Abortion: a right

[Eddy]

Okay, I was talking with someone who's pro-life the other day, and they simply insisted that abortion was wrong... yet gave no reasons, etc. Very useful little discussion. So I was wondering the thoughts of all you readers. Is it right or wrong? Is it a right women should have?

[Daniel]

I believe Abortion is wrong. Yes, I'm all for rights and the like, but I think that abortion in itself is taking a life, thus wrong.

If you have any less-general and more specific questions or discussion, I'd be happy to continue. Not sure what you're getting at though.

[Mr. Random]

I think whatever the law says is what should be followed - unless the government becomes significantly and constantly corrupt and the people as a whole disagree.

As is, aborition isn't a "right" per say, but it's not agaist the law - thus it shoudl be permitted.

[Lucky8]

Depends should abortion be used as a form of birth control, I say no, its not very safe has been known to do reproductive damage ( remember when abortion has caused reproductive damge and the patient sues you and I end up paying for it in the end), should a woman whos been raped or perhaps has a deformed fetus have the right to abort I say yes...

[Daniel]

Depends should abortion be used as a form of birth control, I say no, its not very safe has been known to do reproductive damage ( remember when abortion has caused reproductive damge and the patient sues you and I end up paying for it in the end), should a woman whos been raped or perhaps has a deformed fetus have the right to abort I say yes...

You raise some very good - and controversial - points.

I think one of the worst things about abortion is when people do use it as a form of birth control. Abortion as a whole I feel is wrong - but when people have sex and plan on/consider aborting the child after, that's just wrong. The same goes for the "morning-after pill".

[Lucky8]

I think one of the worst things about abortion is when people do use it as a form of birth control.

Thats the thing LP abortion is advertised as a birth control its like having your teeth pulled after eating candy just incase you might get a cavity. Abortion is an industry it has nothing to do morality anymore its like any other industry if it makes a profit its great we buy shares if it doesnt we dump it, problem is women arent being educated in the other forms of birth control....

When anti-abortionist say "abortion is wrong" the media protrays it as theyre sayying "a woman cant use birth control", the anti-abortionist have to elaborate by sayying "abortion is unsafe", then the media has no choice but to ask "why", thats when the educating process begins....

The media is a corporation not an educational institute. We have to understand this get it thru our thick skulls its just another industry that relys on us for income, instead we pay hommage to it and are in awe of it....

[Panthrophile]

The only reason that I value human life is because to the unique thoughts, opinions and dispositions that each human has. A fetus has none of those and, in my eyes, does not have a valuable human life.

It could be argued that it has feelings, or at least the ability to feel, but so did my dog.

It could be argued that it has the potential for thought in the future, but so does my wasted sperm.

A fetus is just a slab of meat, and a rather small, ugly one at that.

[Krovisser]

The only reason that I value human life is because to the unique thoughts, opinions and dispositions that each human has. A fetus has none of those and, in my eyes, does not have a valuable human life.

It could be argued that it has feelings, or at least the ability to feel, but so did my dog.

It could be argued that it has the potential for thought in the future, but so does my wasted sperm.

A fetus is just a slab of meat, and a rather small, ugly one at that.

I agree to a point. While I do not agree with the world becoming like China's abortion policies, I do fully agree with the right to choose.

Do not make it easy, or cheap. Unless there are extenuating circumstances, attempt to make the person(s) responsible feel as guilty as possible. Perhaps that may work, or it may not.

The image of the morning-after pill gaining popularity as the world becomes less responsible irks me. Whether or not that will actually happen if the pill is widespread, is another debate. I have also entertained the thought of the reproductive rights (read: ability) be revoked for a select few--be it aborters, criminals, child abusers, whatever.

[Panthrophile]

I have also entertained the thought of the reproductive rights (read: ability) be revoked for a select few--be it aborters, criminals, child abusers, whatever.
We agreed in another thread that morals are relitive, now you advocate pushing yours on everyone else. I would imagine that most aborters, criminals and child abusers are valuable members of society.

[Krovisser]

We agreed in another thread that morals are relitive, now you advocate pushing yours on everyone else. I would imagine that most aborters, criminals and child abusers are valuable members of society.

I said: Yes, I agree. There are no absolutes, that we know of anyway. However, I have a few (like 3) that are in one of my own philosophies. It is a very tentative idea of mine, though.

Well, just because morals are relative, doesn't mean we cannot share some to varying degrees. That would be an anarchy of sorts, if not.

I don't advocate pushing mine on anyone else. Read my profile:

Biography:
Assume that whatever I say is my opinion, regardless of whether or not I state, "in my opinion".

[Daniel]

The only reason that I value human life is because to the unique thoughts, opinions and dispositions that each human has. A fetus has none of those and, in my eyes, does not have a valuable human life.

While a fetus doesn't, neither does a young child a few months old, a year old, and possibly older. They don't "think" in the same sense we do, yet like the fetus, they're still developing.

One thing I have about pro-choice people is how they don't draw the line. Many do at birth, yet there is very little different between a child unborn a newborn child. The only difference is one is in the womb, and one is not.

[Panthrophile]

Well, just because morals are relative, doesn't mean we cannot share some to varying degrees.
If we happen to share some morals then so be it. I got the impression, though, that you believe that those who don't act based on your morals ("aborters, criminals, child abusers, whatever") should be punished. Thus you want to push your morals on others.
One thing I have about pro-choice people is how they don't draw the line. Many do at birth, yet there is very little different between a child unborn a newborn child. The only difference is one is in the womb, and one is not.
I don't distinguish between abortion and infanticide.

Obviously the capacity for complex thought does not appear spontaneously; it develops slowly. I'm not sure when the average person could be considered intelligible and I'm not one to be concerned by the impracticality of drawing a line. A fetus is not what I would consider a person.

[Daniel]

I don't distinguish between abortion and infanticide.

Very... interesting.

Obviously the capacity for complex thought does not appear spontaneously; it develops slowly. I'm not sure when the average person could be considered intelligible and I'm not one to be concerned by the impracticality of drawing a line.

But if you were to draw a line, it'd be when a person can think for themselves, in a sense?

A fetus is not what I would consider a person.

Then what would you (consider a person)?

[Krovisser]

Registered voters?

[Gamefreek_01]

To answer the original question and not respond to other posts, i would say abortion is fine. Mainly because a fetus is not a useable human being one that can understand itself and work and live, a fetus does not understand simply. Thus if the mother for w/e reason does not want the fetus then she should 100% have the right to kill and remove it. The only reason women give birth is to populate the world because we die so the next best thing to having us live is have our similar species live after us. It makes sense to give us the ability to choose which people continue to the next generation. Thus yes life is only as valuable as to the fact that we need to continue our species existence, thus if a fetus is deformed get rid of it as it is useless. I would like to apologize if this offends any one, it is my sadistic opinion.:o

[Panthrophile]

But if you were to draw a line, it'd be when a person can think for themselves, in a sense?
Yes, though it would be very difficult to say when this is.

Then what would you (consider a person)?
I would consider a person to be a human that can form an opinion; a child is a person, a retard is probably a person, Stephen Hawking is a person and so on. A person is identified by mental capacity rather than physical form.

[Illuminatus]

I would consider a person to be a human that can form an opinion; a child is a person, a retard is probably a person, Stephen Hawking is a person and so on. A person is identified by mental capacity rather than physical form.


Anyone under 1-2 years old isn't human?

I draw the line at self-awareness.

[Gamefreek_01]

Anyone under 1-2 years old isn't human?

I draw the line at self-awareness.

Animals have self-awareness, and yet i dont see anyone caring about them, i believe its only the people who can contribute to society. Mentally disabled people are just negative effeects on society.

[Panthrophile]

Anyone under 1-2 years old isn't human?

I draw the line at self-awareness.
A good line.

[Daniel]

Mentally disabled people are just negative effeects on society.

So should we eliminate them then? Should we 'abort' them?

[Krovisser]

Animals have self-awareness, and yet i dont see anyone caring about them, i believe its only the people who can contribute to society. Mentally disabled people are just negative effeects on society.

Really, all animals are aware of themselves?

I'd have to agree, that I don't particulary think heavily retarded people can contribute anything to society.

[Gamefreek_01]

So should we eliminate them then? Should we 'abort' them?

Exactly. Same with old ppl who arent doing anything for society such as ones that cant think properly or are stuck in a bed etc. these ppl only waste resources as they dont help and contribute to society.

[marka48096]

a persons body is their own, we lose our individual freedom everyday. it is up to each of us to make a decision, about GOD, morality, right, and wrong. I could no more make a decision for you as a mula in florida or egypt, or a gay priest in guam, or a voodoo witch doctor in haiti. you must decide for you.

[Krovisser]

Well put, marka48096.

[Gamefreek_01]

Although your post held a very good point, im talking of people that are purely negative effects on society. A society is build to help all people, as single persons we can not take care of all our own needs. If a person does not want to contribute to a society or cannot(meaning never again, such as a old person that is dieing and will not get better) then they are expelled out of society or at least they should be. When they decided to be apart of society they then have to look out for that society till they die, and in decisions that involve the society the society can make which ever decision they want, in this case the old man dies as he will die eventually and is only wasting resources while not giving make anything. Wars are fought over the same thing one side or society is getting negative effects from another society and thus to prevent this they attack and try to remove them. The only person that should care about you is you unless you are willing to help others(the society) if you do not then society does not care for you(or should not at least).

[Gamefreek_01]

I would also like to add that being right or wrong is part of our perception, if we believe that god exists then we do. When we believe that we are right we try to help others see this, some people try too hard and end up killing people etc. However, people have the ability not to listen. Thus if they do not want to die they death will be force on them. I believe i am right. Normally i will only act if i am very near to 100% believed that i am right. Which is why i am telling u this. You do not have to listen, however i try to convince you and all viewers that i am right. I trust my judgement as my mind is more logically oriented then normal, and thus my ideas are more likely more correct.

[so what]

Animals have self-awareness, and yet i dont see anyone caring about them

Evidently PETA slipped your mind.

i believe its only the people who can contribute to society. Mentally disabled people are just negative effeects on society.

Some people would argue that they instill compassion into those who care for them. Other people would argue that people as heartless as yourself aren't human. If you're not compassionate, please share how much of a positive "effeect" you have on society.

[Illuminatus]

Animals have self-awareness, and yet i dont see anyone caring about them, i believe its only the people who can contribute to society. Mentally disabled people are just negative effeects on society.

Do you suggest we put them in camps and gas them?

[Gamefreek_01]

Evidently PETA slipped your mind.



Some people would argue that they instill compassion into those who care for them. Other people would argue that people as heartless as yourself aren't human. If you're not compassionate, please share how much of a positive "effeect" you have on society.

Im guessing PETA is an animal care centre or w/e its called. However im refering to people on this forum and people in general. If a dog is hurting people they dont put it in prison or give it a trial, they kill it. When a human goes and kills people they get a trial and then go to prison. Animals we dont care about on average. There are some people that love animals and would never kill them.

Compassion is part of emotions and yes it could make people more compassionate but thats making this worse. As they will feel worse if someone trys to kill another of there loved ones. If everyone was infintively compassionate then we would keep everyone alive for as long as possible even if there a criminal or w/e. Compassion is bad. Emotion is bad, emotion was used for lower lifeforms that had no good thinking processes. We are smart enoguh beings, we dont need emotion it only holds us back.

Yes many people would argue i am heartless and inhuman. And i suppose technically i might not be as my thinking process are better then the average human, or i think without emotional weight.However i believe thats not true, a still have emotions i just choose not to listen to them. Which is a coinscience choice thus if im inhuman than anyone who thinks could be too as long as they think of something that overrides there emotions such as a soldier. I do not believe this. I am human but i am "cold".

[Gamefreek_01]

Do you suggest we put them in camps and gas them?

Well, which ever is the most wasteless way to kill them. It really doesnt matter other then the fact that we kill them and without wasting many resources. Id say it might be ezier to starve them however that might require more time, but there arent many people like that so it should be fine. Oh and dont go all crazy cuz i wanna starve people to death, these people are unconscience they would die asleep though even if they were awake i would still think thats the best choice. Unless someone can think of a better way. There is also throw them off cliffs to farmers fields that way they die and they make good compost.:p Yup im cold hearted!:cool:

[Illuminatus]

Well, which ever is the most wasteless way to kill them. It really doesnt matter other then the fact that we kill them and without wasting many resources. Id say it might be ezier to starve them however that might require more time, but there arent many people like that so it should be fine. Oh and dont go all crazy cuz i wanna starve people to death, these people are unconscience they would die asleep though even if they were awake i would still think thats the best choice. Unless someone can think of a better way. There is also throw them off cliffs to farmers fields that way they die and they make good compost.:p Yup im cold hearted!:cool:

We could line them up near a river and shoot them so they fall in and drown.

To save bullets we could tie two of them together, shoot one and the weight of the dead one will drag them underwater.

[Panthrophile]

We are smart enoguh beings, we dont need emotion it only holds us back.
Holds us back from what?

[Krovisser]

I would also like to add that being right or wrong is part of our perception ... my ideas are more likely more correct.

You're contradicting yourself here. You say that everyone has their opinion and they are right in themselves, but yours are more right.

:confused:

[Daniel]

Im guessing PETA is an animal care centre or w/e its called. However im refering to people on this forum and people in general. If a dog is hurting people they dont put it in prison or give it a trial, they kill it. When a human goes and kills people they get a trial and then go to prison.

Or we kill "it".

Animals we dont care about on average.

Don't force your views on me. Personally, I love animals. :rolleyes:

There are some people that love animals and would never kill them.

I'd say most people. Likewise, there are some people who love people and would never kill them. I lack to see your point.

Compassion is bad. Emotion is bad, emotion was used for lower lifeforms that had no good thinking processes. We are smart enoguh beings, we dont need emotion it only holds us back.

Oh, do go on. How is compassion bad? Typical by it's very context it's something good. Ever see the movie equilibrium? Is that what you're talking about? Also, emotion was not used for lower lifeforms. Humans are the ones who have the highest state of emotion and what I'd consider "true" emotion. Most animals don't feel emotion as we think of it.

And i suppose technically i might not be as my thinking process are better then the average human,

I beg to differ... a bit arrogant, aren't we? :p

[Gamefreek_01]

We could line them up near a river and shoot them so they fall in and drown.

To save bullets we could tie two of them together, shoot one and the weight of the dead one will drag them underwater.

I suppose, however the bullets could be yet a waste still.There are many ways to do this and it is not my place to decide which is best, much too many variables.

[Gamefreek_01]

Holds us back from what?

Holding us back from full effiecentcy(bad spelling i know) and perfect perception. With our emotions people make bad decisions(war, to keep alive wasteful people) and also things like bordem holds back the potential of many people such as my self. I would spend most of my efforts inventing and thinking and discovering if i did not get bored so fast.

[Gamefreek_01]

You're contradicting yourself here. You say that everyone has their opinion and they are right in themselves, but yours are more right.

:confused:

I'm saying people THINK there right but that doesnt make them right. I have considered that im wrong but this only helps me to double, triple, and quadriple check everything i think of. I believe i am correct in most things i think of anything im unsure of i never make a straight forward statement about.

[Daniel]

Well, which ever is the most wasteless way to kill them.

Would it not be the most "wasteless" way to kill them by not killing them at all?

[Gamefreek_01]

Or we kill "it".



Don't force your views on me. Personally, I love animals. :rolleyes:



I'd say most people. Likewise, there are some people who love people and would never kill them. I lack to see your point.



Oh, do go on. How is compassion bad? Typical by it's very context it's something good. Ever see the movie equilibrium? Is that what you're talking about? Also, emotion was not used for lower lifeforms. Humans are the ones who have the highest state of emotion and what I'd consider "true" emotion. Most animals don't feel emotion as we think of it.



I beg to differ... a bit arrogant, aren't we? :p

Well....... Ok ill start from the top. Yes we kill "it". Hmm, that very nice that you like animals, but who can help it there so cute and cudely.:p

My point is that there admiration towards animals or humans is illogical as most animals offer only emotional support which is something that sux anyway.:D

Well i've never seen that movie. However i will go on, its very simple compassion is the caring for other lifeforms, this caring is illogical and unfounded, its just caring. It may seem good as helping another lifeform or helping them live would be a good thing as you want to live and thus why not do to others like you want done to? Well this can be both ways, you should not look through emotional eyes only, logic is better. In some cases yes you should help to preserve life such as in people who as useful to society. However in cases with old people or mentally disabled persons these people are not helpful and thus logic would tell us that these people do not deserve compassion or should not get any compassion.

To touch on the emotion part i'd like to clairify. Emotions are the basic senses all lifeforms need to think before they have the ability to use logic. Humans have both and both very strongly. Some people can override emotions or override logic. However every organism needs some way to perceive and comprehend the world around them. Emotions are used as they dont require comparison of information just perception and the emotions understnad the information for you. If you get a cut on your arm it hurts and you feel a negative feeling. There is no further understanding involved with the emotions just a sense of pain then its translated into a negative or bad feeling in your brain. With logic you will perceive the feeling, then the events which caused this and then you make a decision. So if your friend accdientally cut you, you will not have as much of a bad feeling, or if you have no emotion then there is nothing wrong about it.Animals do have emotions and logic(well only some do as far as i do, such as dogs) but usually as far as i know these are not as strong as they are in humans.

Oh and with me having a strong mind. I meant that i am more logical then the normal human, which is a benefit.

Wow, that was a mouthful.

[Gamefreek_01]

Would it not be the most "wasteless" way to kill them by not killing them at all?

I guess you didnt understand my post. As they sit in there hospital beds and use up medicine and food to continue to survive they are wasting resources. Thus if we kill them not only will we gian back there mass in resources(compost maybe) we stop them from wasting further resources. But your close to a good solution, stop feeding them and giving them medicine then let them die of lack of food and stuff. However you still have to carry them to a waste mangement station or dump or w/e. So it might be better if you make them walk there first then kill them or w/e.:D

[Krovisser]

I'm saying people THINK there right but that doesnt make them right. I have considered that im wrong but this only helps me to double, triple, and quadriple check everything i think of. I believe i am correct in most things i think of anything im unsure of i never make a straight forward statement about.

You haven't cleared your contradiction, still. You have only restated it, at the most.

"People think there [sic] right but that doesn't make them right." and you have said that, "more likely my views are correct." But earlier, you said: "Normally i will only act if i am very near to 100% believed that i am right." So you aren't 100% on this idea.

But hold on, that's not the point, nor my argument against you (since you could be "near" 100%). You say that everyone's views are subjective, but yours are objective. Surely if your, "mind is more logically oriented then normal", then you understand that:

All A are X
Ax is Y

Doesn't float. In other words, you state that no person holds absolutes and you hold the absolutes.

Another flaw, that I see anyway, is your equating formal logic to the sum of humanity. I doubt anyone would be willing to reduce all that is to be human to mere true or false arguments. A little existentialism here, but bear with me me, you cannot simply reduce complicated issues in society to logic, because (IMO, keep in mind) humans are at there innermost, are not rational beings. They are more than just logical arguments. A world of Gattaca taken to the extreme is not one I would like to live.

For the record, ad hominem, for someone that has higher logic skills your spelling, grammar, and knowledge (agnosticism...) seems to have been lagging behind.

But then again, I just think I'm right in thinking your wrong, don't I?

[Krovisser]

Wow, that proof should read:

No A are X
Some A are X

Heh, and here I was making fun of his logic. :p

[Gamefreek_01]

You haven't cleared your contradiction, still. You have only restated it, at the most.

"People think there [sic] right but that doesn't make them right." and you have said that, "more likely my views are correct." But earlier, you said: "Normally i will only act if i am very near to 100% believed that i am right." So you aren't 100% on this idea.

But hold on, that's not the point, nor my argument against you (since you could be "near" 100%). You say that everyone's views are subjective, but yours are objective. Surely if your, "mind is more logically oriented then normal", then you understand that:

All A are X
Ax is Y

Doesn't float. In other words, you state that no person holds absolutes and you hold the absolutes.

Another flaw, that I see anyway, is your equating formal logic to the sum of humanity. I doubt anyone would be willing to reduce all that is to be human to mere true or false arguments. A little existentialism here, but bear with me me, you cannot simply reduce complicated issues in society to logic, because (IMO, keep in mind) humans are at there innermost, are not rational beings. They are more than just logical arguments. A world of Gattaca taken to the extreme is not one I would like to live.

For the record, ad hominem, for someone that has higher logic skills your spelling, grammar, and knowledge (agnosticism...) seems to have been lagging behind.

But then again, I just think I'm right in thinking your wrong, don't I?

