The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Tom Bishop on October 21, 2016, 06:26:44 PM

Title: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 21, 2016, 06:26:44 PM
Abortion is perhaps the most selfish act a person can do.

The baby in the womb wants life. Every cell in its body wanted to live. There is no denying that. Think about that. The baby wants to live. The baby wants to live very dearly. Aborting a baby who wants to live is incredibly selfish, and the mental gymnastics used to justify the act of abortion are shameful.

The argument that pregnancy is difficult and hard and that it would be unethical to compel women to go through a pregnancy falls flat on its face when one considers that these women want to corrupt the life and wishes of a baby in order to avoid a little inconvenience.

We have a society where we don't need to resort to abortions anymore. There are other options. There is adoption, for instance. Most infants get adopted. There is even open adoption. The government will even give you money to raise your own baby if adoption is not for you, if you choose to live that life.

How many foster children can you find who would say "I would rather have been an abortion!" Kids find a way to enjoy life, even if they are a foster child. Even if they happened to be one of those unfortunate kids who were abused, they would likely get past that at some point and enjoy life. Is some hypothetical physical or sexual abuse really worth a death sentence?

We have birth control now, and if that birth control fails then a little growing baby who only wants to live life shouldn't have to be punished for it. Why pick on someone who can't defend themselves in the most vulnerable time of their life? Abolishing abortion would be inconvenient, sure, but it is the moral thing to do.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Rushy on October 21, 2016, 07:19:52 PM
It is the goal of cultural Marxists to tell women that child bearing is an inconvenience that should be washed away. It lowers the national birthrate and then they can justify the importation of millions of third world, uneducated peasants that have very low wage and labor standards. Abortion is a tool used by the elite to eliminate the middle class even faster. Cheap abortions and expensive childcare and pregnancy healthcare isn't a coincidence.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: andruszkow on October 21, 2016, 07:36:07 PM
Telling other people what the moral thing to do is, is the same as saying "my opinion is more correct than yours" which is, by definition, gibberish.

I can't believe these are the words uttered by seemingly intelligent adults. Especially you, Rushy.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Rushy on October 21, 2016, 07:51:27 PM
Telling other people what the moral thing to do is, is the same as saying "my opinion is more correct than yours" which is, by definition, gibberish.

The very nature of the legal system is a case of "my moral opinion is more correct than yours"  but on the scale of an entire nation. For example, the idea that it is wrong to kill other people is, at its most basic level, nothing more than an opinion based on subjective moral standards.

I can't believe these are the words uttered by seemingly intelligent adults. Especially you, Rushy.

Not even a single post in and you have already resorted to name calling. Do this again and I will personally reprimand you.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: andruszkow on October 21, 2016, 09:17:24 PM
Telling other people what the moral thing to do is, is the same as saying "my opinion is more correct than yours" which is, by definition, gibberish.

The very nature of the legal system is a case of "my moral opinion is more correct than yours"  but on the scale of an entire nation. For example, the idea that it is wrong to kill other people is, at its most basic level, nothing more than an opinion based on subjective moral standards.

I can't believe these are the words uttered by seemingly intelligent adults. Especially you, Rushy.

Not even a single post in and you have already resorted to name calling. Do this again and I will personally reprimand you.
Name calling? Where did you get that from? I'm not name calling, I'm describing how amazed I am by this thread and the level of detail it amounts to as per your post, to the same amount this thread is talking about abortion in general.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 21, 2016, 11:17:31 PM
Telling other people what the moral thing to do is, is the same as saying "my opinion is more correct than yours" which is, by definition, gibberish.

I can't believe these are the words uttered by seemingly intelligent adults. Especially you, Rushy.

Why should a baby in the womb have to pay with its life for your mistakes?
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Boots on October 22, 2016, 03:39:16 AM
Telling other people what the moral thing to do is, is the same as saying "my opinion is more correct than yours" which is, by definition, gibberish.

I can't believe these are the words uttered by seemingly intelligent adults. Especially you, Rushy.

Why should a baby in the womb have to pay with its life for your mistakes?

I am a strong supporter of the rights of the defenseless, unborn child. All the women in my life are equally strong supporters of this position, if not stronger.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Lord Dave on October 22, 2016, 06:05:16 AM
Does your arm want to live?
Does your heart want to live?

