which is why your dreams can be based off of your senses. The most crucial change from being awake to being asleep is going from being rational to irrational (switching sides of your brain)

If we agree that the fetus is an individual, than my reasoning does make sense. And also, the benefit to society is irrelevant if we're killing an individual, the same way slavery (cheap labor) may have benefited certain societies, but was still wrong because it took away an individual's freedom.

Therefore, this point of the argument hinges on the consciousness of the fetus, which is the central issue. If agree that IF the fetus is not an individual, then banning abortions neither protects the individual nor benefits society in any significant way. The person hood of the fetus, however, is still a point of contention.

Fine, i agree that this whole side argument hinges on our original argument. lets just drop it.

To actually support the abortion of a conscious fetus on the grounds of morning sickness is tantamount to supporting the murder of a 4-year old on the grounds that the mother and father caught the flu from the child!

My point was simply to support my claim that virtually all pregnancy are detrimental to a woman's health.

10 weeks. 12 weeks would make sense if we used a functionalist philosophy of mind, but since current US law uses structuralism, 10 weeks is the correct time frame.

You missed my point. I want to know WHAT you're basing it off of if you're not basing it off of consciousness.

---

At 2/25/08 06:12 PM, Al6200 wrote:

At 2/25/08 05:38 PM, KingsHighway wrote: 1. Fetuses (is that the plural sense of the word?) are NOT alive

I'll save you the pwnage, but suffice to say, by any definition of the word, they are alive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

Since the definition of life is really not-controversial (with the exception of certain gray zones, like viruses that dramatically smaller and simpler than a single eukaryotic cell), I think the link to the wikipedia article suffices.

A fetus is a complex, multi-cellular organism with a developed brain, a beating heart, and numerous other organisms. It is obviously living, and it clearly fits the thermodynamics definition since it grows and develops by absorbing nutrients and resources.

I'm not taking KingsHighway's side or anything but linking to wikipedia for a definition isn't really proving anything.
Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia prone to errors due to its source a Wiki hence the name.
Plus being a controversial topic I don't doubt that page being changed at least once a week.

---

At 2/25/08 05:40 PM, KingsHighway wrote: Political Blogs bring nothing but arguments from ill-tempered children
At 2/25/08 06:32 PM, KingsHighway wrote: but theres no point with you, your a fuckin facist, drink bleach =\

I'm sure you never meant for your prophesy to be self-fulfilling, but...