Well, i really do not see how you cant understand what im saying. I am saying that i have tried as hard as i can to check my thoughts for mistakes and i would not be making statements i was unsure of i am completely believe i am correct. This does not make me correct, it makes me think i am. As with other people. I seem to be much better at logical thinking then most people i meet, thus what i think should have much more credit then the crap some people come up with. Not only that but ive explained everything i do down to the very logic its build on. If there are any flaws they are either slight mistakes in logic or are misinformation. I know i am sorta explaining both sides but i am not a person to take one side. I examine each side of an argument. In this case i say that i am most likely correct however it is also possible i am incorrect mainly because i might have made minor mistakes that i keep missing. I only contradict because i do not want to state that i am 100% correct as everyone makes mistakes.

I think i understand that sentence about subjective and objective views but clairify please.

Now your wrong in the next part. Yes you can reduce many things in society to logic. Even without my outragous comment on old people and those wastes in our society. There is logic used anyway such as the logic in not killing millions of lives for no reason or no gain. That is logic that im sure all leaders know well. It is the same thing, the only difference is most people are too used to there restrictful emotions that anything that seems wrong according with their emotions is thus wrong logically. This is not the case. Sure humans are not rational beings but thats why they should listen to someone who is, and hopefully that should be basic enough for you.

Oh and my spelling and grammar, i just dont really care about. Mainly because bordem( an emotion) is telling me this is wasteless to do. In some cases it is but is some its not. My emotions tell me that it doesnt matter when it could. That is probly the largest different between emotions and logic. Emotions may be right everynow and then maybe even most of the time however there are some cases logic is correct. It is my hypothesis that this is the reason most people dont trust logic.

[Gamefreek_01]

Wow, that proof should read:

No A are X
Some A are X

Heh, and here I was making fun of his logic. :p

In this case logic would say this is impossible or that one of those statements is false either way this is not logically. Im guessing that ur trying to model my idea that im right versus other people not being right or possibly being right however it is not modelling it properly.

If x is being right and a is a person.Then ur missing a variable. Each person is different and thus there should be a number in front of a or another variable.

No 1a is x. 1 represents most people or people who have a mind that uses emotion before logic.

Some 2a is x 2 represents me or higher logic brain people.

However this is still not a very good representation just a simple one.

[Panthrophile]

Holding us back from full effiecentcy(bad spelling i know) and perfect perception. With our emotions people make bad decisions(war, to keep alive wasteful people) and also things like bordem holds back the potential of many people such as my self. I would spend most of my efforts inventing and thinking and discovering if i did not get bored so fast.
I figured as much, but why have efficiency without feeling? Is it possible to lead a happy life without emotion? What is the value of society without happiness and compassion?

[Krovisser]

Well, i really do not see how you cant understand what im saying. I am saying that i have tried as hard as i can to check my thoughts for mistakes and i would not be making statements i was unsure of i am completely believe i am correct. This does not make me correct, it makes me think i am. As with other people. I seem to be much better at logical thinking then most people i meet, thus what i think should have much more credit then the crap some people come up with. Not only that but ive explained everything i do down to the very logic its build on. If there are any flaws they are either slight mistakes in logic or are misinformation. I know i am sorta explaining both sides but i am not a person to take one side. I examine each side of an argument. In this case i say that i am most likely correct however it is also possible i am incorrect mainly because i might have made minor mistakes that i keep missing. I only contradict because i do not want to state that i am 100% correct as everyone makes mistakes.

So, what you are saying is: You may be right, and you may be wrong. Although I don't agree with everything society does, rather I believe in little society stands for, I am going consider you against the broad of society. It turns out that your theories (and I agree with you on some subjects--however, I don't intend to follow through with them) would rate nonexistant as compared with other, more popular outlooks on human economics, and such.

I think i understand that sentence about subjective and objective views but clairify please.

I was merely stating that you cannot claim everyone else to be false when a) you have only met a few, b) because you "feel" you are more intelligent/logically orientated/whatever. Modesty does not become you.


Now your wrong in the next part. Yes you can reduce many things in society to logic. Even without my outragous comment on old people and those wastes in our society. There is logic used anyway such as the logic in not killing millions of lives for no reason or no gain. That is logic that im sure all leaders know well. It is the same thing, the only difference is most people are too used to there restrictful emotions that anything that seems wrong according with their emotions is thus wrong logically. This is not the case. Sure humans are not rational beings but thats why they should listen to someone who is, and hopefully that should be basic enough for you.

No, I disagree. I think, and believe quite strongly, that part of being human includes emotion. You cannot throw it all to the wind and still expect to be human. I would not like to live as an IBM PC, for is that living at all, or computing logic?

Yes, people should listen to rational people when they realize that they are being irrational. However, I'd not volunteer myself for that duty... for various reasons.

I agree that many people are kept alive meaninglessly, however I am also aware that I am not the one to judge who lives and who dies. The latter takes precedence. Unless you become dictator, I would be slightly hesitant to allow you to decide that as well.

Give the people the options of life as complete, rational, logical entities without a drop of emotion, or the life as they are now, and I'd place any bet that they would choose their lives with emotion, even throw all logic out the window. Man would do almost anything just in spite of the thought of being an "organ stop" as underground man would say.

Oh and my spelling and grammar, i just dont really care about. Mainly because bordem( an emotion) is telling me this is wasteless to do. In some cases it is but is some its not. My emotions tell me that it doesnt matter when it could. That is probly the largest different between emotions and logic. Emotions may be right everynow and then maybe even most of the time however there are some cases logic is correct. It is my hypothesis that this is the reason most people dont trust logic.

As I stated to another poster, I know about 5,000 professors who do care if one can construct sentences correctly. If you would like to put forth your views, I suggest coping with whatever society for a while to earn respect. Your ideas would be more welcome that way.

I wouldn't say most people do not trust logic, they just don't think logically! I am reminded of this everday in traffic.

[Krovisser]

In this case logic would say this is impossible or that one of those statements is false either way this is not logically. Im guessing that ur trying to model my idea that im right versus other people not being right or possibly being right however it is not modelling it properly.

I'm open to a "better" logic model.

If x is being right and a is a person.Then ur missing a variable. Each person is different and thus there should be a number in front of a or another variable.

No 1a is x. 1 represents most people or people who have a mind that uses emotion before logic.

Some 2a is x 2 represents me or higher logic brain people.

Have you ever taken a formal logic class? I do not need another variable. However, I could model it in true predicate logic:

I would also like to add that being right or wrong is part of our perception.
I translated it as: "Right or wrong depends on the person considering."
And thus, "everyone's thoughts are subjective" which is logically equivalent to:

(x)(Px » ~Ox)
Read: There is no thing (x) such that it is a Person (P) and it is Objective (O)
[Actually, it is read: For all (x), if (x) is a Person, then it is not (~) Objective]

However, you said:
I believe i am right. ... I trust my judgement as my mind is more logically oriented then normal, and thus my ideas are more likely more correct.
(Эx)(Px • Ox)
Read: There exists a thing (x) such that it is a Person and it is Objective.

Classic logical contradiction.

However this is still not a very good representation just a simple one.

Oh, really? But did you not already explain yourself, that you boil everything down to logic?

Not only that but ive explained everything i do down to the very logic its build on. If there are any flaws they are either slight mistakes in logic or are misinformation.

There's definately a mistake in logic there. However, I do see your point that there are different "degrees" of objectivity/subjectivity. That said, I don't like bold statements by people who claim to be more objective than others. I have my thoughts, and there are merely mine, nothing more.

[Gamefreek_01]

I figured as much, but why have efficiency without feeling? Is it possible to lead a happy life without emotion? What is the value of society without happiness and compassion?

Happyness is an emotion, without emotion there would be no negative feeling as there is no emotion. Thus happyness would be illrelevent.

[Panthrophile]

Happyness is an emotion, without emotion there would be no negative feeling as there is no emotion. Thus happyness would be illrelevent.
Is anything relevant? And if so, to what?

By which I mean, what's the meaning of life?

[Flammable Ear Curtain]

Is anything relevant? And if so, to what?

By which I mean, what's the meaning of life?
To beget yourself a meaning to life is to assume you're a superior being.

We're only human, meaning is relative to the boundaries of who you know, who you've changed and what you've changed on this planet, but then again, that's not much of a meaning, nor one that accounts for your years of strife.

[Gamefreek_01]

Is anything relevant? And if so, to what?

By which I mean, what's the meaning of life?

Actually you know i just went through this last night. I understand, and it truely deosnt matter we can keep emotions and live with the lives we have now, maybe with better rulers(bush) and it really doesnt matter as long as we all get to live forever. I believe there lives the problem most people except the fact that they eventually will die and just live there life then die. There life( in there perception is thus wasted) intend to live forever as if i dont my life will be a complete waste in my perception. Living without emotion and a high level of effiecentcy is probly the best way to remove crime and make sure that there is a much larger safe environment for me(yes im selfish) so i can live forever.

[Panthrophile]

Living without emotion and a high level of effiecentcy is probly the best way to remove crime and make sure that there is a much larger safe environment for me(yes im selfish) so i can live forever.
Crime can be justified by logic.

[Gamefreek_01]

Crime can be justified by logic.

Sure it can but its justified by people being controlled by their emotions, and besides they still kill people, and cause trouble messing with our society.

[Illuminatus]

Stealing a loaf of bread when you're starving has nothing to do with emotions.

[Eddy]

Stealing a loaf of bread when you're starving has nothing to do with emotions.

Which brings up another point. To those who believe stealing is "wrong" or a "sin", is it wrong to steal to live?

[Panthrophile]

Which brings up another point. To those who believe stealing is "wrong" or a "sin", is it wrong to steal to live?
Heh. "Property is theft."

[Illuminatus]

"Property [is] a triumph of Liberty. For it is born of Liberty ... Property is the only power that can act as a counterweight to the State, because it shows no reverence for princes, rebels against society and is, in short, anarchist." - Proudhon (same guy)

[Panthrophile]

"Property [is] a triumph of Liberty. For it is born of Liberty ... Property is the only power that can act as a counterweight to the State, because it shows no reverence for princes, rebels against society and is, in short, anarchist." - Proudhon (same guy)
Who are we stealing the bread from?

[Gamefreek_01]

Stealing a loaf of bread when you're starving has nothing to do with emotions.

Starving is an emotion or better the feeling to keep yourself alive is an emotion. If emotion did not exist the person would understand they need to survive and most likely stealing would not be nessicary as the society would help all its people to survive and not leave a few poor.

[Gamefreek_01]

Which brings up another point. To those who believe stealing is "wrong" or a "sin", is it wrong to steal to live?

Not to the person trying to survive but to the society.

[Gamefreek_01]

Heh. "Property is theft."

Interesting, i think that society assigns things to people to help them survive to help the society and other people get property to.

[Illuminatus]

Prodhon's definition of property is different from our usual definition, when he said 'Property is theft' he wasn't referring to the individuals right to 'own' something, but that the state decides who 'owns' something; "when it is related to a landowner or capitalist whose ownership is derived from conquest or exploitation and [is] only maintained through the state, property laws, police, and an army"

Stealing the products of a individual baker's labour was not advocated by Proudhon, whether he has 100s of loaves or not. As far as I know, Proudhon never expressed an opinion on whether it was right to steal to live or not. He may have said 'Property is theft' but he also said 'Property is freedom'.

[Panthrophile]

As I understand Proudhon, and I've not read him, I've only read of him, the objection was to unused property not to the concept of property and not the way in which property is gained/distributed.

I know that he focused mostly on land and declared "property is theft" because land that was not used/needed by the owner could not be used by those who actually did need it and could use it.

It stands to reason, then, that a baker who has more bread (=money) than he needs is, as the landlord, stealing from those who could use the bread.

Correct?

I assume that property is liberty because it allows for the pursuit of liberties, but again, I've not read him.

[Illuminatus]

As I understand Proudhon, and I've not read him, I've only read of him, the objection was to unused property not to the concept of property and not the way in which property is gained/distributed.

I know that he focused mostly on land and declared "property is theft" because land that was not used/needed by the owner could not be used by those who actually did need it and could use it.

It stands to reason, then, that a baker who has more bread (=money) than he needs is, as the landlord, stealing from those who could use the bread.

Correct?

I assume that property is liberty because it allows for the pursuit of liberties, but again, I've not read him.

Simply put, Proudhon believes that true freedom involves the right to private property and the products of your own labour. The bread is the product of the bakers labour, it is his property.

[Gamefreek_01]

The philsophy of property is something ive thoguht of but i never put much effort in, tongiht ill think about it and come back with an answer.

[Gamefreek_01]

The philsophy of property is something ive thoguht of but i never put much effort in, tongiht ill think about it and come back with an answer.

Ok, sry i forgot yesterday but i still have the answer. Property is all about what things yuo can control. So if u find an island its yours if you can control it meaning make sure no one else goes there, etc. This is with everything.
Using this to answer the first question(is abortion a right) id say it depends as the law could change the control of the baby to be the doctors. However i believe it should be up to the mother, not only because its hers but because it effects her life and thus she should be able to make decisions for it. Now on the issue if the babies life should be considered, understand that the mother has the chance to give birth like thousands more times one life is meaningless if the mother can make another. And the baby cant make decisions for itself so the decision goes to the person with control which depends on the law as i stated above, thus the mother in my opinion.

[Daniel]

Using this to answer the first question(is abortion a right) id say it depends as the law could change the control of the baby to be the doctors. However i believe it should be up to the mother, not only because its hers but because it effects her life and thus she should be able to make decisions for it.

It's the child's life - and I think that no one - mother, father, doctor, whoever - should have the ability to end their life, espeically without their consent.

Now on the issue if the babies life should be considered, understand that the mother has the chance to give birth like thousands more times one life is meaningless if the mother can make another. And the baby cant make decisions for itself so the decision goes to the person with control which depends on the law as i stated above, thus the mother in my opinion.

Under most circumstances, the mother has the option to use measures to prevent having the child and thus the abortion. (birth control, abstinence, etc.) but she chooses not too. Before having sex, she should take precautions and consider if she's ready. No women should have sex with the intend of ever having an abortion, in my opinion.

[Double Big J]

I believe that abortion is wrong unless a woman is raped. If the woman doesn't want to have a child, then she should not be having sex. If that same woman has been raped, she along with her family (parents, husband...) should ALL have the right to decide - not just her. If they want her to have the child and she doesn't want it, then her parents would look after it.

Back to the sex issue - If she gets pregnant with her boyfriend (husband...) then he should also have a say if she aborts the child because it is half his.

This is just my opinion though.

[Daniel]

I believe that abortion is wrong unless a woman is raped. If the woman doesn't want to have a child, then she should not be having sex. If that same woman has been raped, she along with her family (parents, husband...) should ALL have the right to decide - not just her. If they want her to have the child and she doesn't want it, then her parents would look after it.

Back to the sex issue - If she gets pregnant with her boyfriend (husband...) then he should also have a say if she aborts the child because it is half his.

This is just my opinion though.

And you call yourself a liberal. Heh.

No, seriously though - I agree with you wholeheartedly. One other possible scenario in which I think it may be acceptable is if there is extreme potential for complications that have a high chance of death on the woman's part. However, I'd have to think a bit more on that exception though.

[Gamefreek_01]

It's the child's life - and I think that no one - mother, father, doctor, whoever - should have the ability to end their life, espeically without their consent.



Under most circumstances, the mother has the option to use measures to prevent having the child and thus the abortion. (birth control, abstinence, etc.) but she chooses not too. Before having sex, she should take precautions and consider if she's ready. No women should have sex with the intend of ever having an abortion, in my opinion.

The baby has no consent its not intelligent enough, so then if it cant make decisions then who does? I believe the mother. As it coming out of her not the boyfriend, say if the guy messed with her pills or w/e then why should he have the ability to tell if it is aborted or not. Why not abort it? Just because its a lil more living then it was before and not far from us, that is an illogical reason. Do you try to save all those lil cells on your body, no, why because there not intelligent enough to be able to talk back? Too small to see? There isnt much difference from them and the baby, both cant talk back. You can make many of them. Cant see either. And yet you fight to protect a life that is just like a cell. Though i understand its a fetus which will grow into a human one day, what about sperm cells then, are you gonna start caring for them, no yet each one of them could become your child. Humans have sex mostly for pleasure, so having sex is not always about having children.

[Daniel]

The baby has no consent its not intelligent enough, so then if it cant make decisions then who does? I believe the mother.

The family, perhaps? The government? What is the motive behind getting an abortion? To avoid an inconvienance?

As it coming out of her not the boyfriend, say if the guy messed with her pills or w/e then why should he have the ability to tell if it is aborted or not.

Such situations are rare, if not nonexistant.

Why not abort it? Just because its a lil more living then it was before and not far from us, that is an illogical reason.

Illogical to you, but IMO, you have a twisted sense of logic. I think it's perfectly logical. And it's a lot more living "than it was before". That's also a very vauge term.

Do you try to save all those lil cells on your body, no, why because there not intelligent enough to be able to talk back? Too small to see? There isnt much difference from them and the baby, both cant talk back.

Not in the first few days there isn't, but after a week or so, there is a extreme spike in difference.

You can make many of them.

Again, there's an extreme difference. You don't choose to make cells - you do choose to make babies.

Cant see either.

Not directly, but yes, you can.

And yet you fight to protect a life that is just like a cell.

And yet I fight for something that is much different than a cell. Aside from the things I mentioned above, a cell (other than the developing ones of the child) does not have the ability to grow into something more.

Though i understand its a fetus which will grow into a human one day, what about sperm cells then, are you gonna start caring for them, no yet each one of them could become your child.

They could not become a child without the mother's egg.


Humans have sex mostly for pleasure, so having sex is not always about having children.

Obviously. But why not take the appropraite measure to prevent having the child beforehand rather than after the act?

[Gamefreek_01]

The family, perhaps? The government? What is the motive behind getting an abortion? To avoid an inconvienance?



Such situations are rare, if not nonexistant.



Illogical to you, but IMO, you have a twisted sense of logic. I think it's perfectly logical. And it's a lot more living "than it was before". That's also a very vauge term.



Not in the first few days there isn't, but after a week or so, there is a extreme spike in difference.



Again, there's an extreme difference. You don't choose to make cells - you do choose to make babies.



Not directly, but yes, you can.



And yet I fight for something that is much different than a cell. Aside from the things I mentioned above, a cell (other than the developing ones of the child) does not have the ability to grow into something more.



They could not become a child without the mother's egg.




Obviously. But why not take the appropraite measure to prevent having the child beforehand rather than after the act?

Why the family, maybe the father but i doubt that still, if he wants a child and she doesnt then they shouldnt be together. Not the grandmother or grand father that makes no sense, its not growing in either of them, and barely affects them. And definitely not the government there are many more people out there the government doesn't need to control every birth. So i believe the choice is the mother. Yes, its to prevent against inconvience.

The cells that made it up could not talk, nor had a mind of which to think, the fetus is maybe larger but has almost no mind, it may be able to understand if its hurt, but why does that matter, does it know why its there? Does it know its fathers faces? You can make many other babies, one dieing makes almost no difference, if the mother doesnt want it get rid of it.

There may be a difference but its still a lump of cells that cant think much. Nor can it say "hey, sup doc, please dont kill me." :p

It may be an accident, and most methods of birth control dont work 100%(as far as ive heard). The point is that pleasure is usually to much for a person to resist and with the possiblity for birth control to screw up like 0.00000000000001% or w/e the logic course of action is sex.

Yes, but i mean like see it close up with all its details, like any other person and all the time. Other wise a lil black and white barely seeable image of its outline isnt much of seeing it.

True, most cells dont and u beat me there, however sperm and egg cells can, yet i dont see people caring for sperm cells, or egg cells. Women carry like millions of egg cells(men have basically infinite sperm so they dont count) thus u have many chances to make new babies, one life doesnt matter. It only inconviences the father and mother and possibly many other people. It may even lead to the mother and father having worse lives then they would have had, and even the baby having a worse life.

Well, that is not my problem, in most cases of the child not wanted to be born in the first place im guessing is like rape or forgot to take protection or it failed. In those cases it makes sense to take methods afterward.

[Daniel]

Why the family, maybe the father but i doubt that still, if he wants a child and she doesnt then they shouldnt be together. Not the grandmother or grand father that makes no sense, its not growing in either of them, and barely affects them. And definitely not the government there are many more people out there the government doesn't need to control every birth. So i believe the choice is the mother.

The family as in primarily the father. It takes two (except during rape) to make the decision to have sex, so it should take to to make the decision to end the child's life. And who are you to say weather or not they should be together? It'll depend on the case. And it does affect the family. The goverment is making a decision either way - to prevent abortion or to allow it.

Yes, its to prevent against inconvience.

Which is really dumb, IMO. It goes to show how foolish and irresponsible they are.