Until a certain point, the baby is nothing more than a collection of cells whose only function is to replicate.  And sometimes it never even gets to that point.  In my view, I see nothing wrong with letting the woman choose.  It's an emotionally devastating decision and if a woman casually throws it around like it's no big deal, then they shouldn't have children anyway.

And yes, there are options: adoption and foster care but it sucks.  It sucks very hard.  And not every kid gets out of it.  My father was in foster care until he was 18.  He was never adopted.  His life wasn't easy but he turned out ok.  Alot of others did not. 

And there are plenty of reasons why abortions are valid, especially if the child is going to be brain dead or have severe deformities.  Add in maybe a drug addiction from birth and yeah, reasons exist. 

That being said, after the first Trimester, there's few good reasons to abort if you haven't done so already.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: sandokhan on October 22, 2016, 07:02:34 AM
The problem today is the lack of information concerning the higher aspects of sexuality.

Men need to learn how to sublimate their erotic energy, to exercise their seminal sphincter, to really understand the link between the generative force and vitality and spirituality. Women need to find out how to transmute the power of their menstrual blood into divinity, and the methods are very easy to learn (one must be very careful though, since most of the information on the subject is transmitted by false teachers).

There is a very simple procedure to be followed if the period is late, so that there will be no pregnancy, and no need to even think about an abortion... so many things which are lacking from a proper education on one of the two most fundamental energies in our bodies (the other being the emotional energy).

A woman needs to learn the deer exercise, the most fundamental practice which links the ovaries with the heart; if the period is late, it is necessary to increase the heat in the lower abdomen...
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Lord Dave on October 22, 2016, 08:40:07 AM
The problem today is the lack of information concerning the higher aspects of sexuality.

Men need to learn how to sublimate their erotic energy, to exercise their seminal sphincter, to really understand the link between the generative force and vitality and spirituality. Women need to find out how to transmute the power of their menstrual blood into divinity, and the methods are very easy to learn (one must be very careful though, since most of the information on the subject is transmitted by false teachers).

There is a very simple procedure to be followed if the period is late, so that there will be no pregnancy, and no need to even think about an abortion... so many things which are lacking from a proper education on one of the two most fundamental energies in our bodies (the other being the emotional energy).

A woman needs to learn the deer exercise, the most fundamental practice which links the ovaries with the heart; if the period is late, it is necessary to increase the heat in the lower abdomen...
Everything you said is absolute gibberish.
The only way 'heat' will help is to kill the fertilized egg attached to the uterus wall.  This is called an Abortion.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: sandokhan on October 22, 2016, 09:43:57 AM
Sexual continence is not gibberish, on the contrary.

No abortions will ever have to be performed, if you'd learn how to ejaculate only once a month (exactly before the start of the period); and then train to extend this period, 120-150 days (I do not recommend full continence, as it requires very difficult methods, which are not necessary).

Heat = lying in the bathtub, very hot water up to the belly button (of course, someone is going to have to heat the water and bring it over, and pour it on some water which has room temperature, and slowly increase its temperature), 20 minutes three times a day, or 30-45 minutes twice a day. Even if the period is late by some three days, and this procedure is kept up to the seventh day or eighth day, the period will come eventually.

Of course, it has to be done only once every six months: that is why he has to learn some form of sexual continence, so that an unwanted pregnancy will never occur/be a problem.

A fertilized egg which has not yet received spirit (49th day) does not constitute abortion.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Lord Dave on October 22, 2016, 10:40:29 AM
Sexual continence is not gibberish, on the contrary.

No abortions will ever have to be performed, if you'd learn how to ejaculate only once a month (exactly before the start of the period); and then train to extend this period, 120-150 days (I do not recommend full continence, as it requires very difficult methods, which are not necessary).
This is so absolutely false it's amazing.
First off, I can just masturbate.  Boom, easy.
Secondly, even once a month or once every 6 months is enough to get someone pregnant.  You talk about putting it right before the period but that implies you know when your partner's period is and pick your partner based on when your time to have sex is.  So your advice is: "Only have sex when the woman isn't ovulating" which is a giant 'duh'.  And it can be more than once a month.  Right before and right after.


Quote
Heat = lying in the bathtub, very hot water up to the belly button (of course, someone is going to have to heat the water and bring it over, and pour it on some water which has room temperature, and slowly increase its temperature), 20 minutes three times a day, or 30-45 minutes twice a day. Even if the period is late by some three days, and this procedure is kept up to the seventh day or eighth day, the period will come eventually.
Also called killing the fertilized egg via heat.  But that depends on how hot "very hot" is.  40c?  60c?  100c?

Quote
Of course, it has to be done only once every six months: that is why he has to learn some form of sexual continence, so that an unwanted pregnancy will never occur/be a problem.
So basically "don't have sex when the woman is ovulating" and "boil any fertalized egg to death". Got it.

Quote
A fertilized egg which has not yet received spirit (49th day) does not constitute abortion.
Incorrect.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: sandokhan on October 22, 2016, 11:00:44 AM
Self-stimulation has to be done without ejaculation: this is the essence of sexual continence.

In your heart there is a feminine counterpart to the male energy in the seminal liquid: one has to learn to reach, get in touch with this feminine energy.

Secondly, even once a month or once every 6 months is enough to get someone pregnant.  You talk about putting it right before the period but that implies you know when your partner's period is and pick your partner based on when your time to have sex is.  So your advice is: "Only have sex when the woman isn't ovulating" which is a giant 'duh'.  And it can be more than once a month.  Right before and right after.

If you do not know when your lover's period occurs, or you "pick your partner", then there is no need to ejaculate at all, until you obtain further information, if you really want to get into a long term relationship.

You can have sexual relationships even at ovulation, but without ejaculation.


I suggest that you study these subjects, sexual continence, and the 49th day theory in more details; if you have any questions, I will answer them.


With sexual continence, there would be no need for any abortions.

By the way, Lord Dave, do you know where your seminal sphincter is located?
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: la xasop on October 22, 2016, 12:26:03 PM
The baby in the womb wants life. Every cell in its body wanted to live. There is no denying that.

On the contrary, you haven't provided a shred of evidence to support the absurd notion that a being without a developed brain is capable of "wanting" anything, let alone individual cells. Denying it is the only thing that can be done.

We have birth control now

Except your argument against abortion applies equally well to birth control. If the fact that a child would never regret not being aborted means that abortion is wrong, then the fact that a child would never regret not being a squirt into a condom later means that birth control is wrong. You are denying a hypothetical future sapient being life in either case.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Rushy on October 22, 2016, 02:21:03 PM
On the contrary, you haven't provided a shred of evidence to support the absurd notion that a being without a developed brain is capable of "wanting" anything, let alone individual cells. Denying it is the only thing that can be done.

We don't have evidence that any animal other than ourselves "wants" to do anything, yet we attribute that to other human beings and some animals regardless. Assuming you don't adhere to solipsism, your line of reasoning doesn't make any sense.

Except your argument against abortion applies equally well to birth control. If the fact that a child would never regret not being aborted means that abortion is wrong, then the fact that a child would never regret not being a squirt into a condom later means that birth control is wrong. You are denying a hypothetical future sapient being life in either case.

Tom did not base his claim on the idea of there being a hypothetical being in the future. Do not put words in his mouth just to form your own baseless arguments.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Rama Set on October 22, 2016, 07:14:02 PM
On the contrary, you haven't provided a shred of evidence to support the absurd notion that a being without a developed brain is capable of "wanting" anything, let alone individual cells. Denying it is the only thing that can be done.

We don't have evidence that any animal other than ourselves "wants" to do anything, yet we attribute that to other human beings and some animals regardless. Assuming you don't adhere to solipsism, your line of reasoning doesn't make any sense.

He was talking about something without a brain.  Your non sequitur makes no sense.

Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Rushy on October 22, 2016, 10:40:42 PM
He was talking about something without a brain.  Your non sequitur makes no sense.

What evidence do you have that thought comes from the brain? Which parts, specifically, do those thoughts come from?
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: garygreen on October 23, 2016, 03:52:45 AM
What evidence do you have that thought comes from the brain?
brain injuries

Quote
Which parts, specifically, do those thoughts come from?
neurons
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Rushy on October 23, 2016, 04:19:30 AM
brain injuries

Merely evidence that physical injury affects one mentally, not evidence that from the brain arises thought.

neurons

That's rather vague. How many does it take? One? Two? How does a neuron think?
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Rama Set on October 23, 2016, 04:24:49 AM
brain injuries

Merely evidence that physical injury affects one mentally, not evidence that from the brain arises thought.