The cells that made it up could not talk, nor had a mind of which to think, the fetus is maybe larger but has almost no mind, it may be able to understand if its hurt, but why does that matter, does it know why its there? Does it know its fathers faces? You can make many other babies, one dieing makes almost no difference, if the mother doesnt want it get rid of it.

There are a lot of "almosts" in there. What are your views on infantcide?

There may be a difference but its still a lump of cells that cant think much. Nor can it say "hey, sup doc, please dont kill me." :p

And? Give it a few years and it will, if you don't abort it.

It may be an accident, and most methods of birth control dont work 100%(as far as ive heard). The point is that pleasure is usually to much for a person to resist and with the possiblity for birth control to screw up like 0.00000000000001% or w/e the logic course of action is sex.

you realize that only one out of millions would ever have a pregnacy out of failed birth control? Those cases are by far the minority, and thus not a good example. If you use two methods of birth control then it's almost impossible for a pregancy to be a result.

Actually, based on your percentage, it'd be more like 1 out of 100 trillion.

Yes, but i mean like see it close up with all its details, like any other person and all the time. Other wise a lil black and white barely seeable image of its outline isnt much of seeing it.

Wow. Strict female Muslims where clokes (don't know the name) over virtualy their entire body - does that make them any less human? Just because a child has a wall of tissue between them and the outside world doesn't mean anything.

True, most cells dont and u beat me there, however sperm and egg cells can, yet i dont see people caring for sperm cells, or egg cells. Women carry like millions of egg cells(men have basically infinite sperm so they dont count) thus u have many chances to make new babies, one life doesnt matter.

Well, some strict Catholics do consider and try no to waste sperm/egg cells, but that's beside the point. I believe life begins at conception - so prior to the sperm and egg cell uniting it's not a child, but after, it is.

It only inconviences the father and mother and possibly many other people. It may even lead to the mother and father having worse lives then they would have had, and even the baby having a worse life.

This is extremely poor logic and philosophy. You can't base getting an abortion on the fact that the partents may be unhappy or that the child just might have a bad life. There is no way for you to know that. The parents may (and often do) have worse life's as a result of abortions, and the child has no life at all.

Well, that is not my problem, in most cases of the child not wanted to be born in the first place im guessing is like rape or forgot to take protection or it failed. In those cases it makes sense to take methods afterward.

I believe that I once read statistics saying that less than one percent of unwanted pregnacies result of rape. As for lack of protection, the couple should not be having sex if they're not responsible enough to use contraception.

[Gamefreek_01]

The family as in primarily the father. It takes two (except during rape) to make the decision to have sex, so it should take to to make the decision to end the child's life. And who are you to say weather or not they should be together? It'll depend on the case. And it does affect the family. The goverment is making a decision either way - to prevent abortion or to allow it.



Which is really dumb, IMO. It goes to show how foolish and irresponsible they are.



There are a lot of "almosts" in there. What are your views on infantcide?



And? Give it a few years and it will, if you don't abort it.



you realize that only one out of millions would ever have a pregnacy out of failed birth control? Those cases are by far the minority, and thus not a good example. If you use two methods of birth control then it's almost impossible for a pregancy to be a result.

Actually, based on your percentage, it'd be more like 1 out of 100 trillion.



Wow. Strict female Muslims where clokes (don't know the name) over virtualy their entire body - does that make them any less human? Just because a child has a wall of tissue between them and the outside world doesn't mean anything.



Well, some strict Catholics do consider and try no to waste sperm/egg cells, but that's beside the point. I believe life begins at conception - so prior to the sperm and egg cell uniting it's not a child, but after, it is.



This is extremely poor logic and philosophy. You can't base getting an abortion on the fact that the partents may be unhappy or that the child just might have a bad life. There is no way for you to know that. The parents may (and often do) have worse life's as a result of abortions, and the child has no life at all.



I believe that I once read statistics saying that less than one percent of unwanted pregnacies result of rape. As for lack of protection, the couple should not be having sex if they're not responsible enough to use contraception.

I think we basically disagree on one topic, the rest is extra that is almost illrelevent to the arguement. The topic is whether any life at all is important and should be saved. I believe no, not because you cant see it, not because it has no control, but because a life is not any different from sand or dust. The only different is that the way the matter that makes us up is structured gives us the ability to take in info. and make decisions etc. I dont see a reason in there to think of lives as being special. Thoguh its hard to explain ill say that only you matters, not you but yourself. Human rights is just a way of making sure people are happy in order to work for society(my best guess). It depends on the control, we can kill the fetus as it effects us, we can make more, and it would only inconvience us at the present time. However life is no more special than other matter. Though it may seem to be that it isnt. If we could make robots like humans, would you give them right like humans? I doubt it because we can make them out of metals, which makes it seem like they dont matter, yet they should matter just the same. Obviously you believe opposite to me, you believe the life is special, it makes no logical sense, but i cant change your opinion.

However i am interested in finding out how an abortion does worse to the parents then not other than emotionally.

[Daniel]

I think we basically disagree on one topic, the rest is extra that is almost illrelevent to the arguement.

I personally think it's all relevant.

The topic is whether any life at all is important and should be saved. I believe no, not because you cant see it, not because it has no control, but because a life is not any different from sand or dust. The only different is that the way the matter that makes us up is structured gives us the ability to take in info. and make decisions etc. I dont see a reason in there to think of lives as being special. Thoguh its hard to explain ill say that only you matters, not you but yourself. Human rights is just a way of making sure people are happy in order to work for society(my best guess). It depends on the control, we can kill the fetus as it effects us, we can make more, and it would only inconvience us at the present time. However life is no more special than other matter. Though it may seem to be that it isnt. If we could make robots like humans, would you give them right like humans? I doubt it because we can make them out of metals, which makes it seem like they dont matter, yet they should matter just the same. Obviously you believe opposite to me, you believe the life is special, it makes no logical sense, but i cant change your opinion.

It makes no logical sense in your view - in my view, yours makes no logical sense. Life is special. It is different from "other matter" - it isn't as simple to create. It has to develope; it has to grow. Humans have free wills. Rocks don't. We can create. I believe in intelligent design, so I think life is designed by a creator. And if all life ceased to exist, would not the value of life go up? I think that's how it works, at least in our human mind. We tend to value things depending on supply and demand or it's rarety.

However i am interested in finding out how an abortion does worse to the parents then not other than emotionally.

There you go again, putting words in my mouth. I never said it did in a non-emotional aspect. However, there are a few lasting effects.

Firstly, emotions. Soemtimes it's just sort lasting, however, often it does last a lifetime. The mother is faced with regret, and often, as a result, deep depression.

There's the initiall risk of hemorrage, infection, and death.

There is the possibility of permanent infertility and an increased risk of "tubal" pregnancy, and of future miscarriages.

Thouse are just a few, though emotional "damage" is probably the most severe.

[Krovisser]

"I believe in intelligent design"

Please don't tell me you support that "theory". Creationism is fine, intelligent design is... a matter for another thread...

[Daniel]

"I believe in intelligent design"

Please don't tell me you support that "theory". Creationism is fine, intelligent design is... a matter for another thread...

Creationism, intelligent design; both the same thing in my view.

[Gamefreek_01]

I personally think it's all relevant.



It makes no logical sense in your view - in my view, yours makes no logical sense. Life is special. It is different from "other matter" - it isn't as simple to create. It has to develope; it has to grow. Humans have free wills. Rocks don't. We can create. I believe in intelligent design, so I think life is designed by a creator. And if all life ceased to exist, would not the value of life go up? I think that's how it works, at least in our human mind. We tend to value things depending on supply and demand or it's rarety.



There you go again, putting words in my mouth. I never said it did in a non-emotional aspect. However, there are a few lasting effects.

Firstly, emotions. Soemtimes it's just sort lasting, however, often it does last a lifetime. The mother is faced with regret, and often, as a result, deep depression.

There's the initiall risk of hemorrage, infection, and death.

There is the possibility of permanent infertility and an increased risk of "tubal" pregnancy, and of future miscarriages.

Thouse are just a few, though emotional "damage" is probably the most severe.

Ok, i had a feeling you would say something like that, and its very logical in your view. However, let me ask you this, what if we as humans, no greater then god could create life, better then us? Robots if you will. What would this do to the value of life? As it stands now the value is high as the only way to make new life is through sex and reproduction, which many people arent just gonna go through with to ensure our society survives. Though yes a greater being may have created us, does that mean that every life is infinitively valuable, no that is my point. If there was no other sideeffects to abortion other than emotional than it would be fine.

And the next big question is how likely are these non-emotional effects? Also i doubt that emotional loss is anything compared to the child growing up in a bad environment. In some cases that is, such as a mother living in poverty, that child will grow up with usually a very bad life and may die a lot sooner then a baby born later in the motheres life. Again it depends on how likely the other things happen.

[Krovisser]

Creationism, intelligent design; both the same thing in my view.

But ID pretends there is science behind it.

Creationism is faith.

I'd rather have someone provide faith as their reason, than try to prove unspecified complexity, and other such nonsense.

[Gamefreek_01]

But ID pretends there is science behind it.

Creationism is faith.

I'd rather have someone provide faith as their reason, than try to prove unspecified complexity, and other such nonsense.

Good point.

[Daniel]

But ID pretends there is science behind it.

Creationism is faith.

I'd rather have someone provide faith as their reason, than try to prove unspecified complexity, and other such nonsense.

Well, both then. There's a verse in the Bible that says everyone "knows" there's a god based on the earth and it's beauty (complexity, I guess) but a large portion is faith. It's really a mix.

[Daniel]

Ok, i had a feeling you would say something like that, and its very logical in your view.

Once again you sidestep just about every word I said. :rolleyes:

However, let me ask you this, what if we as humans, no greater then god could create life, better then us? Robots if you will. What would this do to the value of life?

Robots have neither flesh & blood nor a soul nor free will. (though all points could be argued that neither do we). However, there is an extreme difference between a man and a potential 1000-year advanced machine which we've never heard of and may never exist. Who would define if or how the robots are "better" than us? And my main point is, it would do nothing to the value of (human) life - because robots are not alive.


As it stands now the value is high as the only way to make new life is through sex and reproduction, which many people arent just gonna go through with to ensure our society survives.

The human population is well esablished - and with more people, by your view - would not the value of life decrease?

Though yes a greater being may have created us, does that mean that every life is infinitively valuable, no that is my point.

It's one thing to simply say "no" but another to supply a reason for your response.

If there was no other sideeffects to abortion other than emotional than it would be fine.

What would be fine?

And the next big question is how likely are these non-emotional effects?

Given, the ones I named are not happening 50% of the time, but they happen. The issue is not what type of damage it is, IMO. Who cares if it's emotional damage? Physical damage, spiritual damage, whatever - all often contribute to an emotional damage.

Also i doubt that emotional loss is anything compared to the child growing up in a bad environment.

Again, horrible point which I've already refuted.

This is extremely poor logic and philosophy. You can't base getting an abortion on the fact that the partents may be unhappy or that the child just might have a bad life. There is no way for you to know that. The parents may (and often do) have worse life's as a result of abortions, and the child has no life at all.

In some cases that is, such as a mother living in poverty, that child will grow up with usually a very bad life and may die a lot sooner then a baby born later in the motheres life. Again it depends on how likely the other things happen.

See my above response.

One thing you need to do when discussing is actually discuss. In this thread in particular you are just posting your views and are simply ignoring all my thoughts and questions, backing out of just about everything. Honestly man, get with it.

[Krovisser]

Well, both then. There's a verse in the Bible that says everyone "knows" there's a god based on the earth and it's beauty (complexity, I guess) but a large portion is faith. It's really a mix.

I can agree with you that existing without a purpose seems, well, meaningless; that it would make a lot of sense for a God to exist. However, I still would not use ID as my defense, it's horribly flawed.

[Gamefreek_01]

Once again you sidestep just about every word I said. :rolleyes:



Robots have neither flesh & blood nor a soul nor free will. (though all points could be argued that neither do we). However, there is an extreme difference between a man and a potential 1000-year advanced machine which we've never heard of and may never exist. Who would define if or how the robots are "better" than us? And my main point is, it would do nothing to the value of (human) life - because robots are not alive.




The human population is well esablished - and with more people, by your view - would not the value of life decrease?



It's one thing to simply say "no" but another to supply a reason for your response.



What would be fine?



Given, the ones I named are not happening 50% of the time, but they happen. The issue is not what type of damage it is, IMO. Who cares if it's emotional damage? Physical damage, spiritual damage, whatever - all often contribute to an emotional damage.



Again, horrible point which I've already refuted.





See my above response.

One thing you need to do when discussing is actually discuss. In this thread in particular you are just posting your views and are simply ignoring all my thoughts and questions, backing out of just about everything. Honestly man, get with it.

How exactly are they not alive? Because they dont have a "soul"? Also, when i refer to that i am talking about making a machine which mimic's human emotion, thinking ability, and realtive appearance. Not like the ones we have now which respond to things based on what their programed. I refer to a machine that thinks exactly like a human, that learns like a human yet faster. So i ask how does not having flesh, blood, and soul not make it alive, what do you mean by soul?

It should in my view, but people remain strong in believing that life is infinitively valuable.

Ok, well then what makes a life infinitively valuable, i believe it isnt because value is found by figuring out how useful something is. Though life is useful in doing things for the society i believe people value it much too high. Such as with such people that are uncapable to do anything for society, and i mean anything, unconscience on a bed for the remainder of their life. Such people should have a dramastic drop of value, yet they are contineuly kept alive.

It would be fine to abort if the risk of physical damage isnt too high.

I understand that isnt the issue, its whether the mother should choose to end the fetus's life. I believe yes, because everylife isnt infinitively valuable. Because each life isnt special, its just the ability for matter to come together to form a structure which can gather information and understand it. Thats where it should end. Thinking that way then any child would be fine, however a baby at that time in the mothers life could make her life a lot worse. The choice would be made obviously depending on how much of a risk they want to take etc. Also if the baby is born into a life where they will eventually contribute to crime, then obviously thats bad. Again i ask how can they have a worse life because of an abortion? Which is why i got into the negative effects of abortion, which is why i ask how likely physical damage takes place. As emotional damage can go away with time, and isnt not as bad as physical damage. The childs life also doesnt matter, it only matters, or at least should only matter to the child, which as far as i know doesnt even have self-awareness at that point. If the child grows up to hurt society then society should remove the child. Also if the mother is gonna give birth later anyways then that one life is replaced with the other.

I reallt dont see how i am not discussing this. I know that i have come to the proper conclusions, and i still take what you say into consideration, however nothing you have said, as far i remember has changed anything i know. It may have made me go through this and check more closer but thats about it.

[Daniel]

How exactly are they not alive?

I said:

Robots have neither flesh & blood nor a soul nor free will.

Because they dont have a "soul"? Also, when i refer to that i am talking about making a machine which mimic's human emotion, thinking ability, and realtive appearance. Not like the ones we have now which respond to things based on what their programed. I refer to a machine that thinks exactly like a human, that learns like a human yet faster. So i ask how does not having flesh, blood, and soul not make it alive, what do you mean by soul?

Life is a multi-faceted concept that may refer to the ongoing process of which living things are a part or the period between fertilisation or mitosis and death.

For more information on what it means to be alive, see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life).

A soul is the bart of a human separate from the body/mind and spirit. It's what gives you choice, understanding, personality, that sort of thing. In a sense, your soul is the "real" you - and you're body is a shell.

For more information on the definition(s) of soul, see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul).

Ok, well then what makes a life infinitively valuable, i believe it isnt because value is found by figuring out how useful something is. Though life is useful in doing things for the society i believe people value it much too high. Such as with such people that are uncapable to do anything for society, and i mean anything, unconscience on a bed for the remainder of their life. Such people should have a dramastic drop of value, yet they are contineuly kept alive.

I asked this before and I don't remember an answer, so I'll say it again. Would not this person who cannot contribute be contributing by sustaining someone (such as a family member/friend) from not contributing? If this person who cannot help society is put to death, someone may become depressed or suicidal or not contribute themselves.

Also, since life is valued by how much you contribute, then everyone has a roughly different value, right? So a leader/president's life value would be much greater than that of any individual.

Thinking that way then any child would be fine, however a baby at that time in the mothers life could make her life a lot worse.

It could, yet most of the time it doesn't.

Also if the baby is born into a life where they will eventually contribute to crime, then obviously thats bad.

You can't justify an abortion based on that view. Just because a child may have a negative influence on society is not fair basis for ending their life. They might not "contribute to crime" or whatever the case may be.

As emotional damage can go away with time, and isnt not as bad as physical damage.

It can go away with time, it doesn't mean it will. Personally, I'd rather loose a finger than live the rest of my life locking myself in my room flooded with dread, afraid the boggeyman will come and get me. A lot of the time emotional damage IS as bad as or worse than physical damage.

The childs life also doesnt matter, it only matters, or at least should only matter to the child, which as far as i know doesnt even have self-awareness at that point.

Does not your life matter to your mother, father, friends?

Young children don't have self=awareness as we think of it until a few years old. Is there a difference?

If the child grows up to hurt society then society should remove the child.

I agree. That's why we have a law system and "justice". If someone "hurts" society they are punished. But you can't punish someone based on what they MIGHT do. This reminds me of the movie Minority Reports if you've ever seen it.

Also if the mother is gonna give birth later anyways then that one life is replaced with the other.

There are a few problems with that view. One, the life would be "replaced", but who would "replace" the life of the second person? It wouldn't live two lives. Secondly, why would the mother have an abortion or allow herself to get pregnant without the intend of having a child if she intends to have a second child?

I reallt dont see how i am not discussing this. I know that i have come to the proper conclusions, and i still take what you say into consideration, however nothing you have said, as far i remember has changed anything i know. It may have made me go through this and check more closer but thats about it.

Well, that's the same with me. However, you sort of ignore and don't respond to my points - unless, of course, you're lack of a response is you're acknowlegement that I am correct?

[Gamefreek_01]

I said:





Life is a multi-faceted concept that may refer to the ongoing process of which living things are a part or the period between fertilisation or mitosis and death.

For more information on what it means to be alive, see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life).

A soul is the bart of a human separate from the body/mind and spirit. It's what gives you choice, understanding, personality, that sort of thing. In a sense, your soul is the "real" you - and you're body is a shell.

For more information on the definition(s) of soul, see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soul).



I asked this before and I don't remember an answer, so I'll say it again. Would not this person who cannot contribute be contributing by sustaining someone (such as a family member/friend) from not contributing? If this person who cannot help society is put to death, someone may become depressed or suicidal or not contribute themselves.

Also, since life is valued by how much you contribute, then everyone has a roughly different value, right? So a leader/president's life value would be much greater than that of any individual.



It could, yet most of the time it doesn't.



You can't justify an abortion based on that view. Just because a child may have a negative influence on society is not fair basis for ending their life. They might not "contribute to crime" or whatever the case may be.



It can go away with time, it doesn't mean it will. Personally, I'd rather loose a finger than live the rest of my life locking myself in my room flooded with dread, afraid the boggeyman will come and get me. A lot of the time emotional damage IS as bad as or worse than physical damage.



Does not your life matter to your mother, father, friends?

Young children don't have self=awareness as we think of it until a few years old. Is there a difference?



I agree. That's why we have a law system and "justice". If someone "hurts" society they are punished. But you can't punish someone based on what they MIGHT do. This reminds me of the movie Minority Reports if you've ever seen it.



There are a few problems with that view. One, the life would be "replaced", but who would "replace" the life of the second person? It wouldn't live two lives. Secondly, why would the mother have an abortion or allow herself to get pregnant without the intend of having a child if she intends to have a second child?



Well, that's the same with me. However, you sort of ignore and don't respond to my points - unless, of course, you're lack of a response is you're acknowlegement that I am correct?

Hmm, although you didnt respond to the idea that the robot is exactly like a human (in the mind), u did respond with a good point. Though life as we know refers to cells, does that really mean that a robot with free will isnt alive? I think the definition of life has to be relooked or at least added onto. Now with soul. That is interesting, though i can understand where people who people in souls come from id have to say it wrong. Obviously they figured that free will and other thinking abilities were too special to occur with just fresh and blood, and possibly these ideas were created before we knew that the brain does think. Soul in a sense is the brain, though the idea of soul refers to another being existing in the shell of our bodies, i think that is not needed. Our brain can do more than enough, no further theories of souls is needed to explain or thought processes. Though it may be possible, which i doubt as it hard for matterless things to be able to think. So i believe it shouldnt be critiria for life.

I think i answered this but not as well as i will now.
Mostly in this thread i am refering to a prefered society, not the one we live in today. Meaning no emotions to mess up our lives. This would mean no depression, or sucidial tendencies, and thus no negative effect to killing people incapable of helping society. However if i were to think in terms of our lives today, i would still say kill them, because without looking at stats. i would say that it is not likely that the death of a relative makes someone that sad. Depression maybe in some cases, however sucidial seems unrealistic.