It is a simple process of elimination.  It is the only organ, that when it ceases functioning, mental activity ceases.

neurons

That's rather vague. How many does it take? One? Two? How does a neuron think?
[/quote]

Vague or not, it satisfies your question. 


Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Dionysios on October 23, 2016, 04:39:39 AM
What evidence do you have that thought comes from the brain? Which parts, specifically, do those thoughts come from?

A good and interesting question, although I think that what precisely determines the right to life is more the central issue than whether a being has a brain or is able to think or not.

As seems implied by those above, I do believe that an individual which can think is not essentially different from us who have been born.

To answer the initial question, I do not believe that a brain is absolutely necessary for thought. The basis of my reasoning is that man is composed of two parts: body and soul. Life is not extant without the soul. That does not mean that the body should not be respected. Death occurs when the soul exits the body, and most of us respect the dead.  I disagree with the notion that infants in the first part of pregnancy do not merit the rights and respect of the rest of us.

As to the brain, the soul is what actually thinks. According to both Plato and John Chrysostom the soul is composed of three parts: intellect, ethos, and emotions. (Freud agrees with this although he calls them different names.)  The brain is apparently the instrument through which the soul thinks.  The same applies to sight and eyes. The soul sees. The eyes are the physical instrument through which the soul sees. And this pertains to every organ of the body.

I am not denying the things taught in anatomy and physiology courses about brain function. I just believe many of these omit the most important dimension of the process.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Rushy on October 23, 2016, 04:58:03 AM
It is a simple process of elimination.  It is the only organ, that when it ceases functioning, mental activity ceases.

I can name a great many organs that when damaged cause your mental faculties to submit. Your heart, for example, is fairly important to the process.

Vague or not, it satisfies your question.

In the same vein that "atoms" would have also satisfied it. It was a purposeful aversion of digging deeper into the subject.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Dionysios on October 23, 2016, 05:03:20 AM
It is the goal of cultural Marxists to tell women that child bearing is an inconvenience that should be washed away. It lowers the national birthrate and then they can justify the importation of millions of third world, uneducated peasants that have very low wage and labor standards.

I am against abortion, but I do not concur with these statements. Aside from assuming that immigrants have low work standards, the notion that abortion is a Marxist phenomenon does not make sense.  It's a Malthusian (aka right wing) population control strategy consistent with Nazism. Unfortunately, abortion has been become popular with large segments of the left since about the time Paul Erlich advocated it as a means of population control in the 1960's.  Rushy is closer to the truth when he indicated the elite push it.

It's worth noting that communist China under Mao never had a one child policy which was not adopted until 1979 when the comparatively fascist Deng Xiaopeng had taken over.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Dionysios on October 23, 2016, 05:33:18 AM
As to the moment life begins, I believe it's always there.

I have read that official catholic doctrine states that God sovereignly creates a human soul precisely at the moment of conception. While I agree with their anti-abortionist position (and respect catholics), my personal opinion is that doctrine is slightly juvenile.

Saint Gregory of Nazianzus taught that humans receive our souls from our parents just as we receive our bodies through them. The soul is always present. For anyone to speculate that souls or thought or the right to life begins at any time after conception is more ridiculous and reprehensible as any catholic doctrine as its being used as a blanket defense for murder.

My suspicion is that any individual or organization who advocates abortion on behalf of women's rights while mostly ignoring the child has major flaws, likely not have the ethics it claims, and therefore deserving of investigation.

The fact that abortion is legal in the U.S. is one of many manifestations of social fascism.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: la xasop on October 23, 2016, 09:31:05 AM
We don't have evidence that any animal other than ourselves "wants" to do anything, yet we attribute that to other human beings and some animals regardless. Assuming you don't adhere to solipsism, your line of reasoning doesn't make any sense.

That's simply incorrect. Animals are capable of responding to sensory inputs with a clear preference for one alternative over another. For example, a cat will run away from a dog, which is evidence that it does not want to get bitten.

Individual cells have no such autonomy.


Tom did not base his claim on the idea of there being a hypothetical being in the future. Do not put words in his mouth just to form your own baseless arguments.

Actually, he did:

How many foster children can you find who would say "I would rather have been an abortion!" Kids find a way to enjoy life, even if they are a foster child. Even if they happened to be one of those unfortunate kids who were abused, they would likely get past that at some point and enjoy life. Is some hypothetical physical or sexual abuse really worth a death sentence?

It is not certain that an embryo will develop into a foster child, just as it is not certain that a sperm will fertilise an ovum to develop an embryo. Tom's argument is based on hypothetical future outcomes.


As to the moment life begins, I believe it's always there.

There is no "moment life begins"; life is continuous from parent to child. A sperm is just as alive as a newborn baby, which is just as alive as an apple tree. If you have ever picked an apple, you have destroyed life in precisely the same way as an abortion practitioner.

This is a common line of reasoning among anti-abortionists, who try to boil down the issue to being about the preservation of life. It is not about life unless you are also campaigning against the harvesting of crops. It is about a sapient human being, and the question you should ask is at what point sapience begins, not what point life begins.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking pro-lifers here exclusively. Pro-choicers also like to try to make the issue more black and white than it appears, by boiling the subject down to women's rights and simply ignoring the pro-life argument.

Both sides need to realise that it is not a black and white issue, but a matter of degrees, for which one extreme would ban birth control and the other would legalise killing babies. Most people fall somewhere in the middle.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Rushy on October 23, 2016, 04:32:36 PM
That's simply incorrect. Animals are capable of responding to sensory inputs with a clear preference for one alternative over another. For example, a cat will run away from a dog, which is evidence that it does not want to get bitten.

Individual cells have no such autonomy.

If that is evidence of thought in animals, then surely this:

(http://static3.businessinsider.com/~~/f?id=5127b789eab8eaf561000002)

is evidence that even single celled organisms do not want to get eaten. Thus, we can conclude that single cell organisms do, in fact, have such autonomy as to make decisions based on their own well being.

It is not certain that an embryo will develop into a foster child, just as it is not certain that a sperm will fertilise an ovum to develop an embryo. Tom's argument is based on hypothetical future outcomes.

Actually, it is not. Perhaps you should read Tom's post again, since clearly he is arguing against the usage of hypothetical outcomes, not for them.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Blanko on October 23, 2016, 05:54:25 PM
It doesn't matter if abortion is morally bad, it's still necessary because it's the most effective method of population control. Unwanted children are statistically a massive burden to society.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Rushy on October 23, 2016, 07:21:45 PM
It doesn't matter if abortion is morally bad, it's still necessary because it's the most effective method of population control. Unwanted children are statistically a massive burden to society.

Tampering with the birthrate of a society by cultivating the idea of children being a burden will only result in the ultimate dissolution of the culture that spawned the idea.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Lord Dave on October 23, 2016, 07:34:23 PM
It doesn't matter if abortion is morally bad, it's still necessary because it's the most effective method of population control. Unwanted children are statistically a massive burden to society.

Tampering with the birthrate of a society by cultivating the idea of children being a burden will only result in the ultimate dissolution of the culture that spawned the idea.
Except children ARE a burden.  They require a tremendous amount of care for many years.  This care is often stressful and expensive.  The cost of education alone can be over $10,000 per year.

This does not mean, however, that they aren't worth it.  Carrying a bag of groceries home is a burden, but you'll have food if you do.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: garygreen on October 24, 2016, 02:20:59 PM
brain injuries

Merely evidence that physical injury affects one mentally, not evidence that from the brain arises thought.

incorrect.  traumatic brain injuries often affect cognition in specific and repeatable ways.  other injuries do not.  this is how we first started learning about which parts of the brain are involved with particular cognitive abilities, like recalling a memory.  also lobotomy. 

How does a neuron think?

networks of neurons respond to stimuli from your sensory organs.  the precise mechanism behind consciousness is not fully-understood, but the connection between neurons and cognition is beyond dispute.

I can name a great many organs that when damaged cause your mental faculties to submit. Your heart, for example, is fairly important to the process.

incorrect.  the heart contributes nothing to cognition.  1 (http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/health/artificial-heart-555-days-transplant/) 2 (http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=118051)

also no one disagrees that death from any cause has a debilitating effect on cognition.  duh.

i assume you're trolling, yes?
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: la xasop on October 24, 2016, 02:27:30 PM
If that is evidence of thought in animals, then surely this:

(http://static3.businessinsider.com/~~/f?id=5127b789eab8eaf561000002)

is evidence that even single celled organisms do not want to get eaten. Thus, we can conclude that single cell organisms do, in fact, have such autonomy as to make decisions based on their own well being.