With your next point, yes that is correct. It may even be possible that in the future we use a system of classification to measure importance in society. However leaders would not be special, because their may be more capable leaders then them that are not already in office. However also understand that the difference that this brings is not large, if say you had to choose between killing the pres. and a group of 50 people it would be better (in a prefered society) to kill the pres. Maybe the best importance is about 1.60 1 being the average (just a very bad estimate).

True, however that would be a factor in only the most extreme cases, such as a mother known to be a horrible person.

Again same thing.

You may be right, my point of view may be biased, as i can deal with emotions quite well and also nothing largely devasting has ever happened to me.

Yes it would, however i am again refering to a prefered society. No there isnt, however as they grow their self-awarness gets stronger so i guess their is a difference.

Good point. What happens if they grow up to be better then the law like the leader of a major crime organisation. This is illikely, and near impossible to predict from birth. Ive seen it, it was a good movie, though i forgot the point of it.

First id say its not replacing the life exactly, its filling in its place in society. Say if the mother only wants one child, wouldnt she rather have it in a time in her life when it wont screw up her life? Also in most cases abort is used as a last resort after an accident has occured, or rape etc.

And finally, in some cases that is why i dont refer to what you said. However i still have no memory of any time which i didnt refer to what you said.

[Daniel]

Hmm, although you didnt respond to the idea that the robot is exactly like a human (in the mind), u did respond with a good point.

A robot is not exactly like a human in the aspect of the mind. They do not have free will, and probably never will. That's not to say they might not have benefits. Robots can't have diseases (well, viruses I suppose) and they could be programmed not to do wrong/cause harm.

Though life as we know refers to cells, does that really mean that a robot with free will isnt alive? I think the definition of life has to be relooked or at least added onto.

You can't dismiss the fact that a robot isn't alive just like that. They simply aren't. By definition they are not alive. And a robot with a free will does not exist.

Now with soul. That is interesting, though i can understand where people who people in souls come from id have to say it wrong. Obviously they figured that free will and other thinking abilities were too special to occur with just fresh and blood, and possibly these ideas were created before we knew that the brain does think. Soul in a sense is the brain, though the idea of soul refers to another being existing in the shell of our bodies, i think that is not needed.

Bogus.

Our brain can do more than enough, no further theories of souls is needed to explain or thought processes.

Then what makes you you? I think a soul i what keeps us from becoming robots - no pun intended.

I think i answered this but not as well as i will now.
Mostly in this thread i am refering to a prefered society, not the one we live in today. Meaning no emotions to mess up our lives. This would mean no depression, or sucidial tendencies, and thus no negative effect to killing people incapable of helping society.

But we don't live in such a society, so it doesn't really matter. I'm talking about our current society.

However if i were to think in terms of our lives today, i would still say kill them, because without looking at stats. i would say that it is not likely that the death of a relative makes someone that sad. Depression maybe in some cases, however sucidial seems unrealistic.

Obviously you don't live in the real world then. It might not the majority of people, but for a good deal it does take away from their "productiveness", at least temporarily.

With your next point, yes that is correct. It may even be possible that in the future we use a system of classification to measure importance in society. However leaders would not be special, because their may be more capable leaders then them that are not already in office. However also understand that the difference that this brings is not large, if say you had to choose between killing the pres. and a group of 50 people it would be better (in a prefered society) to kill the pres. Maybe the best importance is about 1.60 1 being the average (just a very bad estimate).

But what if the president is daily preventing the deaths of hundreds of people? Then would not his life be much more valued?

The reason this system won't work is because you can't measure people's values like that. This president (or anyone) may save 100,000 people the next day. You have no way to know that, so you can't really place a prictag on their life. This also brings up the question of slavery. If life has a value, is this just value of usefulness, or like a price? Could I buy a slave in your "preffered society"?


Yes it would, however i am again refering to a prefered society. No there isnt, however as they grow their self-awarness gets stronger so i guess their is a difference.

Then were do you draw the line? They aren't aware when their a week old, a month, or really a year. They can feel pain, but so can a child inside it's mother's womb. No difference.

Good point. What happens if they grow up to be better then the law like the leader of a major crime organisation. This is illikely, and near impossible to predict from birth. Ive seen it, it was a good movie, though i forgot the point of it.

You miss my point. My point is that you can't judge or punish a person based on what they might or can do. Do you agree?

First id say its not replacing the life exactly, its filling in its place in society. Say if the mother only wants one child, wouldnt she rather have it in a time in her life when it wont screw up her life?

Then should shouldn't have gotten pregnant the first time.

Also in most cases abort is used as a last resort after an accident has occured, or rape etc.

Actually, no. The only "accident" that might be common would be foolishness on the parent's part and not using birth control. Rape abortions are rare.

And finally, in some cases that is why i dont refer to what you said. However i still have no memory of any time which i didnt refer to what you said.

- You've yet to give me a direct answer on if you think you can judge a person on what they may or may not do.

- Why is not emotional damage a "valid" argument?

Lastly, I'd like to say that when I'm talking about all this abortion, rights, and that sort of thing I'm talking about now. In real life, not what would be best in some theoretical society. Theoretical societies are irrelevant.

Also, if it's not to much to ask, it'd be really helpful if you could reply and separate your replies to each of my points instead of dividing it into paragraphs... makes it hard to interpret the way you post.

[Gamefreek_01]

A robot is not exactly like a human in the aspect of the mind. They do not have free will, and probably never will. That's not to say they might not have benefits. Robots can't have diseases (well, viruses I suppose) and they could be programmed not to do wrong/cause harm.

Assume that eventually we will make robots with free will, even if u believe otherwise.


You can't dismiss the fact that a robot isn't alive just like that. They simply aren't. By definition they are not alive. And a robot with a free will does not exist.[/QOUTE]

I suppose by definition they arent or at least in our currect definition. But they would still have free will, and everything else, maybe they dont have cells of flesh but thats it. Its sort of like saying a business man isnt a business man without his briefcase and calculator.:p

[QUOTE=Lpspider]Bogus.

In your opinion, however i dont see any use for a soul. The way you talks makes you sound like you think "souls" are responsible for emotion, free will and other thought process that arent programmed into us. Hmm then cross emotions off that list, sry. Though as far as i know our brain is what gives us those abilities not a "soul".

Also again i ask if we were to invent a robot with free will what would that mean for currect philsophies, even the idea of souls?


Then what makes you you? I think a soul i what keeps us from becoming robots - no pun intended.

Look up for answer.


But we don't live in such a society, so it doesn't really matter. I'm talking about our current society.

Good point i will put mor focus there.


Obviously you don't live in the real world then. It might not the majority of people, but for a good deal it does take away from their "productiveness", at least temporarily.

I dont see people being temporarily slightly unproductive being worse then using up weeks maybe years of medicine, food, and other rescources.


But what if the president is daily preventing the deaths of hundreds of people? Then would not his life be much more valued?

Unless the prez. is out there rescueing people, killing enemies, and flying helicopters would i ever say that he saves 100000 lives. Though he makes good decisions that all he does. Their are mostly likely many people that have the ability to make decisions that well. However logically if there was only one person capable then the value of the prez. increases drasatically.


The reason this system won't work is because you can't measure people's values like that. This president (or anyone) may save 100,000 people the next day. You have no way to know that, so you can't really place a prictag on their life. This also brings up the question of slavery. If life has a value, is this just value of usefulness, or like a price? Could I buy a slave in your "preffered society"?

Sure, i dont see anything wrong with it. However obviously logically someone would not sell themselves for such a thing. However if someone was hend against their will then they are screwed. Though this is why people first must not be controled by emotions so they dont get greedy and want a slave. Also that person would need a low importance to work like that, or if all other jobs are taken, there might be many situations. However i find that illikely to happen.


Then were do you draw the line? They aren't aware when their a week old, a month, or really a year. They can feel pain, but so can a child inside it's mother's womb. No difference.

I dont draw the line any where, if someone has control over the child then they can do what they wish. If they interfere with effectiency then they can kill them if they want. Or if they want to try for a better child then they can try again.


You miss my point. My point is that you can't judge or punish a person based on what they might or can do. Do you agree?

I agree, as there is a slight chance they might do bad. However the job would be to figure out how likely they would be to do something bad. Say if they are a mentally demented kid then it might be effeicent to try again.


Then should shouldn't have gotten pregnant the first time.


Likely it was by accident. Or at least not on purpose.


Actually, no. The only "accident" that might be common would be foolishness on the parent's part and not using birth control. Rape abortions are rare.

Oh, sry i was unsure then. However still, if they dont want children it is their choice to abort it.


- You've yet to give me a direct answer on if you think you can judge a person on what they may or may not do.

- Why is not emotional damage a "valid" argument?

Lastly, I'd like to say that when I'm talking about all this abortion, rights, and that sort of thing I'm talking about now. In real life, not what would be best in some theoretical society. Theoretical societies are irrelevant.

Also, if it's not to much to ask, it'd be really helpful if you could reply and separate your replies to each of my points instead of dividing it into paragraphs... makes it hard to interpret the way you post.

Ive answered the first, now ill answer the second. Emotional damage is not relevent, or at least not very relevent because that damage doesnt last long (compared with your entire life) Also that some people can fix that damage easily, people can also block the damage.

And i hope you like the quote separations.

[Daniel]

Assume that eventually we will make robots with free will, even if u believe otherwise.

Well, I doubt they ever will. Half the people on this planet don't even know if they have free will. Assuming robots theoretically will have a free will, they'd still be vastly different from humans.


I suppose by definition they arent or at least in our currect definition. But they would still have free will, and everything else, maybe they dont have cells of flesh but thats it. Its sort of like saying a business man isnt a business man without his briefcase and calculator.:p

Well, it's still not alive. Even if it had free will and was self-aware, it wouldn't be living. It'd be running. Functioning. I classify them as two different things.

In your opinion, however i dont see any use for a soul. The way you talks makes you sound like you think "souls" are responsible for emotion, free will and other thought process that arent programmed into us. Hmm then cross emotions off that list, sry. Though as far as i know our brain is what gives us those abilities not a "soul".

The brain, yes. But I view the soul as more of a spiritual personna rather than a physical thing. It doesn't matter if you see a use for the soul if it exists - and likewise it doesn't matter if I think it does if it doesn't. That's irrelevant. I'm simply saying that were there such thing as a soul, a robot would be incappable of possessing such.

Also again i ask if we were to invent a robot with free will what would that mean for currect philsophies, even the idea of souls?

Well, as I stated above, the soul would still exist. They would still not be organic, so I would certainly not consider them equals. Mechanical things can be replaced or rebuild, humans cannot. But if a robot had a free will, could it love? Could it replace love? It raises all sorts of questions.

I dont see people being temporarily slightly unproductive being worse then using up weeks maybe years of medicine, food, and other rescources.

But what if it wasn't temporary? And weeks of supplies isn't really that much in the long run. How would you know if it would be temporary? I mean, how would you, in such a condition, determine who to kill to preserve their loss:benefit gain?


Sure, i dont see anything wrong with it. However obviously logically someone would not sell themselves for such a thing. However if someone was hend against their will then they are screwed. Though this is why people first must not be controled by emotions so they dont get greedy and want a slave. Also that person would need a low importance to work like that, or if all other jobs are taken, there might be many situations. However i find that illikely to happen.

What if someone else sold them into slavery?

My point is that you can't place a value like that on someone's life. Their value always has the potential to go up.



I dont draw the line any where, if someone has control over the child then they can do what they wish. If they interfere with effectiency then they can kill them if they want. Or if they want to try for a better child then they can try again.

You have to draw a line somewhere. One could argue that since the government has control then they could do whatever they wish, following your philosophy. When does taking a life become acceptable? After birth? What's the difference between a born and unborn child in terms of knowledge or value?



I agree, as there is a slight chance they might do bad. However the job would be to figure out how likely they would be to do something bad. Say if they are a mentally demented kid then it might be effeicent to try again.



Likely it was by accident. Or at least not on purpose.

Oh, sry i was unsure then. However still, if they dont want children it is their choice to abort it.

I believe much of modern day america is simply using abortion as a form of birth control. And people should take steps to prevent becoming pregnant. That is their responsibility and they shouldn't punish the child for their mistakes.

Ive answered the first, now ill answer the second. Emotional damage is not relevent, or at least not very relevent because that damage doesnt last long (compared with your entire life) Also that some people can fix that damage easily, people can also block the damage.

Sometimes it does last long and sometimes the damage isn't easily fixed.

And i hope you like the quote separations.

Beautiful.

[Gamefreek_01]

Well, I doubt they ever will. Half the people on this planet don't even know if they have free will. Assuming robots theoretically will have a free will, they'd still be vastly different from humans.


Well, it's still not alive. Even if it had free will and was self-aware, it wouldn't be living. It'd be running. Functioning. I classify them as two different things.

How exaclty is it running and not living, because its made of gears, pumps, and switches and not viens and muscles?
I dont see that as a legitamet reason to saying its not alive.


The brain, yes. But I view the soul as more of a spiritual personna rather than a physical thing. It doesn't matter if you see a use for the soul if it exists - and likewise it doesn't matter if I think it does if it doesn't. That's irrelevant. I'm simply saying that were there such thing as a soul, a robot would be incappable of possessing such.


What do you mean by spiritual, other reality wise? What evidence is there to think that they exist? And if they dont do anything then why does not having them make that thing not living? Its like saying because a car has no colour its not a car.


Well, as I stated above, the soul would still exist. They would still not be organic, so I would certainly not consider them equals. Mechanical things can be replaced or rebuild, humans cannot. But if a robot had a free will, could it love? Could it replace love? It raises all sorts of questions.

Again i dont see how different structure means different all together. Its like saying one structure of steel is not a building, where most buildings are made of wood. Though mech. things can be worked apon much easier (humans can be but their parts are just very small) that shouldnt mean they are less living. To give another example its like saying 1+2 is not a mathematical forumla because its easier then 45363x5646473. Yes of course free will implys emotions and thus love. As i said it mimics all human emotions and thought processes, while the only differences are structure and ability, functionality, however these are not relevent.


But what if it wasn't temporary? And weeks of supplies isn't really that much in the long run. How would you know if it would be temporary? I mean, how would you, in such a condition, determine who to kill to preserve their loss:benefit gain?

I think that is a very easy question. There is a obvious difference when you consider someone who loves their dieing grandfather a lot and have a weak will power. That person will most likely take heavy emotional damage, while someone who doesnt give a care about their dieing relative they wont be affected much. And obviously you would act in the second case, and stop a more closely examine the first. It may even be a good idea to act sneakly and lie about how they died ( not tell that they were killed by unnatural means)



What if someone else sold them into slavery?

My point is that you can't place a value like that on someone's life. Their value always has the potential to go up.

I think you can, though we may have increases of value we still have a value. Its like buying in a business deal, like in the game pay day, the deal has a price but has potential to increase or decrease.



You have to draw a line somewhere. One could argue that since the government has control then they could do whatever they wish, following your philosophy. When does taking a life become acceptable? After birth? What's the difference between a born and unborn child in terms of knowledge or value?

Acceptable is in terms of perception, we see that others around us have the same emotions and thus dont want to die. Like we dont, thus if we dont want to kill our selves then we dont want others to die. This makes us believe that others should be saved. While however in truth it doesnt matter, what only truely matters is what we need, what we feel. So then it comes to who ever has control, the parents have the closest control and thus make the decision to abort. Thus i believe there is no line, the only line is that you shouldnt kill yourself, or you shouldnt die. That doesnt mean that you shouldnt kill others, but they should fight back.

Id say the difference lies in terms of when the baby comes out, unborn being before, born being after. But it doesnt mean anything.


I believe much of modern day america is simply using abortion as a form of birth control. And people should take steps to prevent becoming pregnant. That is their responsibility and they shouldn't punish the child for their mistakes.

Though it is better not to risk physical damage by preventing to use abortion, i dont believe that killing the unborn baby is punishing it. If the cells didnt come together it wouldnt be alive in the first place so either way it wouldnt live. It still doesnt matter as it cant understand its own death anyways. Though i agree abortion should only be a last resort from accidents and rape.


Sometimes it does last long and sometimes the damage isn't easily fixed.

True, you hold a good point. However there is only a small portion of people that would suffer heavy emotional damage.


Beautiful.

Thanks.:D

[Illuminatus]

Free will implies conciousness....

There are no concious machines.

Or fetuses.

Discuss.

[Krovisser]

I'm for abortion, so I have nothing against that.

[Gamefreek_01]

Free will implies conciousness....

There are no concious machines.

Or fetuses.

Discuss.

The idea is that eventually we will have robots with free will, though we dont today we will later on.

[Illuminatus]

The idea is that eventually we will have robots with free will, though we dont today we will later on.

You cannot see into the future.

[Gamefreek_01]

You cannot see into the future.

Yes, but it is possbile thus we will do it eventually. Besides i have already thought up the basics of it.

[Illuminatus]

Prove it's possible, or shut up.

[Gamefreek_01]

Prove it's possible, or shut up.

Free will is merely our ability to recieve info. such as seeing things, hearing etc. and taking that info. and processing it, comparing it to other info. It seems obvious that the same thing is possible to mimic using a computer.

[Illuminatus]

Free will is making conscious decisions.

Machines are not conscious.

[Gamefreek_01]

Free will is making conscious decisions.

Machines are not conscious.

Conscience decisions is the comparison of information. Steming from our basic senses. Give machines the programming to compare info. , the ability to percieve through many senses and you have a robt with free will. It is simple.

[Illuminatus]

No.

A weighing scale can 'compare information', a calculator can 'compare information'. This program can use it's senses and compare information:


10 print "Enter a number"
20 input a%
30 print "Enter another number"
30 input b%
40 if a% = b% goto 6
50 print "Gamefreek has no idea what he's talking about"
55 end
60 print "Gamefreek has no idea what he's talking about, I also just compared both numbers you entered and they're the same"
70 end


Now either I've just invented AI with free will, or you don't understand all AI is merely algorithms; it can only do what they're programmed to do. They have no free will.

[Gamefreek_01]

No.

A weighing scale can 'compare information', a calculator can 'compare information'. This program can use it's senses and compare information:


10 print "Enter a number"
20 input a%
30 print "Enter another number"
30 input b%
40 if a% = b% goto 6
50 print "Gamefreek has no idea what he's talking about"
55 end
60 print "Gamefreek has no idea what he's talking about, I also just compared both numbers you entered and they're the same"
70 end


Now either I've just invented AI with free will, or you don't understand all AI is merely algorithms they can only do what they're programmed to do. They have no free will.

I see you dont understand what im saying. Though i try not to give away much because obviously anyone who can invent such a thing could have millions or billions of dollars, as this is extremely important technology. Ill try though, the computer wouldnt have prerecorded responses it makes its own by comparing information like the brain does. The brain takes in information and compares it with other info then uses that information in the proper situation. We do this when we talk or recite a peom. The computer in turn would have the ability to take information in and respond using it if it wants. Like our memory, im not sure the exact way to do this but i can see that it is possible.

If thats not enough then think about this, our brains use cells to create thought, obviously they use some sort of system to communicate, program if you will. All that is needed is to understand how this system in our brain works then put that onto a computer.

[Illuminatus]

I see you dont understand what im saying.

You don't understand what you're saying, you're an idiot.


Though i try not to give away much because obviously anyone who can invent such a thing could have millions or billions of dollars, as this is extremely important technology.


Oh shut up, you pathetic narcissist. First you claimed you discovered the theory of relativity on your own, now you're claiming you've invented self-aware machines and strong AI. This is exactly why I said you needed to see a psychiatrist in the other thread.


Ill try though, the computer wouldnt have prerecorded responses it makes its own by comparing information like the brain does.


It makes its own responses using algorithms programmed by humans.


The brain takes in information and compares it with other info then uses that information in the proper situation. We do this when we talk or recite a peom.


So did my BASIC program above.


The computer in turn would have the ability to take information in and respond using it if it wants. Like our memory, im not sure the exact way to do this but i can see that it is possible.


How does a machine decide it wants to do something? Algorithms.


If thats not enough then think about this, our brains use cells to create thought, obviously they use some sort of system to communicate, program if you will. All that is needed is to understand how this system in our brain works then put that onto a computer.

There is no accepted theory for the origin of physical consciousness. There ar only tenative hypotheses. However the majority of theories agree conciousness is not a product of algorithmic computation.

You don't know, neither do they. Hence, no-one even knows if machines with free will are even possible.

[Gamefreek_01]

You don't understand what you're saying, you're an idiot.

Your opinion. Not a fact.


Oh shut up, you pathetic narcissist. First you claimed you discovered the theory of relativity on your own, now you're claiming you've invented self-aware machines and strong AI. This is exactly why I said you needed to see a psychiatrist in the other thread.

Incredible, why do you take my words and twist them around just to make yuorself seem better? I did not discover the theory of relativity, i hope to invent self-aware machines.


It makes its own responses using algorithms programmed by humans.

Exactly.(claps in background) This is exactly what our brain does but the algorithms are in hormones or something, i dont remember.


So did my BASIC program above.

Exactly. That is how it would be done. Thanks for prooving me right. :p


How does a machine decide it wants to do something? Algorithms.

Again, EXACTLY! :D


There is no accepted theory for the origin of physical consciousness. There ar only tenative hypotheses. However the majority of theories agree conciousness is not a product of algorithmic computation.

You don't know, neither do they. Hence, no-one even knows if machines with free will are even possible.

Obviously you agree with those majority, why exactly, if its not algorithmic computation then what?

[Illuminatus]

Your opinion. Not a fact.

It's a fact.


Incredible, why do you take my words and twist them around just to make yuorself seem better? I did not discover the theory of relativity, i hope to invent self-aware machines.


Liar, on both counts.


Exactly.(claps in background) This is exactly what our brain does but the algorithms are in hormones or something, i dont remember.


There is no accepted theory for the origin of physical consciousness. There ar only tenative hypotheses. However the majority of theories agree consciousness is not a product of algorithmic computation.


Exactly. That is how it would be done. Thanks for prooving me right. :p


However the majority of theories agree conciousness is not a product of algorithmic computation.

1 + 1 = 2 is not Free will.



Again, EXACTLY! :D


1 + 1 = 2 is not Free will.


Obviously you agree with those majority, why exactly, if its not algorithmic computation then what?

It could work at the Quantum level.

[Gamefreek_01]

It's a fact.

If you believe that statement is a fact then you will need to go back to grade school, and i should probly ignore your responses, but i wont... unlike somone.


Liar, on both counts.


Again, wtf are you talking about, how can you tell me what i think? I know what i think. I have not discovered the theory of relativity, and i hope to invent such things, but i have not done it yet.


There is no accepted theory for the origin of physical consciousness. There ar only tenative hypotheses. However the majority of theories agree consciousness is not a product of algorithmic computation.

Why do you always look for scientists for answers to questions. Dont you do any thinking yourself? IT DOESNT MATTER if there are no "accepted" theories of it if we can sit here and figure out the truth then that should be enough. Tell me about what you think not others.


However the majority of theories agree conciousness is not a product of algorithmic computation.

1 + 1 = 2 is not Free will.

1 + 1 = 2 is not Free will.


I still dont see why that is so, what other way is there for things to happen? There cannot be though without some guidance. In a computer its algorithyms, while in our mind its hormones or emotions and such.


It could work at the Quantum level.

??? Are you suggesting that our incredible thought processes are created from little particles thousands of times smaller then the cells that make us up?

[Illuminatus]

If you believe that statement is a fact then you will need to go back to grade school, and i should probly ignore your responses, but i wont... unlike somone.

Ok, if you say so. Idiot.


Again, wtf are you talking about, how can you tell me what i think? I know what i think. I have not discovered the theory of relativity, and i hope to invent such things, but i have not done it yet.


LOL K! (Idiot)


Why do you always look for scientists for answers to questions. Dont you do any thinking yourself? IT DOESNT MATTER if there are no "accepted" theories of it if we can sit here and figure out the truth then that should be enough. Tell me about what you think not others.


Because otherwise I'd be trawling the internet exposing my ignorance about relativity, the big bang and how planets orbit. Or even pretending I know he future....


I still dont see why that is so, what other way is there for things to happen? There cannot be though without some guidance. In a computer its algorithyms, while in our mind its hormones or emotions and such.


It works by magic, like gravity!


??? Are you suggesting that our incredible thought processes are created from little particles thousands of times smaller then the cells that make us up?

Yes.

[Daniel]

How exaclty is it running and not living, because its made of gears, pumps, and switches and not viens and muscles?
I dont see that as a legitamet reason to saying its not alive.

I believe we've already gone over the deffinition of life (or lack of) in this thread or another. Need we do so again?

What do you mean by spiritual, other reality wise?

I would have thought it obvious.

From Dictionary.com spir·i·tu·al ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spr-ch-l)
adj.
Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material. See Synonyms at immaterial.
Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul.
Of, from, or relating to God; deific.
Of or belonging to a church or religion; sacred.
Relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural.


From Wikipedia.com:

Spirituality is, in a narrow sense, a concern with matters of the spirit. The spiritual, concerning as it does eternal verities regarding Man's ultimate nature, is often contrasted with the temporal or the worldly. It may include belief in supernatural powers, as in religion, but the emphasis is on personal experience. It may be an expression for life perceived as higher, more complex or more integrated with one's worldview, as contrasted with the merely sensual.

What evidence is there to think that they exist?

From Wikipedia.com:


The Spiritual and Science

Analysis of spiritual qualities in science is bedeviled by the imprecision of spiritual concepts, the subjectivity of spiritual experience, and the amount of work required to translate and map observable components of a spiritual system into empirical evidence. Nevertheless, certain connections have been made. Prominent scientists such as Niels Bohr, David Bohm and Anton Zeilinger have articulated spiritual consequences of quantum physics. The yearly fora between physicists (including Zeilinger) and the Dalai Lama, one of which has been published under the title of 'Discussions with the Dalai Lama', are exemplary explorations of the overlaps between these areas.

Rudolf Steiner and many people in the anthroposophic tradition have attempted to apply scientific methodology to the study of spiritual phenomena to shape a spiritual science. This is not an attempt to redefine natural science, but to explore inner experience, especially our thinking, with the same rigor as we apply to outer (sensory) experience. The scientific criteria of intersubjectivity and repeatability have rarely been met here, however.

And if they dont do anything then why does not having them make that thing not living? Its like saying because a car has no colour its not a car.

They are not alive, they have no purpose in life, they are simply a machine. It doesn't have feelings. It can't think. It's not alive.

As i said it mimics all human emotions and thought processes, while the only differences are structure and ability, functionality, however these are not relevent.

Key Word:Mimics

This implies a fake, a false, an illusion. A not real emotion. If it's not real, it's not true, not genuine.

I think that is a very easy question. There is a obvious difference when you consider someone who loves their dieing grandfather a lot and have a weak will power. That person will most likely take heavy emotional damage, while someone who doesnt give a care about their dieing relative they wont be affected much. And obviously you would act in the second case, and stop a more closely examine the first. It may even be a good idea to act sneakly and lie about how they died ( not tell that they were killed by unnatural means)

But how would you determine the case under less severe circumstances? I mean, how can you measure it? And what if the living person in question was willing to support their doomed relative by their own funds?


Acceptable is in terms of perception, we see that others around us have the same emotions and thus dont want to die. Like we dont, thus if we dont want to kill our selves then we dont want others to die. This makes us believe that others should be saved. While however in truth it doesnt matter, what only truely matters is what we need, what we feel. So then it comes to who ever has control, the parents have the closest control and thus make the decision to abort. Thus i believe there is no line, the only line is that you shouldnt kill yourself, or you shouldnt die. That doesnt mean that you shouldnt kill others, but they should fight back.

Id say the difference lies in terms of when the baby comes out, unborn being before, born being after. But it doesnt mean anything.

So you have no problem with murder?

True, you hold a good point. However there is only a small portion of people that would suffer heavy emotional damage.


Very well, but the problem is that you cannot measure who will and will not be affected. You cannot measure when someone's potential "value" in life will go up. You cannot measure people's lives on what that they can/cannot and may/may not do.

[Daniel]

Free will implies conciousness....

There are no concious machines.

Or fetuses.

Discuss.

But there is a difference. You see, a fetuses can feel pain, and can think in a very primative sense. Hunger. Food. Pain. It has the strong likihood, unless aborted, to rapidly develope conciousness, and because of this, free will (assuming free will exists).

However, machines can do none of the above.

[Gamefreek_01]

Ok, if you say so. Idiot.



LOL K! (Idiot)



Because otherwise I'd be trawling the internet exposing my ignorance about relativity, the big bang and how planets orbit. Or even pretending I know he future....



It works by magic, like gravity!



Yes.

Ill reply to your final statement as the rest is not relevent. Explain to me how particles can create free will. Please.

[Illuminatus]

Ill reply to your final statement as the rest is not relevent. Explain to me how particles can create free will. Please.

You said:


The idea is that eventually we will have robots with free will, though we dont today we will later on.


Maybe you should be explaining.

[Gamefreek_01]

I believe we've already gone over the deffinition of life (or lack of) in this thread or another. Need we do so again?

This i know, i suppose the question now is, is whether cells is a legitament feature to have life. It seems obvious that the structure of something shouldnt change what you use to describe it, but i guess its an opinion. In either case such a robot would still have free will and such just faster, and with machinery.


I would have thought it obvious.

From Dictionary.com

From Wikipedia.com:

Ok i understand now, well sort of. Though i dont want to get into a big dicussion i find it odd that something that exists (acording to the idea of a spirits) that it isnt made of anything. Implying that it doesnt exist.


From Wikipedia.com:

I find this odd, i mean how can they map out something that isnt made of anything?


They are not alive, they have no purpose in life, they are simply a machine. It doesn't have feelings. It can't think. It's not alive.

No offense, but wtf? Ive said this many times, we are under the assumption that it can think and feel exactly like a human. You argued it still wouldnt be alive because it doesnt have flesh, or a soul.


Key Word:Mimics

This implies a fake, a false, an illusion. A not real emotion. If it's not real, it's not true, not genuine.

It implys similarity along with difference. In this case same ability to think, learn, and so forth. Yet its made out of machinery. Also the way it learns or w/e is by programming while in humans its biological. Your only stating all the obvious. My point is with all this is that not having flesh shouldnt mean not alive. But however by the definition i guess that is wrong. But i still believe the definition should be changed. Do you agree?


But how would you determine the case under less severe circumstances? I mean, how can you measure it? And what if the living person in question was willing to support their doomed relative by their own funds?

Under less sever circumstances you would be more cautious and you would only act until you rechecked and you were 100% sure that nothing of much consquence will happen. As for how, there are many factors, how mcuh they like that relative, how emotional "moveable" they are, etc. If someone was willing to support them then the government shouldnt let them.


So you have no problem with murder?


If it creates a negative effect in society no, if it creates a good one then i would kill them myself.


Very well, but the problem is that you cannot measure who will and will not be affected. You cannot measure when someone's potential "value" in life will go up. You cannot measure people's lives on what that they can/cannot and may/may not do.

In some cases it might be difficult to measure such things but not in all, in the ones that are ez we can act.

[Daniel]

This i know, i suppose the question now is, is whether cells is a legitament feature to have life. It seems obvious that the structure of something shouldnt change what you use to describe it, but i guess its an opinion. In either case such a robot would still have free will and such just faster, and with machinery.

This has yet to be proven.

Ok i understand now, well sort of. Though i dont want to get into a big dicussion i find it odd that something that exists (acording to the idea of a spirits) that it isnt made of anything. Implying that it doesnt exist.

Most people have a basic concept of a spirit even if they don't personally believe such an entity exists. It's not my fault if you fail to comprehend it.

No offense, but wtf? Ive said this many times, we are under the assumption that it can think and feel exactly like a human. You argued it still wouldnt be alive because it doesnt have flesh, or a soul.

We are under no such assumption. We are talking about weather or not abortion is a right, and in general, the value of human life. Not the "possible/theoretical/ideal society value". There is nothing to indicate it can think at all nor to feel like a human nor to make intellegent choices. If it were to have such as well as everything else I mentioned, and there was no such thing as a soul and it's only limiting feature is flesh and blood, then I'd say you are correct. But none of those things are practical, probable, or proven.

My point is with all this is that not having flesh shouldnt mean not alive. But however by the definition i guess that is wrong. But i still believe the definition should be changed. Do you agree?

It's all good to have robots for service, warefare and perhaps even as companions, but I think it's absurd to change the deffinition of a word to fit a non-existing minority. So do I agree? No. I have the same thoughts about homosexual marriage... but that's another thread.


If it creates a negative effect in society no, if it creates a good one then i would kill them myself.

Wait... what? You think a negative effect in society there is no problem, but if it's a good one there's such a problem that you would kill the potential murderer - thus making ourself a murderer and subject to murderering as a result?

Or did you write that wrong?

In some cases it might be difficult to measure such things but not in all, in the ones that are ez we can act.

But such cases are few.

[Gamefreek_01]

This has yet to be proven.

Some day ill make it and ill show you!:p


Most people have a basic concept of a spirit even if they don't personally believe such an entity exists. It's not my fault if you fail to comprehend it.

I would like to learn. Right now i see it as a being existing outside of our reach, where it can effect our reality but we can touch it.


We are under no such assumption. We are talking about weather or not abortion is a right, and in general, the value of human life. Not the "possible/theoretical/ideal society value". There is nothing to indicate it can think at all nor to feel like a human nor to make intellegent choices. If it were to have such as well as everything else I mentioned, and there was no such thing as a soul and it's only limiting feature is flesh and blood, then I'd say you are correct. But none of those things are practical, probable, or proven.

Good you finally answered me. Now back to abortion. Id still say that the control is what tells rights. So if the mother has control then there should be on rights to interfere with her decision to abort. This is due to the fact that one childs life isnt infinitely valuable and can replaced with another one.


It's all good to have robots for service, warefare and perhaps even as companions, but I think it's absurd to change the deffinition of a word to fit a non-existing minority. So do I agree? No. I have the same thoughts about homosexual marriage... but that's another thread.


I do not talk about robot rights, i talk about the proper meaning of a word, life refers to an object that contains one or more cells, has free will, and so forth. I believe taking out the cells part would make it fine. But in this occasion this is a matter of opinions, as defintions define logic and thus i cant use logic to define something.


Wait... what? You think a negative effect in society there is no problem, but if it's a good one there's such a problem that you would kill the potential murderer - thus making ourself a murderer and subject to murderering as a result?

Or did you write that wrong?
[/qoute]

Yes, sry i ment it the other way around.:o

[QUOTE=Lpspider]
But such cases are few.

That may be so, and in those few cases we act.

[Daniel]

Some day ill make it and ill show you!:p

Very well, but until that day your ability to make such a creation in the future cannot be used as a valid arguement for the rights or potential free will of robotic beings.

I would like to learn. Right now i see it as a being existing outside of our reach, where it can effect our reality but we can touch it.

I suppose you could define it (the spiritual realm) as another "reality" outside our own which interacts with ours.

Good you finally answered me.

So are we in agreement?

Now back to abortion. Id still say that the control is what tells rights. So if the mother has control then there should be on rights to interfere with her decision to abort. This is due to the fact that one childs life isnt infinitely valuable and can replaced with another one.

There is no way to logically come to such a conclusion. If lives are not universally valueable at the same standard, then some lives are more valuable than others, which you agreed with. In such a case, the life of one child simply cannot be replaced because it's value could be so much more (or less). That child could grow up to do incredible things which would make him more valueable than most others, which would in turn play out in what I've been saying.

I do not talk about robot rights, i talk about the proper meaning of a word, life refers to an object that contains one or more cells, has free will, and so forth. I believe taking out the cells part would make it fine. But in this occasion this is a matter of opinions, as defintions define logic and thus i cant use logic to define something.

It may be in our best interest to create a new thread on the definition of life, but I'll continue here anyway.

According to Wikipedia:

A conventional definition
Although there is no universal agreement on the definition of life, the generally accepted biological manifestations are that life exhibits the following phenomena:

Organization - Living things are comprised of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
Metabolism - Metabolism produces energy by converting nonliving material into cellular components (synthesis) and decomposing organic matter (catalysis). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth - Growth results from a higher rate of synthesis than catalysis. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation - Adaptation is the accommodation of a living organism to its environment. It is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the individual's heredity.
Response to stimuli - A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism when touched to complex reactions involving all the senses of higher animals. Plants also respond to stimuli, but usually in ways very different from animals. A response is often expressed by motion: the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun or an animal chasing its prey.
Reproduction - The division of one cell to form two new cells is reproduction. Usually the term is applied to the production of a new individual (either asexually, from a single parent organism, or sexually, from two differing parent organisms), although strictly speaking it also describes the production of new cells in the process of growth.

Robots neither have (living cell) organization, metabolism, growth, nor reproduction. Even it's potential ability to adapt has yet to really been proven outside of moderate science fiction.

That may be so, and in those few cases we act.

On what standards?

[Gamefreek_01]

Very well, but until that day your ability to make such a creation in the future cannot be used as a valid arguement for the rights or potential free will of robotic beings.

Very true, though i tried to emphasize we were assuming that if robots like such existed, then asking the question what then does that do to the idea of life being special, but true until one exists it doesnt matter.


I suppose you could define it (the spiritual realm) as another "reality" outside our own which interacts with ours.

Ok, thoguht so.


So are we in agreement?


When you said "If it were to have such as well as everything else I mentioned, and there was no such thing as a soul and it's only limiting feature is flesh and blood, then I'd say you are correct." Yes, we are agreement with that. But not with the next part, i believe that computers will have free will, but you believe contrary. I only believe that because ive seen how it can be done.


There is no way to logically come to such a conclusion. If lives are not universally valueable at the same standard, then some lives are more valuable than others, which you agreed with. In such a case, the life of one child simply cannot be replaced because it's value could be so much more (or less). That child could grow up to do incredible things which would make him more valueable than most others, which would in turn play out in what I've been saying.

However the problem lies there, its a guessing game, because it is near to impossbile to predict the life of a person, you even agreed with that. Thus we dont know what worth someone has, so we average it, thus everyperson has the same worth until they get older and their true worth is found. Thus if they all have the same worth as a fetus then you can replace thier life with no worries. However this is a guessing game, becasue yes they may be better or worse. But because we dont know we must ignore such things and thus the only defining factor to keep the baby is what the mother thinks, if she will be burdoned then get rid of it, if she wants it then keep it.


It may be in our best interest to create a new thread on the definition of life, but I'll continue here anyway.

According to Wikipedia:



Robots neither have (living cell) organization, metabolism, growth, nor reproduction. Even it's potential ability to adapt has yet to really been proven outside of moderate science fiction.


Excellent point, i guess then the best to do is make a new definition for a robot with free will and other life-like qualities. Maybe robotic life or something along those lines.


On what standards?

Under the standards that make someone liekly to commit sucide or be burdoned by a death. This depedns on how incheck of their emotions they are, someone like me wouldnt care, much. While other people that cant control them selfs and care alot about the person dieing might be burdoned, and only in my case and near to it, would we act.

[Eddy]

Settle down you two. Don't make dad come in.

[Gamefreek_01]

Settle down you two. Don't make dad come in.

:D, and whos dad?

[Daniel]

Ok, thoguht so.

Of course, I know very little of your definitions of such terms, so I'm speculating.



When you said "If it were to have such as well as everything else I mentioned, and there was no such thing as a soul and it's only limiting feature is flesh and blood, then I'd say you are correct." Yes, we are agreement with that. But not with the next part, i believe that computers will have free will, but you believe contrary. I only believe that because ive seen how it can be done.

Oh Enlightened One, I am amazed.

However the problem lies there, its a guessing game, because it is near to impossbile to predict the life of a person, you even agreed with that. Thus we dont know what worth someone has, so we average it, thus everyperson has the same worth until they get older and their true worth is found. Thus if they all have the same worth as a fetus then you can replace thier life with no worries. However this is a guessing game, becasue yes they may be better or worse. But because we dont know we must ignore such things and thus the only defining factor to keep the baby is what the mother thinks, if she will be burdoned then get rid of it, if she wants it then keep it.

I'm on the verge of giving up. What you say is true if you hold such views, but I don't. We don't know what "worth" this person potentially has, but the vast majority of people have good productive lives. If they can be replaced by someone who has an equally productive life, why is it the mother's decision? And what does she have to loose?

Excellent point, i guess then the best to do is make a new definition for a robot with free will and other life-like qualities. Maybe robotic life or something along those lines.

I suppose you mean artifical intelligence. The point is that you can't change the definitions of terms and things that have been in existance in religion or in science forever. You can't change the definition of life. You can't change the definition of marriage. It just doesn't work that way.

[Under the standards that make someone liekly to commit sucide or be burdoned by a death. This depedns on how incheck of their emotions they are, someone like me wouldnt care, much. While other people that cant control them selfs and care alot about the person dieing might be burdoned, and only in my case and near to it, would we act.

That's still very vauge. Again, my point is you simply cannot accurately measure such things as the value of life or the gain/loss accessment of taking one's life.

[Gamefreek_01]

Of course, I know very little of your definitions of such terms, so I'm speculating.