It might be interpreted that way by someone uninitiated in the study of fluid mechanics. To a more sophisticated eye, this is simply evidence for well-established laws of physics which permit one object to push another aside as it moves.

Actually, it is not. Perhaps you should read Tom's post again, since clearly he is arguing against the usage of hypothetical outcomes, not for them.

Oh, you are correct. My mistake. So Tom's argument rests solely on his unsubstantiated claim that individual cells "want" anything.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on October 24, 2016, 03:15:11 PM
Whether or not the foetus/ zygote/ egg/ sperm wants life is irrelevant. The question is whether one has bodily autonomy, that is, do you have the right to decide what happens in your own body?

Even if a foetus was 100% cognisant and able to debate the finer details of Aristotelian philosophy I would still argue that the right to abortion  be defended. Nobody has the right to force themselves upon your body without your consent, even if withdrawing that access results in their death.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 24, 2016, 08:16:21 PM
Whether or not the foetus/ zygote/ egg/ sperm wants life is irrelevant. The question is whether one has bodily autonomy, that is, do you have the right to decide what happens in your own body?

Even if a foetus was 100% cognisant and able to debate the finer details of Aristotelian philosophy I would still argue that the right to abortion  be defended. Nobody has the right to force themselves upon your body without your consent, even if withdrawing that access results in their death.

That is a reprehensible argument. You are basically arguing that a woman has the right to kill a baby one day before birth.

The baby inside her is a living being as well. There are two people here, not just one. You are arguing that the termination of a baby, which wants to live, it perfectly fine, because it might temporarily inconvenience the mother. That is terrible. How could you favor termination of life over temporary inconvenience?
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Blanko on October 24, 2016, 08:29:47 PM
Whether or not the foetus/ zygote/ egg/ sperm wants life is irrelevant. The question is whether one has bodily autonomy, that is, do you have the right to decide what happens in your own body?

Even if a foetus was 100% cognisant and able to debate the finer details of Aristotelian philosophy I would still argue that the right to abortion  be defended. Nobody has the right to force themselves upon your body without your consent, even if withdrawing that access results in their death.

That is a reprehensible argument. You are basically arguing that a woman has the right to kill a baby one day before birth.

The baby inside her is a living being as well. There are two people here, not just one. You are arguing that the termination of a baby, which wants to live, it perfectly fine, because it might temporarily inconvenience the mother. That is terrible. How could you favor termination of life over temporary inconvenience?

Do you think it's reprehensible to use lethal force on a dangerous intruder in your home?
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: DuckDodgers on October 24, 2016, 09:29:38 PM
One day prior to due date, the baby can survive outside of the mother.  There is a reason the current ban in the US is set at 24 weeks.  This is the point where it statistically becomes a coin toss on whether the baby will survive outside the womb and therefore is granted protection.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 24, 2016, 10:51:25 PM
Do you think it's reprehensible to use lethal force on a dangerous intruder in your home?

The baby is not an intruder. Its her child. A mother cannot go crazy and throw her 13 year old child onto the street without severe legal repercussions. Why should she have limitless rights over a baby whose home is inside of her?

One day prior to due date, the baby can survive outside of the mother.  There is a reason the current ban in the US is set at 24 weeks.  This is the point where it statistically becomes a coin toss on whether the baby will survive outside the womb and therefore is granted protection.

If you rip a 20 week old baby out of the womb it will suffer. It will gasp for air and die. That is murder of a living being.

What is the purpose of this killing? The purpose is that a baby was killed so the mother won't have to suffer temporary inconvenience for some number of months until the baby can be born and adopted into a loving home. That is unjustifiable and wrong.

The baby should have a right to live and be adopted by parents who will love it. The mother should be compelled to go through with the pregnancy, just as a landlord is compelled to give someone time to vacate in an eviction. It was decided that temporary inconvenience to the landlord does not outweigh kicking someone on the streets with nowhere to live. Likewise, the temporary inconvenience of the mother should not outweigh the termination of a baby's life and wish to live.