Of course.


I'm on the verge of giving up. What you say is true if you hold such views, but I don't. We don't know what "worth" this person potentially has, but the vast majority of people have good productive lives. If they can be replaced by someone who has an equally productive life, why is it the mother's decision? And what does she have to loose?


Well simple put, the mother is the only one truely affected, or possibly affected the most, thus it should be her decision. And secondly i have seen many mothers around my school that miss class and have less time for school work and such because they have a child, or are pregnant. They have much to lose. As that can effect her future as well.


I suppose you mean artifical intelligence. The point is that you can't change the definitions of terms and things that have been in existance in religion or in science forever. You can't change the definition of life. You can't change the definition of marriage. It just doesn't work that way.


Yes, AI. The reason before i didnt use that is because in video games the term is used to describe the units ability to react to certain things. However the term in my opinion is used incorrectly here, as that kind of programming has no free will thus shouldnt be called "intelligent" but yes you are right i shouldnt change definitions. What i merely ment was to change the name of a definition or use a broad name like changing life to natural life, then using robots as being articial life. But i suppose in the end it doesnt matter much.


That's still very vauge. Again, my point is you simply cannot accurately measure such things as the value of life or the gain/loss accessment of taking one's life.

Of course, ill say it again. I understand that, but i am saying that we only would act in cases that are obviously not gonig to be affected.

[Daniel]

Well simple put, the mother is the only one truely affected, or possibly affected the most, thus it should be her decision. And secondly i have seen many mothers around my school that miss class and have less time for school work and such because they have a child, or are pregnant. They have much to lose. As that can effect her future as well.

While they may be affected the most, they're not the only ones. And secondly, that's why people should take precautions and not get pregnant if the first place if they don't wish to have the child.

Yes, AI. The reason before i didnt use that is because in video games the term is used to describe the units ability to react to certain things. However the term in my opinion is used incorrectly here, as that kind of programming has no free will thus shouldnt be called "intelligent" but yes you are right i shouldnt change definitions. What i merely ment was to change the name of a definition or use a broad name like changing life to natural life, then using robots as being articial life. But i suppose in the end it doesnt matter much.

My point in mentioning this is simply that it is artificial by definition.

Of course, ill say it again. I understand that, but i am saying that we only would act in cases that are obviously not gonig to be affected.

Which would be few. :p

[Gamefreek_01]

While they may be affected the most, they're not the only ones. And secondly, that's why people should take precautions and not get pregnant if the first place if they don't wish to have the child.

Not the only one? Of course they should take precautions, but that means nothing to argue here, as everyone here is not dumb enough not to prepare. Many cases it is by accident and thus abortion is nessicary.


My point in mentioning this is simply that it is artificial by definition.

oh.....:p ok i got you now, it is true though. Well what about clones, or are those just artificially altered?


Which would be few. :p

Yes, exactly. :D

[Daniel]

Not the only one? Of course they should take precautions, but that means nothing to argue here, as everyone here is not dumb enough not to prepare. Many cases it is by accident and thus abortion is nessicary.

Not the only one who cares. And while it may be an "accident" most "accidents" can be prevented. And people should try to take the consequences for their actions and accidents.


oh.....:p ok i got you now, it is true though. Well what about clones, or are those just artificially altered?

Clones, as in human clones, would be people. They'd be exactly like a person, just made through a slightly different method. I'm against cloning, but where a clone be born, they'd be normal.

[Mr. Random]

Why are you against cloning?

[Gamefreek_01]

Not the only one who cares. And while it may be an "accident" most "accidents" can be prevented. And people should try to take the consequences for their actions and accidents.




Clones, as in human clones, would be people. They'd be exactly like a person, just made through a slightly different method. I'm against cloning, but where a clone be born, they'd be normal.

Well, in some cases the accidents can only be prevented by not having sex, which is probably hard to do for some people.

Hmm, well then basically the only reason robots dont deserve rights is because they are made of metal? (if they existed with free will), as cloning and making robots are both like making life from nothing.

[JeremiahGateFan]

You can replicate a brain, but you can't replicate a mind, therefore I don't think any harm would come that I can foresee. I don't know about the ethics behind it.

[Daniel]

Well, in some cases the accidents can only be prevented by not having sex, which is probably hard to do for some people.

Such as what? And in such theoretical cases, I suspect they would be few.

Hmm, well then basically the only reason robots dont deserve rights is because they are made of metal? (if they existed with free will), as cloning and making robots are both like making life from nothing.

The difference is that a clone is still coming from a living human being. A robot is coming from lifeless steel. Robots have no free will, they cannot actually "think" beyond problem solving in which we've thought for them, and they are not alive. They have no value beyond their hardware costs.

[taylor09]

The only reason that I value human life is because to the unique thoughts, opinions and dispositions that each human has. A fetus has none of those and, in my eyes, does not have a valuable human life.

It could be argued that it has feelings, or at least the ability to feel, but so did my dog.

It could be argued that it has the potential for thought in the future, but so does my wasted sperm.

A fetus is just a slab of meat, and a rather small, ugly one at that.

A fetus isn't a human being until i have them on my speed dial.

i agree with you completely. commends.:D

[Yosh]

couldn't have said it any better.

[taylor09]

I'm glad you agree with me...yosh...because i AM right...a person isnt really a person until they can think for themselves, in which they can speak, think, and have an opinion. the thing about abortion is that it is only wrong if people use it as a form of birth control because THEY dont want to be responsible and use the proper protection that they should. Otherwise, i dont see any problem with it.

[Gamefreek_01]

Such as what? And in such theoretical cases, I suspect they would be few.

Well in cases, where birth control wouldn't have worked because of "chaos" or random chance. Yes they are few. But in those cases abortion is fine.


The difference is that a clone is still coming from a living human being. A robot is coming from lifeless steel. Robots have no free will, they cannot actually "think" beyond problem solving in which we've thought for them, and they are not alive. They have no value beyond their hardware costs.

A Clone is coming from the cells of a living being, are you now implying that cells are alive. As they are probobly much less "intelligent" then robots and are composed of elements which as you may note are not "alive".

[Illuminatus]

A clone is no different from any other human.

Clones happen naturally, they're called 'identical twins'.

[Daniel]

Well in cases, where birth control wouldn't have worked because of "chaos" or random chance. Yes they are few. But in those cases abortion is fine.

Chaos, eh? That's still pretty vauge. I suppose by chaos you mean irresponsibility? Random chance? I thought you didn't believe randomness exists? And is abortion "not fine" in all other situations?

A Clone is coming from the cells of a living being, are you now implying that cells are alive. As they are probobly much less "intelligent" then robots and are composed of elements which as you may note are not "alive".

A robot isn't more "intellegent" than even a sell because it does not possess genuine intelligence. It cannot "think". However, a cell (clone or unborn child) will eventually become a human being, who can genuinely think.

[Gamefreek_01]

A clone is no different from any other human.

Clones happen naturally, they're called 'identical twins'.

Good point, there is no difference but it shows that human life is simple to create thus its value drops alot. Probobly lower then a possible intelligent robot.

[Illuminatus]

It's not that simple, though.

Do you realise how much it would cost to clone a human as opposed to simply having sex?

[Gamefreek_01]

Chaos, eh? That's still pretty vauge. I suppose by chaos you mean irresponsibility? Random chance? I thought you didn't believe randomness exists? And is abortion "not fine" in all other situations?



A robot isn't more "intellegent" than even a sell because it does not possess genuine intelligence. It cannot "think". However, a cell (clone or unborn child) will eventually become a human being, who can genuinely think.

By chaos i mean seemingly random events occuring, in this case its the small chance birth control doesnt work. My belief is that abortion is fine any time, because human life has a value and in some cases that value is over weighed. By in this case the baby was not wanted, and thus there is a more likely cause for abortion.

Well a robot.... hmm. Ok theoretically if a robot could possess free will it could be more intelligent then any cell or un born baby. The point i want to make is that robots and clones can be "made" with similar ease this should make them have similar values of ethics.

[Gamefreek_01]

It's not that simple, though.

Do you realise how much it would cost to clone a human as opposed to simply having sex?

Sure, but how much would it cost to build a robot?

[Daniel]

By chaos i mean seemingly random events occuring, in this case its the small chance birth control doesnt work. My belief is that abortion is fine any time, because human life has a value and in some cases that value is over weighed. By in this case the baby was not wanted, and thus there is a more likely cause for abortion.

Well a robot.... hmm. Ok theoretically if a robot could possess free will it could be more intelligent then any cell or un born baby. The point i want to make is that robots and clones can be "made" with similar ease this should make them have similar values of ethics.

Seems like we keep going in circles and you keep changing your views.

[Mystic Chaos]

I belive it is. It really is a matter of what is best for both parent and child. In most cases it is unplaned to inmature parents who have no finnancal support and are simply not ready (and in a lot of cases they will NEVER be ready and the state should insure that they don't have children, if you gets who I am talking about). Adoption sounds good but the fact is that orphanges are extremly overcroweded and if a child isn't adopted by a certain age it become almost immpossible. There has also been a lot of abuse thre as well. If the child won't be able to be in a loving home then why should he/she be here. Not to mention the psyclogical problems of growing up in a mess-up home or knowing that you were never wanted.

[htmlmaster]

Abortion is killing, just tell me how that isn't wrong.

[Gamefreek_01]

Abortion is killing, just tell me how that isn't wrong.

OK, ez. Things are found wrong or right by what we determine. Killing isnt just, "wrong" automatically because you dont want to die and thus feel for others. It is determined through logic. Thus if killing the baby is best then do it.

[JeremiahGateFan]

WHEN DO YOU DRAW THE LINE??? Is killing an adult any more ok than killing a teen. Is killing a child more ok than killing a baby. Is killiing a baby more ok than killing an egg. They are life and most importantly human life. It is murder to have an abortion.

[Krovisser]

WHEN DO YOU DRAW THE LINE??? Is killing an adult any more ok than killing a teen. Is killing a child more ok than killing a baby. Is killiing a baby more ok than killing an egg. They are life and most importantly human life. It is murder to have an abortion.

You're over-simplifying this. There's obviously a line drawn in the US public's eye of before birth, way before birth. Yes, having an abortion is "murder". It is killing a potential life. It's also possibly saving that life from harsh-treatment, bad parents, etcetera.

If we were to follow your logic, we wouldn't be using condoms and screwing all the time to create as much life as possible--in order to give "everyone" a chance.

[JeremiahGateFan]

You don't have the right to decide if that child want's to live or not. I believe that if you make it, your responcible for it.

[Krovisser]

You don't have the right to decide if that child want's to live or not. I believe that if you make it, your responcible for it.

Obviously some states disagree, since they allow abortions. I don't think abortion is "right", but I do think it's better than having irresponsible parents raise the child, and in extreme cases. However, there's always putting the child up for adoption.

Also, I find the morning after pill harmless, and a great alternative to abortion. So is taking the morning after pill "murder" to you? It's meant to be taken before fertilization, so it's not abortion, it's contraception. And even if it happens right after fertilization, there's only 2 cells worth of human "life" there.

But all of this can be avoided by using condoms.

[JeremiahGateFan]

Obviously some states disagree, since they allow abortions. I don't think abortion is "right", but I do think it's better than having irresponsible parents raise the child, and in extreme cases. However, there's always putting the child up for adoption.

Also, I find the morning after pill harmless, and a great alternative to abortion. So is taking the morning after pill "murder" to you? It's meant to be taken before fertilization, so it's not abortion, it's contraception. And even if it happens right after fertilization, there's only 2 cells worth of human "life" there.

But all of this can be avoided by using condoms.

If they kill a fertile egg, it is murder. Yes however, that is true.

[Double Big J]

But all of this can be avoided by using condoms.
That's not entirely true, condoms aren't 100% effective - but yes it does help.

[Daniel]

You're over-simplifying this. There's obviously a line drawn in the US public's eye of before birth, way before birth. Yes, having an abortion is "murder". It is killing a potential life. It's also possibly saving that life from harsh-treatment, bad parents, etcetera.

If we were to follow your logic, we wouldn't be using condoms and screwing all the time to create as much life as possible--in order to give "everyone" a chance.

I've said this again and again, but you cannot judge the killing of a child based on what he might or might not do, or what is parents may or may not do.

As for the morning after pill, under most situations it is a watered-down version of abortion.

[Krovisser]

If they kill a fertile egg, it is murder. Yes however, that is true.

I disagree totally with that. "Killing" a fertile egg is no different than popping a zit in my book.

[Krovisser]

I've said this again and again, but you cannot judge the killing of a child based on what he might or might not do, or what is parents may or may not do.

As for the morning after pill, under most situations it is a watered-down version of abortion.

That's why I added "also possibly" as to not be associated with my reasoning but as to still try and sway one towards my opinion.

Under most situations? Under most situations it prevents fertilization. The sperm never enters the egg--because there is no egg.

[Daniel]

Under most situations? Under most situations it prevents fertilization. The sperm never enters the egg--because there is no egg.

And in that case it wouldn't be abortion or a murder. But there's still a decent possibility, I believe, that the sperm could enter the egg - which would make it murder. Because of this, I would recommened against using the morning after pill whatsoever.

[Weirdesky]

I believe the line is drawn when the baby is seperate from the mother, not inside of her

[JeremiahGateFan]

Why do you say that? Why does the location of life dictate the value of life?

[Weirdesky]

No, but as long as the baby is inside the mother, it is part of her. We have no right to instigate our will on her body.

[JeremiahGateFan]

It isn't a part of her. It has a different genetic makeup. Half of the time, it's a different gender, therefore, It's a completely different entity. If I get a parasite, that parasite doesn't become a part of me. It is an enemy. In the same way, when a man and women produce a child, it is it's own entity. Instead of being an enemy, it is what should be a beloved child.

And who gave the right of abortion to the women anyway. It isn't her child entirely, it is also the child of the father.

[Weirdesky]

But if she won't survive the pregnancy, than should she die?

[JeremiahGateFan]

First of all, very few women die nowadays. Second of all, who are we to decide who lives and who dies. The woman is certainly not qualified, because anyone with any brains at all would choose a child's life over their own. If you would deny a child the right to breath his first breath and enjoy the sweet satisfactions of life for his first time just to allow yourself to enjoy those pleasures again and again and again, you are greedy, and you are willing to kill for pleasure.

What if your son was trapped in a burning building? Would you go in for him. If there's a snowball's chance in hell that you and your son will make it out alive, it is wrong of you to not go in for him(and I'm not saying you wouldn't, I'm just trying to compare this to the other scenario). And since you don't know everything, there is always a potential"snowball's chance".

Anyway the point is, she should be willing to give her life for her son/daughter and if she isn't, it is to bad, because it is not her right to choose.

[Weirdesky]

This "baby" is not a child. It doesn't have a brain, or a unique footprint, all it has is its DNA, and if we say that's a person then so was Terrt Schiavo, after the accident.

[JeremiahGateFan]

He is a person. That DNA is the code of life. If someone cuts some skin off your arm, it grows back. A baby is just in the process of growing it for the first time, but the code of its brain and arms is already predetermined.
Edit:Terrt Schiavo?

[Panthrophile]

Yes. Babies aren't smart. Not people.

[JeremiahGateFan]

They have the code for intelligence. It would be like if you were just a soul without a body. You still are valuable.

[Panthrophile]

No. There is no code for intelligence. Intelligence is not an innate quality of man; it is aquired. A fetus is not intelligent. It's not a person.

[Daniel]

No. There is no code for intelligence. Intelligence is not an innate quality of man; it is aquired. A fetus is not intelligent. It's not a person.

They have the ability to develope intelligence that no other creature can. I think there is an intelligence on different levels. The ability to think is an innate quality of man, as is the ability to learn. Intelligence, knowledge, they are aquired.

[Panthrophile]

I doubt very much that a foetus can think. What would he think about? He knows nothing. Can thought exist without knowledge? Can personhood exist without thought? I would would answer 'no' to both those questions and declare that, despite it's potential to develop, a fetus is not a person and abortion is not wrong.

[Weirdesky]

I agree with Panthrophile

[JeremiahGateFan]

I evaluate it like this; there are two conditions that must be true in order for abortion to be wrong. There's nothing wrong with killing a "potential human" that I can think of unless these are true.
1. We must have souls.
2. Souls must exists from the point of conception.

I do believe in souls but I'm not sure if they exist from the point of conception. I would think they do, but I don't know. Now it becomes religious and since religion is not accepted by the government, this reasoning cannot stand in court.

[Weirdesky]

Yes, therefore, abortion should be legal because this is based of off religion

[JeremiahGateFan]

Yes, unless someone could come up with another argument against it. I still hope that we do have souls and I'de rather be safe than sorry with something like this. So I will encourage my future wife to not use drugs or abort later on. The wierd thing is, we pervert ourselves in so many ways, and yet we condemn specific perversations because they are the one's that our governments label as wrong.

[Weirdesky]

Yes, true.

[TheLizard]

I belive that abortion is awful and to say it is morally correct is just wrong on many levels. how can you say to take a life to keep your own status quo is not violating the many laws against MURDER. ABORTION IS FOR SCUM

[Soniceffect]

I believe abortion should be for 'extreme' cirmcumstances ..... Serious deformity, rape etc ... My fiancee did this and wishes she hadn`t every day of her life. If it wasn`t allowed, she wouldn`t be in the state she is now.

[Jerlene]

I doubt very much that a foetus can think. What would he think about? He knows nothing. Can thought exist without knowledge? Can personhood exist without thought? I would would answer 'no' to both those questions and declare that, despite it's potential to develop, a fetus is not a person and abortion is not wrong.
A fetus responds though. We all start off as fetuses. Why would you not consider a fetus to be a person. Because it can't think? So people with severe retardation aren't actually people? They can't support themselves physically or mentally. They don't think. They know nothing. Abortion IS wrong, not only because it's taking a persons life but because of how it's done. It's wrong on many levels, not unlike your posts.

[Daniel]

A fetus responds though. We all start off as fetuses. Why would you not consider a fetus to be a person. Because it can't think? So people with severe retardation aren't actually people? They can't support themselves physically or mentally. They don't think. They know nothing. Abortion IS wrong, not only because it's taking a persons life but because of how it's done. It's wrong on many levels, not unlike your posts.

This may shock you, but I think that Panthrophile believes something along those lines.

[Jerlene]

More like the exact opposite.

[JeremiahGateFan]

I think what LP spider meant when he said that was that he(panthrophile) does believe that retarded people arn't people. I personally, disagree.

[zrts2002]

people are people, retarded or not, i used to babysit for a kid that was M.R.(Mentally Retarded)

[Zerabira]

I don't believe anyone has the right to terminate a life whether its a few weeks in to creation or several years in to life - it all amounts to murder.

I don't understand how some women can claim 'it's my body it's my right' if you don't want to have a child keep your legs crossed it's as simple as that.

The argument about disabled babies is null and void simply by looking at the number of disbled people who lead a fullfilling and rewarding life that others benefit from, imagine what the workd would lose if their mothers had said - 'oh it's disabled I'm going to murder it'.

There is also an arguement that if a woman is raped and gets pregnant then abortion is an option, well guess what adoption is an option too.

Bottom line is that there is never ever an excuse for murdering a defenceless life. My apologies if my views seem frank and blunt I do feel strongly about this issue and I don't wish to offend anyone.

[dojo]

I am a woman. I believe that it's MY right to decide what to do with my life and the life I have inside. I don't consider abortion to be a good "contraceptive" as some use it, but I don't think ANYONE has the right to tell ME what to do. I always hated this. There are people who are barely surviving in orphanages (I lived in one till 4). You don't want to know how it feels there. You don't want to know how life can be for a kid who's living in a poor family, begging on the streets or trying to survive in the orphanages. In some of my dark days I wished I wasn't born at all. But she did bring me to life and then thrown me as garbage in an orphanage. I was lucky to be "picked" by my father and his family. I had a chance and now I am happy. But there are so many other sad stories that end even worse.

So .. there are moments in life when a woman should really think about this and not destroy a life by giving it.

[JeremiahGateFan]

I don't believe anyone has the right to terminate a life whether its a few weeks in to creation or several years in to life - it all amounts to murder.

I don't understand how some women can claim 'it's my body it's my right' if you don't want to have a child keep your legs crossed it's as simple as that.

The argument about disabled babies is null and void simply by looking at the number of disbled people who lead a fullfilling and rewarding life that others benefit from, imagine what the workd would lose if their mothers had said - 'oh it's disabled I'm going to murder it'.

There is also an arguement that if a woman is raped and gets pregnant then abortion is an option, well guess what adoption is an option too.

Bottom line is that there is never ever an excuse for murdering a defenceless life. My apologies if my views seem frank and blunt I do feel strongly about this issue and I don't wish to offend anyone.I agree mostly. I disagree about the raped part, I think it still should be considered just as wrong. And about the "murder the disabled" part, that's what we used to do. They were considered demonic possesions or just plain evil. In some societies, they were just viewed as weak. Sparta believed that everyone had to serve military and if you couldn't? Not good.

I am a woman. I believe that it's MY right to decide what to do with my life and the life I have inside. I don't consider abortion to be a good "contraceptive" as some use it, but I don't think ANYONE has the right to tell ME what to do. I always hated this. There are people who are barely surviving in orphanages (I lived in one till 4). You don't want to know how it feels there. You don't want to know how life can be for a kid who's living in a poor family, begging on the streets or trying to survive in the orphanages. In some of my dark days I wished I wasn't born at all. But she did bring me to life and then thrown me as garbage in an orphanage. I was lucky to be "picked" by my father and his family. I had a chance and now I am happy. But there are so many other sad stories that end even worse.

So .. there are moments in life when a woman should really think about this and not destroy a life by giving it.In retrospective, was life worth it. If so, you should reconsider your view.

[Zerabira]

I am a woman. I believe that it's MY right to decide what to do with my life and the life I have inside. I don't consider abortion to be a good "contraceptive" as some use it, but I don't think ANYONE has the right to tell ME what to do. I always hated this. There are people who are barely surviving in orphanages (I lived in one till 4). You don't want to know how it feels there. You don't want to know how life can be for a kid who's living in a poor family, begging on the streets or trying to survive in the orphanages. In some of my dark days I wished I wasn't born at all. But she did bring me to life and then thrown me as garbage in an orphanage. I was lucky to be "picked" by my father and his family. I had a chance and now I am happy. But there are so many other sad stories that end even worse.

So .. there are moments in life when a woman should really think about this and not destroy a life by giving it.



That can be spun on it's head - look at how many adopted children have grown up to enjoy life and contribute to the world we live in - you yourself are contributing to this forum and by your own definition you are happy therefore being born has facilitated that happiness.

I too am a woman, and I agree no one can tell you what to do with YOUR body but what gives you the right to destroy another life dispite where it is growing, would you consider you have the right to give a pill to a pregnant woman to kill the unborn child without harming the woman with or without her knowledge? I doubt it very much - so why would it be ok for any woman have the right to do that to a life inside them.

The life was given when the woman got pregnant - not given when the baby is born, yes it is true that some people have really bad lives and in hindsight I guess those people have wished they'd never been born, but in most cases they should and often do turn things around for themselves, life is funny like that it gives you the opportunity to take control and make good, imagine never having that opportunity.

Something I thought about after typing my reply yesterday is that I watched a documentary about a woman who had a disease which she had a 50 % chance of passing on to children, still she decided to get herself pregnant and when she had the tests to see if her baby had the same disease it came back positive. She decided to abort her pregnancy and then had a funeral for the baby - to me that is hypocrisy at its finest, murder a child for no real good reason and then mourn it's passing. The reason I said no good reason is that the woman herself had lived a good life was married and was able to get pregnant why stop her unborn child having the right to do the same.

[zrts2002]

and with the abortion problembs today, there are too many risks to doing this dangerous operation. and with the girls under the age of 18, yhey can easily get rid of a baby without the parents knowing.

[Daniel]

I am a woman. I believe that it's MY right to decide what to do with my life and the life I have inside. I don't consider abortion to be a good "contraceptive" as some use it, but I don't think ANYONE has the right to tell ME what to do. I always hated this.

Perhaps people don't have the right to tell you what to do, but in some situations, there is the right to tell you what not to do. If you don't want to have a child, then don't have sex with some guy.

There are people who are barely surviving in orphanages (I lived in one till 4).

Some, yes. But most of then would rather have life than not be born at all. It's should be thier choice. You can't judge the potential value of a life based on how their life might end up.

You don't want to know how it feels there. You don't want to know how life can be for a kid who's living in a poor family, begging on the streets or trying to survive in the orphanages. In some of my dark days I wished I wasn't born at all. But she did bring me to life and then thrown me as garbage in an orphanage. I was lucky to be "picked" by my father and his family. I had a chance and now I am happy. But there are so many other sad stories that end even worse.

So what if you were aborted. Would that have been better? And as for your orphanage experience, you remember how horrible and heartbreaking it was when you were four?

[Panthrophile]

I think what LP spider meant when he said that was that he(panthrophile) does believe that retarded people arn't people. I personally, disagree.
Panthrophile believes that orangutans are people, remember?

There might be some human so completely disabled as to not be considered a person but, I would think, there aren't many. Unless you count Terry Schaivo as retarded; I'd sooner call her dead.

[JeremiahGateFan]

Yes, I remember you saying that. You base humanity's importance on inteligence. For some reason, this bothers me.

[zrts2002]

this bothers me too

[Illuminatus]

You base humanity's importance on inteligence. For some reason, this bothers me.

Quoted for truth *nudge, wink*

[System_0101]

I do not like abortion. But at the same time I'm not sure that right should be rescinded quickly. Adoption is the only humane and ethical option for an 'unwanted child' (I hate that term, put yourself in the child's shoes).

If any administration would give enough funding to properly maintain as many orphanages as would be needed, and ensure the quality of life would be decent for those poor souls, I would be in favor of banning abortion in all but the most extreme cases.

[zrts2002]

adoption is different from abortion. girls all they do is say "oh my god im going to have an abortion im going to die.", and they shouldn't take one persons life just for theirs, and then they can have a baby and go thru the process again.

[Panthrophile]

You base humanity's importance on inteligence. For some reason, this bothers me.
I don't value humanity based on intelligence, I define it as the ability to think.

I'm not entirely sure what I mean when I say 'think', but I am quite certain that no fetus is capable of it and, therefore, no fetus counts as a person. Neither do newborns, I would guess. Toddlers, yes. Yes for apes, as well.

[JeremiahGateFan]

That makes more since. I don't know, you might be right in that. If someone isn't aware of what they have, does it affect them if you take it?

[Krovisser]

As far as I am concerned, as long as the baby is attached to the mother, then abortion is fine. Adoption is better, but I've no right to tell some woman that she must keep her child, especially when the child is better off not living. Ohhhh but I can't make that call can I, so we should force ALL of them to keep their babies...

rant>

I hate the ideology that "life is fair", when it is not. People are so caught up in their bourgeois lifestyle that they forget that everyone is going to die, some people aren't fit for society, and that "killing is horrible". I like social darwinism better.

Yes, we are human and we have the rationale to lead us to a general good, a universal good. We have the Golden Rule, but it has become so perverted from our surreal, romantic-movie like expectations of the world that we let bad people get away with things and sit at home and let the world go to hell.

Point: Abortion should be legal. If it better suits the situation of the parent(s) and most possibly the child, then have the baby aborted. If the woman was raped, it is her choice. If the woman is too young, it's her parent's choice. Not every life is precious.

/rant

[StradivariusTV]

^What he said.

It would be great if no one ever needed an abortion, but that's just not how it works.

[zrts2002]

It would be great if no one ever needed an abortion, but that's just not how it works.
this is the thing i agree with completely

[Weirdesky]

What if contraception fails?
What if you intended on having the baby, but it turns out having the baby would kill you?

[Daniel]

What if contraception fails?
What if you intended on having the baby, but it turns out having the baby would kill you?

These cases are rare in the making, no pun intended.

[Daniel]

^What he said.

It would be great if no one ever needed an abortion, but that's just not how it works.

No one "needs" an abortion... people "want" an abortion to take "the easy way out" in just about every case I can come up with.

[Zerabira]

What if contraception fails?
What if you intended on having the baby, but it turns out having the baby would kill you?

If contraception fails you obviously didn't protect yourself enough especially if you didn't want to have a baby - at the end of the day it takes two to make a baby (turkey basters aside) so it should take two to use contraception. If you wer eunlucky enough to get BOTH contraception methods fail at the same moment well there's plenty of childless couples who would give that baby a fantastic future in the adoption environment why does murder have to be an option?

If you intended having a baby when you had a medical condition that could mean having a baby kills you then quite frankly you would be the irresponsible one, why should the baby's life be ended? If you have got pregnant intentionally and didn't know you had a problem and it could kill you being pregnant then I fail to see why a woman would consider the life of her wanted unborn baby any less than her own.

Personally if that happened to me I would take my chances on the operating table and give the same chances to my baby, if I were not to survive then the baby would still have it's father/extended family around it to help guide him/her, if I were to survive and the baby not then at least I could mourn the loss with no regret or guilt, and accept that it just wasn't meant to be.

I am starting to think that the whole abortion thing is just down to the value that people put on human life, imho a life is a life no matter what age,colour, ability or creed.

[Zerabira]

No one "needs" an abortion... people "want" an abortion to take "the easy way out" in just about every case I can come up with.

I couldn't agree more

[Weirdesky]

If you intended having a baby when you had a medical condition that could mean having a baby kills you then quite frankly you would be the irresponsible one, why should the baby's life be ended? If you have got pregnant intentionally and didn't know you had a problem and it could kill you being pregnant then I fail to see why a woman would consider the life of her wanted unborn baby any less than her own.

The reason I brought this up is because my stepmother had this choice. She chose abortion. Also, how is an unborn fetus more important then the adult woman, who has family and friends to mourn the life of the woman, but not the fetus.

[zrts2002]

No one "needs" an abortion... people "want" an abortion to take "the easy way out" in just about every case I can come up with.
this is right. you dont "need" an aborton.

[zrts2002]

These cases are rare in the making, no pun intended.
i think this is correct also.

[Weirdesky]

this is right. you dont "need" an aborton.

unless having the baby will kill you

[Weirdesky]

this is right. you dont "need" an aborton.

Sometimes you do.

[LordGrace]

No one "needs" an abortion... people "want" an abortion to take "the easy way out" in just about every case I can come up with.

No offense, but I don't see how you can say that, as a male who would never have to make such a choice.

[Daniel]

No offense, but I don't see how you can say that, as a male who would never have to make such a choice.

The only time that I can currently think of in which an abortion would be a "need" is when, as mentioned, the woman's life is at risk - and such cases, while they happen, are not the norm.

The reason I brought this up is because my stepmother had this choice. She chose abortion. Also, how is an unborn fetus more important then the adult woman, who has family and friends to mourn the life of the woman, but not the fetus.

I'm not saying she made the wrong decision - possibly the otherway. This is where my views on this are gray. But to answer your question, and adult woman doesn't have her whole life ahead of her; her child does. I think the ideal method (my ideal, of course) would be that if the woman (or man) has a medical condition that will effect the health of either the mother or the child, they should simply abstain from getting pregnant. Now, if a medical condition arises after the conception, that's a different story.

[LordGrace]

I think people too stupid to raise children should have abortions.

[Zerabira]

The reason I brought this up is because my stepmother had this choice. She chose abortion. Also, how is an unborn fetus more important then the adult woman, who has family and friends to mourn the life of the woman, but not the fetus.

Do you measure the importance of life by the number of family and friends who will mourn it's passing?

Neither the baby nor the mother is more important a life is a life.

[Bennett_Star]

Do you measure the importance of life by the number of family and friends who will mourn it's passing?

Neither the baby nor the mother is more important a life is a life.

That is the thing; an unborn fetus is not an equal "life". While it is living, so are many of your skin cells. But you wouldn't say "I just rubbed some human lives off my arm!" Why? Because it is not an equal life.

[Zerabira]

That is the thing; an unborn fetus is not an equal "life". While it is living, so are many of your skin cells. But you wouldn't say "I just rubbed some human lives off my arm!" Why? Because it is not an equal life.

You say it's an unborn fetus - interesting considering that once it is born it becomes a baby not a born fetus in your eyes?

I call it a baby right from the second of conception, that's because no one can say when the fetus (unborn or not) becomes aware, or gains any of the strange methods people use to determine when a fetus becomes a baby.

To say it isn't an equal life doesn't cut the mustard - why isn't it an equal life? women can have abortions up until 24 weeks of pregnancy - it has been proven that 50 babies a year minimum survive out of the womb at 23 weeks.

I'd call that murder.

[Bennett_Star]

You say it's an unborn fetus - interesting considering that once it is born it becomes a baby not a born fetus in your eyes?

If you are trying to point out my redundancy when saying "unborn fetus", then you are correct. I am only stressing the point.

I call it a baby right from the second of conception, that's because no one can say when the fetus (unborn or not) becomes aware, or gains any of the strange methods people use to determine when a fetus becomes a baby.

A fetus is no more a baby than an acorn is a tree.

To say it isn't an equal life doesn't cut the mustard - why isn't it an equal life? women can have abortions up until 24 weeks of pregnancy - it has been proven that 50 babies a year minimum survive out of the womb at 23 weeks.
It isn't an equal life for the same reason your skin cells are not an equal life. They do not have sentience or act independently. You don't try to protect your skin cells in the shower.

If you want to get it changed to 22 weeks or so, then fight the good fight. But I would very much be interested to know the definition of "survive" in this instance. Does one minute of suffering outside the womb count? Or did they give them up to a year?
I'd call that murder.
I would call it an abortion.

[Panthrophile]

I call it a baby right from the second of conception, that's because no one can say when the fetus (unborn or not) becomes aware, or gains any of the strange methods people use to determine when a fetus becomes a baby.
Wikipedia says that philosophers say that a person must be "capable of reasoning, [be] self-conscious, and [have] an identity that persists through time."

A fetus may be able to taste and smell amniotic fluid, but nothing else and so the senses of taste and smell are nullified by monotony. No fetus can see. Though I've no proof, I very much doubt that any fetus can gain any amount of meaningful information from his ears. And, without any other sense to reinforce it, touch is so abstract that it is meaningless.

Even if the fetus were to have any useful senses, I doubt that he would have the cognitive ability to align them in any type of reason. If the fetus is not capable of reason, then the fetus cannot be a person. Non-persons cannot be murdered, only killed.

Without any knowledge or understanding of other beings, for lack of useful senses and the ability to reason, the fetus cannot possibly have any knowledge or understanding of itself. The fetus cannot be self-conscious and if the fetus is not self-conscious, then the fetus cannot be a person. Non-persons cannot be murdered, only killed.

Without any knowledge of any other being or of it's self or any ability to meaningfully interact with anyone, the fetus cannot possibly have an identity that persists through time and if the fetus have an identity that persists through time, then the fetus cannot be a person. Non-persons cannot be murdered, only killed.

Fetuses meet none of the criteria for personhood; they are simply not people and do not warrent any of the protections afforded to people. They can be killed at will.

[Daniel]

Non-persons cannot be murdered, only killed.

Panthrophile, I believe I already know your views on this... but what he is saying is basically equilvalent to including the [severely] mentally handicaped and infants. Infantcide is not murder, because a day hold/month old/year old child cannot really reason any more than a fetus.

It isn't an equal life for the same reason your skin cells are not an equal life. They do not have sentience or act independently. You don't try to protect your skin cells in the shower.

The difference is that a fetus, an unborn child, a baby is constantly growing - constantly progressing towards birth and adulthood: skin cells are not. Within a few days/weeks organs are already developing. They have a humanoid look. There is a very real difference between a fetus and a skin cell.

[Bennett_Star]

Panthrophile, I believe I already know your views on this... but what he is saying is basically equilvalent to including the [severely] mentally handicaped and infants. Infantcide is not murder, because a day hold/month old/year old child cannot really reason any more than a fetus.

Let's say there is a baby at the level of reasoning of a fetus. Then it will die regardless. If anything, it is the moral thing to do to find a quick easy way to kill and dispose of the brain dead baby. At least it would be dignified and resource saving.

The difference is that a fetus, an unborn child, a baby is constantly growing - constantly progressing towards birth and adulthood: skin cells are not. Within a few days/weeks organs are already developing. They have a humanoid look. There is a very real difference between a fetus and a skin cell.

If the potential to become a human being is key, then what is so different about wasting sperm? I mean, that is a bunch of potential babies right there. Where do you draw this arbitrary line of potential? It is possible that all those skin cells that you "murder" in the shower could have been cloned, so we don't need to stop at sperm even. It would be endless.

I think, therefore I am.

[Panthrophile]

Panthrophile, I believe I already know your views on this...
Aye. Just restating for the new-comers.

[Daniel]

Let's say there is a baby at the level of reasoning of a fetus. Then it will die regardless. If anything, it is the moral thing to do to find a quick easy way to kill and dispose of the brain dead baby. At least it would be dignified and resource saving.

Where do you personally think the line should be drawn?

If the potential to become a human being is key, then what is so different about wasting sperm? I mean, that is a bunch of potential babies right there. Where do you draw this arbitrary line of potential? It is possible that all those skin cells that you "murder" in the shower could have been cloned, so we don't need to stop at sperm even. It would be endless.

I think, therefore I am.

I draw the line at conception. The sperm has no ability to become a human without the egg, and vice versa. But together, the chances of it developing are high.

[Zerabira]

Quite honestly I see no reason to continue arguing this issue with people like bennett and panth - they lose their own arguement when asked the question would you care if your 7 month old 'unborn fetus' died in the womb?

If you say would then I am afraid you have shot yourself in the foot because by your own definition the life has no value.

If you say you wouldn't then quite frankly I think you are lying. I'm quite sure from reading your posts you are male so it may be easy for you to dismiss a miscarriage before it ever happens to you but there are hundreds of men who don't cope well with the loss of their 'unborn fetus' at any stage of the pregnancy be it 18 weeks or 8 months.

I'm very grateful for the opportunity to state my views and opinions on this subject so thanks to the admin team here.

[Zerabira]

ooo lag posted twice sorry for that

[Bennett_Star]

would you care if your 7 month old 'unborn fetus' died in the womb?


If you say would then I am afraid you have shot yourself in the foot because by your own definition the life has no value.

If you say you wouldn't then quite frankly I think you are lying. I'm quite sure from reading your posts you are male so it may be easy for you to dismiss a miscarriage before it ever happens to you but there are hundreds of men who don't cope well with the loss of their 'unborn fetus' at any stage of the pregnancy be it 18 weeks or 8 months.


Expecting and planning for a baby for seven months (also well past the point where abortion should be legal by the way), and then having a miscarriage would likely be unsettling. Even before seven months, it may be difficult. Let's try, 1 month instead. If someone doesn't care, they don't think life is important? Have you ever killed an ant before? A bug? A plant? Pulled weeds? Skin cells? Actually a bug and an ant probably have more thought going for them than a fetus. Do you think those people that do kill those things should be arrested for murder? Personhood, not simple life, is where I draw the line.


Quite honestly I see no reason to continue arguing this issue with people like bennett and panth - they lose their own arguement
I'm very grateful for the opportunity to state my views and opinions on this subject so thanks to the admin team here.

I found these statements to be somewhat ironic and contradictory.

[Daniel]

Personhood, not simple life, is where I draw the line.

Well, how do you define personhood?

[LordGrace]

Again, I do not understand how as males you can sit there and speak so strongly against this subject.

You cannot be pregnant. You cannot feel the crazy emotions pregnancy gives a woman. You also have no real commitment to it. You could easily walk away, deny that it's yours or whatever. A woman doesn't have that option, it's inside her.

A young girl, say under sixteen without her own home or any family or partner to support her - are you saying she doesn't have the right to ana bortion? Ok, so you say it's her respnsibility if she got intot hat mess. What if it wasn't her fault - wat if it was a result of some kind of abuse, is she still wrong?

What about disability. If you know that your child is going to be born with problems that willc ause it pain or every second of its probably short life, is it still wrong to think it best for your child to not be born at all that suffer such poor life quality?

Yes, a fetus is a living thing, and you do have reason for calling it murder, but surely sometimes death is better than life?

If this is wrong, then so many people wouldn't commit suicide.

[Panthrophile]

Quite honestly I see no reason to continue arguing this issue with people like bennett and panth - they lose their own arguement when asked the question would you care if your 7 month old 'unborn fetus' died in the womb?
My Nepenthes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nepenthes) is dying.

Mom didn't like where I had it in the bathroom and she put it on the porch to be dried in the sun and mauled by raccoons. This pains me, but I don't call it murder and I'll not outlaw the killing of Nepenthes. The plant is no doubt going to die but, like the unborn baby, it has no concept of life and cannot be victimized by it's death. Were it not for my loss, this would be an entirely victimless killing. If all those involved think it's best, then abortion is also quite victimless.

The question, in my mind, would be whether or not it's fair for the woman alone to decide if the fetus is to be aborted. Should the father or parents have any legal right in the matter? I would say no to the parents and maybe to the father, though I'm not sure what rights exactly the father should have.

[Panthrophile]

I'm very grateful for the opportunity to state my views and opinions on this subject so thanks to the admin team here.
I would too, actually. It's rather rare that a member might be able to argue against the site owner's ideas and core beliefs as often as I do and still be allowed to post, much less moderate. Indeed, the free and open discussion that we have here is a terribly special thing.