Are you really defending mothers who want to kill their babies because they see them as an inconvenience and a distraction? Shame on you.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Rama Set on October 24, 2016, 11:19:08 PM
Do you think it's reprehensible to use lethal force on a dangerous intruder in your home?

The baby is not an intruder. Its her child. A mother cannot go crazy and throw her 13 year old child onto the street without severe legal repercussions. Why should she have limitless rights over a baby whose home is inside of her?

A mother has rights over her body, not over the baby. As duck dodger pointed out these rights are limited once the baby can survive without her.

Quote
One day prior to due date, the baby can survive outside of the mother.  There is a reason the current ban in the US is set at 24 weeks.  This is the point where it statistically becomes a coin toss on whether the baby will survive outside the womb and therefore is granted protection.

If you rip a 20 week old baby out of the womb it will suffer. It will gasp for air and die. That is murder of a living being.

No, murder is defined as unlawful killing, it has nothing to do with gasping for air. What do you hope to achieve by appealing to the awfulness of dead babies?

Quote
What is the purpose of this killing? The purpose is that a baby was killed so the mother won't have to suffer temporary inconvenience for some number of months until the baby can be born and adopted into a loving home. That is unjustifiable and wrong.

Not all abortions are for this reason. If you cannot acknowledge that the issue is more complicated then what is the point?

Quote
The mother should be compelled to go through with the pregnancy, just as a landlord is compelled to give someone time to vacate in an eviction. It was decided that temporary inconvenience to the landlord does not outweigh kicking someone on the streets with nowhere to live. Likewise, the temporary inconvenience of the mother should not outweigh the termination of a baby's life and wish to live.

What about when it's nervous system is undeveloped and is incapable of sentience?

Quote
Are you really defending mothers who want to kill their babies because they see them as an inconvenience and a distraction? Shame on you.

People explaining how you are misrepresenting the abortion laws is different than supporting them.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 24, 2016, 11:40:10 PM
A mother has rights over her body, not over the baby. As duck dodger pointed out these rights are limited once the baby can survive without her.

Why should a woman have the right to evict a baby inside of her, but I don't have the right to evict someone from my property without giving them an appropriate time to leave? Don't we owe it to these defenseless babies to also give them time to leave their home?

Women don't have authority over their bodies. Suicide is illegal in many places. Drugs are illegal. Incest is illegal. Vaccines are mandatory. There are many limits on a woman's body. It is ridiculous to claim that a woman has authority over her body when there are hundreds, probably thousands, of laws which say that is not the case.

Quote
What about when it's nervous system is undeveloped and is incapable of sentience?

From the moment of conception the level of complexity which occurs is mind boggling. Zygote stage cells try to avoid foreign attackers such as viruses and bacteria. Fetuses in early pregnancies are capable enough to try and avoid the prongs and tubes abortion doctors attack them with. The nervous system develops very fast, and the ability to react to stimulus begins immediately. There no doubt that a baby in the womb has sentience - the ability to feel, perceive, and experience. That quality is apparent at the earliest stage.

Unborn babies know enough to try to avoid destruction. Don't kid yourself. They can feel. They are alive. Is a fetus not in pain when the abortion doctor rips it apart limb by limb while in the womb?

These babies cannot be dehumanized. A life cannot be denied.  Saying that abortion is okay because the baby is not fully grown is practically the same as saying that it is okay to kill a 1 year old baby because it is not yet a man. There is no slippery slope. It's a obvious attempt at justifying an immoral act.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Rushy on October 25, 2016, 01:16:22 AM
incorrect.  traumatic brain injuries often affect cognition in specific and repeatable ways.  other injuries do not.  this is how we first started learning about which parts of the brain are involved with particular cognitive abilities, like recalling a memory.  also lobotomy. 

Very simple and repeated tasks with generalizations that "this does that". It's no more astute than claiming you understand the human genome by pointing out errors in it. The brain is simply one part of our spiritual machinery. The heart and stomach are just as important.

networks of neurons respond to stimuli from your sensory organs.  the precise mechanism behind consciousness is not fully-understood, but the connection between neurons and cognition is beyond dispute.

In what way, though? If I wanted to build a conscious brain, how would I go about doing so? Which wires go where, so to speak?

the heart contributes nothing to cognition.