[Daniel]

Again, I do not understand how as males you can sit there and speak so strongly against this subject.

I can say it because I devotely believe it.

You cannot be pregnant. You cannot feel the crazy emotions pregnancy gives a woman. You also have no real commitment to it. You could easily walk away, deny that it's yours or whatever. A woman doesn't have that option, it's inside her.

Yes, were I the father of an unborn child, those would be my options. However, personally I would take none of them. If my wife/girlfriend/whoever was pregenant and wanted an abortion, I would do everything in my power to prevent that.

A young girl, say under sixteen without her own home or any family or partner to support her - are you saying she doesn't have the right to ana bortion? Ok, so you say it's her respnsibility if she got intot hat mess. What if it wasn't her fault - wat if it was a result of some kind of abuse, is she still wrong?

Legally, she has the right, yes. But yes, if she had sex and got pregnant, she must deal with it - and have the child. In the case of abuse or rape or whatever the case may be, that (as I said) is something I'm not solid on. It depends on the case, I think.

What about disability. If you know that your child is going to be born with problems that willc ause it pain or every second of its probably short life, is it still wrong to think it best for your child to not be born at all that suffer such poor life quality?

Again, a rare case. And it depends on the disability. Say the child is going to be born with some severe disease or disorder or handicap. I think it's their choice. Just because they may not be healthy does not mean they will not want to live. And as for the child with constant pain - an abortion is painful for the child, almost certainly.

Yes, a fetus is a living thing, and you do have reason for calling it murder, but surely sometimes death is better than life?

While I do not recall calling it murder (recently, anyway) I do think it is. Abortion is murder because you are killing a child, a growing, living human.

Death may be better than life, but I wouldn't know. I've never been dead - this is something that the individual must make - and if it was the case, it would be rare indeed.

If this is wrong, then so many people wouldn't commit suicide.

Most cases of suicide come from depression brought on my mental illness or some form of harassment by society (friends, family, etc). I say don't take the unborn child's life - if their life is going to be so wretched and so miserable as you and others claim, let them take their own life later. That way it's their choice, at least.

[Daniel]

This pains me, but I don't call it murder and I'll not outlaw the killing of Nepenthes. The plant is no doubt going to die but, like the unborn baby, it has no concept of life and cannot be victimized by it's death. Were it not for my loss, this would be an entirely victimless killing. If all those involved think it's best, then abortion is also quite victimless.

But you see, there is an extreme difference.

The difference between killing a plant or a patch of skin cells or whatever the case maybe vrs. killing an unborn child is that the child has the potention, no, the high likelyhoood of being born and to continue growth into a very intelligent, sentient creature.

A plant or skin cells don't have this option. They can't think. They can grow, but their existence isn't combareable to human existance even on a very broad scale.

You see, in roughly nine months after conception, the child will be born. With a plant or a typical cell, if you wait nine months they're basically the same. If you wait nine years, they still don't think or interact [intelligently].

[Panthrophile]

The difference between killing a plant or a patch of skin cells or whatever the case maybe vrs. killing an unborn child is that the child has the potention, no, the high likelyhoood of being born and to continue growth into a very intelligent, sentient creature.
This is true.

The essence of our argument, then, is not whether the fetus ought to count for what it is, but whether the fact that it will likely count one day ought to count now.

I would say no because the fact is that the person that would count if not aborted doesn't exist, and can't have any say, at the moment of abortion. If he doesn't count yet then he doesn't count, I say.

If you think disagree, I suppose that is understandable.

Hmm.

Were it me, I would leave it to those involved to decide if the potential of an unborn baby means anything. If I believe your side, though, I would want to enforce my belief on everyone, though, just as I like to push my ideas on things like racial equality and women's and gay rights on everyone.

Tough argument.

[Bennett_Star]

While I do not recall calling it murder (recently, anyway) I do think it is. Abortion is murder because you are killing a child, a growing, living human.

Death may be better than life, but I wouldn't know. I've never been dead - this is something that the individual must make - and if it was the case, it would be rare indeed.


You believe that is abortion is murder and you also believe in the Bible, correct?

If this is the case, where do little baby fetuses go after death? Hell or Heaven? Well since they do not deserve Hell for obvious reasons, then they will have to go to Heaven. And Heaven is infinite reward without the suffering of living on Earth. How do you reconcile this inconsistency? And suicide is a sin, I thought so that would not be a good choice, would it?

And by the way, a fetus is not a child as an acorn is not a tree. There is no reason to call it such.

Personhood begins when that organism (not necessarily Homo sapiens) reaches sentience. I think, therefore I am. That is how I would define personhood.

John Locke defined a person as "a thinking intelligent Being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider it self as it self, the same thinking thing in different times and places; which it does only by that consciousness, which is inseparable from thinking, and as it seems to me essential to it".

[Daniel]

Were it me, I would leave it to those involved to decide if the potential of an unborn baby means anything. If I believe your side, though, I would want to enforce my belief on everyone, though, just as I like to push my ideas on things like racial equality and women's and gay rights on everyone.

Tough argument.

Indeed. This is one of those things that I do believe on the same level as racial equality or anit-slavery or some basic ethical foundation.


You believe that is abortion is murder and you also believe in the Bible, correct?

Yes.

If this is the case, where do little baby fetuses go after death? Hell or Heaven? Well since they do not deserve Hell for obvious reasons, then they will have to go to Heaven. And Heaven is infinite reward without the suffering of living on Earth. How do you reconcile this inconsistency? And suicide is a sin, I thought so that would not be a good choice, would it?

Again, a little off topic, but I'll try to answer it briefly. This is something that's debated amoung Christian demonimations, but my personal belief is that yes, they go to heaven; not because they don deserve it - they don't - but rather because they haven't had the chance ot accept Christ. Heaven isn't a reward, it is a gift. As for suicide, this is something I'm uncertain about. It's obviously not considered a good choice, but as for it being outrightly declaired a sin? I do not know.

Personhood begins when that organism (not necessarily Homo sapiens) reaches sentience. I think, therefore I am. That is how I would define personhood.

John Locke defined a person as "a thinking intelligent Being, that has reason and reflection, and can consider it self as it self, the same thinking thing in different times and places; which it does only by that consciousness, which is inseparable from thinking, and as it seems to me essential to it".

Okay, good solid deffintion. In that case, as already mentioned, some mentially retarded people are not people. Infants of young ages up to a couple years are not people. Yet it is illegal to kill them.

I'm pro life. However, if the government is going to allow abortion to be legal, at the very least they should be consistent. I read a while back a news story about a guy that got involuntary manslaughter for killing a woman's unborn baby in a car crash after drinking. The child was not born, but would have been. The mother wanted the child. Yet this man did nothing wrong by your views because the child wasn't a person, yet he (the driver) still suffers the consequences.

The question is, which babies matter (to the government, to the individual)? Unborn ones greater than X age? Born ones? 4 year old children? The answer to the question, "which babies matter" is simply the ones that are wanted.

[Bennett_Star]

Again, a little off topic, but I'll try to answer it briefly. This is something that's debated amoung Christian demonimations, but my personal belief is that yes, they go to heaven; not because they don deserve it - they don't - but rather because they haven't had the chance ot accept Christ. Heaven isn't a reward, it is a gift. As for suicide, this is something I'm uncertain about. It's obviously not considered a good choice, but as for it being outrightly declaired a sin? I do not know.

Alright, I will let that slide for now as I don't know either (being an atheist).


Okay, good solid deffintion. In that case, as already mentioned, some mentially retarded people are not people. Infants of young ages up to a couple years are not people. Yet it is illegal to kill them.

This seems somewhat off topic as did my comments about Heaven and Hell and fetuses. But I will tell you something. A baby and a severely mentally retarded person are illegal to kill because it is believed that they meet the requirements of personhood. However, certain mentally retarded people and babies do effectively have less rights for the fact that they do not fully meet the requirements for personhood. Babies and mentally retarded individuals cannot vote, drive, or go live in their own house. In many ways, they are not persons, but a victim is believed to be created out of a 24 week old fetus and a baby and a severely retarded person and they do feel this unwanted death as a first trimester fetus or a plant would not.

I'm pro life. However, if the government is going to allow abortion to be legal, at the very least they should be consistent. I read a while back a news story about a guy that got involuntary manslaughter for killing a woman's unborn baby in a car crash after drinking. The child was not born, but would have been. The mother wanted the child. Yet this man did nothing wrong by your views because the child wasn't a person, yet he (the driver) still suffers the consequences.

I am not sure of the circumstances as to how old the fetus was. Anything less than the legal limit for abortions should not have been legal to charge involuntary manslaughter. If the pain of a miscarriage had an affect in the judge's sentence however, that would be perfectly acceptable I guess (I don't want to get into our criminal punishment system here).

The question is, which babies matter (to the government, to the individual)? Unborn ones greater than X age? Born ones? 4 year old children? The answer to the question, "which babies matter" is simply the ones that are wanted.

I completely disagree. Being wanted is not a reason at all. I believe all people deserve equal rights, regardless of being wanted. If you mean to say that I "want" for everyone by declaring this then I guess that is true, but if by "being wanted" you mean something that I would be willing to give up everything for then no. I don't treat everyone as if I was their mother or anything, but if that type of want isn't available then those people shouldn't die or be left out to dry either.

[Illuminatus]

I can say it because I devotely believe it.

Indeed. That's why abortion threads never seem to reach a consensus, it all depends on whether you believe human life is inherently valuable or not. Neither side can win an argument that rests on a personal belief.

I avoid these threads for a reason.

[Daniel]

This seems somewhat off topic as did my comments about Heaven and Hell and fetuses. But I will tell you something. A baby and a severely mentally retarded person are illegal to kill because it is believed that they meet the requirements of personhood. However, certain mentally retarded people and babies do effectively have less rights for the fact that they do not fully meet the requirements for personhood. Babies and mentally retarded individuals cannot vote, drive, or go live in their own house. In many ways, they are not persons, but a victim is believed to be created out of a 24 week old fetus and a baby and a severely retarded person and they do feel this unwanted death as a first trimester fetus or a plant would not.

I'm just curious - since it's okay to abort unborn children, do you think it's okay to abort infants or the mentally ill? I mean, they're not people after all.

I completely disagree. Being wanted is not a reason at all. I believe all people deserve equal rights, regardless of being wanted. If you mean to say that I "want" for everyone by declaring this then I guess that is true, but if by "being wanted" you mean something that I would be willing to give up everything for then no. I don't treat everyone as if I was their mother or anything, but if that type of want isn't available then those people shouldn't die or be left out to dry either.

I'm not saying this is the way it should be, but rather, the way it is. I believe all people more or less deserve equal rights. I don't know, this was a little off topic, just thought I'd bring it up anyway.

[Bennett_Star]

I'm just curious - since it's okay to abort unborn children, do you think it's okay to abort infants or the mentally ill? I mean, they're not people after all.It is somewhat difficult to debate, when we can't agree on the facts. There is no such thing as "unborn babies" or "children". Only fetuses. Babies and children are what come after the baby is born. As someone else said (was it you?), there is also no such thing as a "born fetus".

Anyways, I do believe there is line of personhood, "mentally ill" is vague and in most cases I would most certainly not support "aborting" them and why would I support aborting infants? I wouldn't abort third trimester fetuses even. If one is completely brain dead they are not a person. And “people” is not the plural for person. Persons is, so please use it accordingly.

I'm not saying this is the way it should be, but rather, the way it is. I believe all people more or less deserve equal rights. I don't know, this was a little off topic, just thought I'd bring it up anyway.Alright. I believe that all people more or less deserve equal rights as well.

[so what]

Again, I do not understand how as males you can sit there and speak so strongly against this subject.

You cannot be pregnant. You cannot feel the crazy emotions pregnancy gives a woman. You also have no real commitment to it. You could easily walk away, deny that it's yours or whatever. A woman doesn't have that option, it's inside her.

So then where are your children?

[LordGrace]

So then where are your children?

I do not have any children, yet. What point are you trying to make?

[Panthrophile]

Mentally ill (schizo and such) most certainly do count as people; I would say they're the best sort, being the most interesting.

The mentally retarded almost certainly are people as well. It is conceivable that someone might be so absolutely retarded as to be incapable of any sort of reason and unable to develop any sort of personality, but such individuals are no doubt terribly rare.

A newborn baby is no more a person than an almost-born fetus. A one month old baby is also not much of a person. It's hard to say where one does become a person, as it doesn't happen at any one point. One thing, though, at birth the baby is able to actually interact with the world and begin to sense, and presumably understand, the things in it. That is important, I think.

[Zerabira]

Again, I do not understand how as males you can sit there and speak so strongly against this subject.

You cannot be pregnant. You cannot feel the crazy emotions pregnancy gives a woman. You also have no real commitment to it. You could easily walk away, deny that it's yours or whatever. A woman doesn't have that option, it's inside her.

A young girl, say under sixteen without her own home or any family or partner to support her - are you saying she doesn't have the right to ana bortion? Ok, so you say it's her respnsibility if she got intot hat mess. What if it wasn't her fault - wat if it was a result of some kind of abuse, is she still wrong?

What about disability. If you know that your child is going to be born with problems that willc ause it pain or every second of its probably short life, is it still wrong to think it best for your child to not be born at all that suffer such poor life quality?

Yes, a fetus is a living thing, and you do have reason for calling it murder, but surely sometimes death is better than life?

If this is wrong, then so many people wouldn't commit suicide.



I am female and I am 150% against abortion I've heard your arguements and I fail to see any situation where abortion would be the the absolute right thing to do - you seem to forget about adoption as an option.

As for the disability argument that seems to get thrown about in these threads - are you suggesting that disabled people have less of a right to life than an able bodied person? if you are talking about a severe severe disability then can it be guaranteed that the child will be born with the disability and have it to such a severity that it wouldn't know anything but pain? Can you be sure there won't be a cure found in the year after the child is born?

Hyperthetical arguments like the disability issue are often not thought out - in most cases if a disability was that severe as to be guaranteed and detected whilst the child was still a fetus, it would suggest that the parents also had or at least carry the disability. In this situation isn't it irresponsible of those parents to decide to get pregnant if they had no intention of keeping the baby if it had the same disability? They are also taking away that childs right to grow up and get pregnant like they have done.

Simple fact is the in most cases severest of disabilities are undetected during pregnancies so the question is should those parents of children who are severely disabled and live life in pain feel guilty for not killing their child?

The only time I would agree that death can be better than life is if the person who will be dying has the choice for themselves.

[Illuminatus]

I am female and I am 150% against abortion I've heard your arguements and I fail to see any situation where abortion would be the the absolute right thing to do - you seem to forget about adoption as an option.

As for the disability argument that seems to get thrown about in these threads - are you suggesting that disabled people have less of a right to life than an able bodied person? if you are talking about a severe severe disability then can it be guaranteed that the child will be born with the disability and have it to such a severity that it wouldn't know anything but pain? Can you be sure there won't be a cure found in the year after the child is born?

Hyperthetical arguments like the disability issue are often not thought out - in most cases if a disability was that severe as to be guaranteed and detected whilst the child was still a fetus, it would suggest that the parents also had or at least carry the disability. In this situation isn't it irresponsible of those parents to decide to get pregnant if they had no intention of keeping the baby if it had the same disability? They are also taking away that childs right to grow up and get pregnant like they have done.

Simple fact is the in most cases severest of disabilities are undetected during pregnancies so the question is should those parents of children who are severely disabled and live life in pain feel guilty for not killing their child?

The only time I would agree that death can be better than life is if the person who will be dying has the choice for themselves.

You're not female.

[LordGrace]

I am female and I am 150% against abortion I've heard your arguements and I fail to see any situation where abortion would be the the absolute right thing to do.

Oh dear god. I never said it was absolutely right. There is this concept you people don't seem to grasp called relative moralty, where you individually view each case an decide.

All I have tried to say is hat it's not fair to judge people who chose abortion.

You want to know what I personally think? Abortion is the last thing I'd ever want to do, and if I had to do i, I would hate myself for it. Hopefully it will never come to that.

Adoption? I don't know abot anyone else, but f I ended up carrying a bay for nine months, I'd never give it up for adoption.

[Zerabira]

You're not female.


I can assure you I am 100% woman is there some reason that makes you think other wise I'd be very interested to hear it.

[Zerabira]

Oh dear god. I never said it was absolutely right. There is this concept you people don't seem to grasp called relative moralty, where you individually view each case an decide.

All I have tried to say is hat it's not fair to judge people who chose abortion.

You want to know what I personally think? Abortion is the last thing I'd ever want to do, and if I had to do i, I would hate myself for it. Hopefully it will never come to that.

Adoption? I don't know abot anyone else, but f I ended up carrying a bay for nine months, I'd never give it up for adoption.


You're very certain you would NEVER give it up for adoption but you are not so certain you wouldn't kill a fetus inside you? I too wouldn't be able to give a child up for adoption but if for some bizarre reason I could not keep a baby I would rather give the child a chance at life by adoption than abort it and take away all of it's chances.

[StradivariusTV]

I can assure you I am 100% woman is there some reason that makes you think other wise I'd be very interested to hear it.
Are you sure you're not 150% woman?

[Daniel]

I do not have any children, yet. What point are you trying to make?

I believe the point is, while males do not have the ability to experience the "emotional strain" you briefly described, you have not either and are not speaking from experience.

Adoption? I don't know abot anyone else, but f I ended up carrying a bay for nine months, I'd never give it up for adoption.

Yes, and many women (who have abortions) would rather kill thier child before it's birth and wow! Problem solved.

[StradivariusTV]

Yes, and many women (who have abortions) would rather kill thier child before it's birth and wow! Problem solved.Given the steep drop in US crime rates almost exactly 18 years after Roe v. Wade, I'd say that's at least one problem solved.

[LordGrace]

Ok... I can't be bothered anymore.... you have your views, I'll have mine. I get bored when debates go nowhere.

[Krovisser]

Back to the topic...

[Daniel]

Given the steep drop in US crime rates almost exactly 18 years after Roe v. Wade, I'd say that's at least one problem solved.

Perhaps so, perhaps not. But is the solving of one problem by the creation of another really a solution?

[StradivariusTV]

I don't happen to think abortion is a problem.

[Daniel]

I don't happen to think abortion is a problem.

Well, I do, and it's most certainly an issue. And an issue, in reality, is a problem. Unless, of course, there's some other hidden issue rather than abortion.

[StradivariusTV]

I see women going into the abortion clinic by my house early in the morning, when they think no one's watching.

But I am...

[LordGrace]

You're very certain you would NEVER give it up for adoption but you are not so certain you wouldn't kill a fetus inside you? I too wouldn't be able to give a child up for adoption but if for some bizarre reason I could not keep a baby I would rather give the child a chance at life by adoption than abort it and take away all of it's chances.

Then you are a far less selfish person than me, because if I had to face the fact that I'd not be able to keep a child for myself, I couldn't go through 9 months of pregnancy followed by hours of labour, to give him/her away. If I gave birth to a child, I would have to keep it.

[Zerabira]

This isn't an arguement that will ever be resolved as several have already said - what it comes down to is personal belief (in my case not religious belief in any way shape or form) of course I'd find it tough to give birth and hand over my child but if there was absolutely no alternative (ie me bringing my child up) then I would rather give my baby a chance at life with another family then to snatch it's life away from it, having said that I can only think of 2 situations in which I think I wouldn;t be able to bring a child up myself and that's if I was raped and the pregnancy was a result of that rape (obviously this hasn't happened so I don't know how I would react to that, or how my bf would cope with it) or if every living relative of mine or my bf were dead and I was physically or mentally disabled to the point where I couldn't care for myself let alone my child.

Of course the argument is then rife for the old 'what if it has a crap life because it was adopted' well in response I say that at least the child had a chance and the only time a person can't improve their life (even if it's only slightly) is when they are dead.

[LordGrace]

But as I said before. Hypothetically, imagine you are pregnant and for some reason, there is a problem with the baby. Theuy do tests and find that the child will certainly be born with a condition that will give it a very short, painful life where it will be unable to sense normally and experience life fully like you'd expect. Are you saying it is better to let this child live even though they are going to suffer every minute they are alive than it is to put its life to an end before any real suffering starts? Again, this is hypothetical, I'm not asking you to tell me why this scenario is impossible.

Also, what if you are told that giving birth to the child will almost certainly kill you, if not the child aswell. Is abortion still wrong then?

My beliefs on it really are quite relative. As I said before, it's not so much about me thinking abortion is ok, I just don't think it's fair to criticise those who feel there is no alternative. If you could just give a child up instead of abortoing it, then as I said, good for you. But there are plenty of young girls who just aren't strong enough for that.