This is false, the heart is even more important to cognition than even the brain. You can still live without half a brain, but living with half a heart will give you quite some trouble.

It might be interpreted that way by someone uninitiated in the study of fluid mechanics. To a more sophisticated eye, this is simply evidence for well-established laws of physics which permit one object to push another aside as it moves.

An thoughtful pivot tactic, but a pivot nonetheless. The B-cell is clearly giving chase to a small bacterium which is fleeing. Of course, if you want to use the excuse that they are in a fluid, so too will I excuse your dog and cat analogy by way of them being in a fluid. Unless, of course, you wish me to imagine a scenario in which a dog gives chase to a cat whilst in a vacuum.

Oh, you are correct. My mistake. So Tom's argument rests solely on his unsubstantiated claim that individual cells "want" anything.

You would have to ask Tom for that.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: andruszkow on October 25, 2016, 06:50:42 AM
Do you think it's reprehensible to use lethal force on a dangerous intruder in your home?

The baby is not an intruder. Its her child. A mother cannot go crazy and throw her 13 year old child onto the street without severe legal repercussions. Why should she have limitless rights over a baby whose home is inside of her?

One day prior to due date, the baby can survive outside of the mother.  There is a reason the current ban in the US is set at 24 weeks.  This is the point where it statistically becomes a coin toss on whether the baby will survive outside the womb and therefore is granted protection.

If you rip a 20 week old baby out of the womb it will suffer. It will gasp for air and die. That is murder of a living being.

What is the purpose of this killing? The purpose is that a baby was killed so the mother won't have to suffer temporary inconvenience for some number of months until the baby can be born and adopted into a loving home. That is unjustifiable and wrong.

The baby should have a right to live and be adopted by parents who will love it. The mother should be compelled to go through with the pregnancy, just as a landlord is compelled to give someone time to vacate in an eviction. It was decided that temporary inconvenience to the landlord does not outweigh kicking someone on the streets with nowhere to live. Likewise, the temporary inconvenience of the mother should not outweigh the termination of a baby's life and wish to live.

Are you really defending mothers who want to kill their babies because they see them as an inconvenience and a distraction? Shame on you.
You didn't answer his question.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on October 25, 2016, 08:27:57 AM
Whether or not the foetus/ zygote/ egg/ sperm wants life is irrelevant. The question is whether one has bodily autonomy, that is, do you have the right to decide what happens in your own body?

Even if a foetus was 100% cognisant and able to debate the finer details of Aristotelian philosophy I would still argue that the right to abortion  be defended. Nobody has the right to force themselves upon your body without your consent, even if withdrawing that access results in their death.

That is a reprehensible argument. You are basically arguing that a woman has the right to kill a baby one day before birth.

The baby inside her is a living being as well. There are two people here, not just one. You are arguing that the termination of a baby, which wants to live, it perfectly fine, because it might temporarily inconvenience the mother. That is terrible. How could you favor termination of life over temporary inconvenience?

The intention of abortion isn't to kill the foetus, but to remove it from the woman. At the point at which birth might be viable every effort should be taken to ensure the survival of both patients. However, this is largely an irrelevant argument, the number of tate-term abortions is vanishingly small and are usually carried out to preserve the life of the mother where complications have arisen. Sad, but necessary.

I'll leave others to make the case that a foetus isn't a 'person' in any meaningful sense because it doesn't form part of my argument.

Yes, I'd argue that if someone requires the use of your body to live, then you have the right to accept or deny that use. If I found myself in hospital hooked up to someone on dialysis connected to my liver, then I would object to being told I couldn't end the session, even if I fully intended to see it through to the end.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 25, 2016, 04:45:03 PM
The intention of abortion isn't to kill the foetus, but to remove it from the woman. At the point at which birth might be viable every effort should be taken to ensure the survival of both patients. However, this is largely an irrelevant argument, the number of tate-term abortions is vanishingly small and are usually carried out to preserve the life of the mother where complications have arisen. Sad, but necessary.

I'll leave others to make the case that a foetus isn't a 'person' in any meaningful sense because it doesn't form part of my argument.

Yes, I'd argue that if someone requires the use of your body to live, then you have the right to accept or deny that use. If I found myself in hospital hooked up to someone on dialysis connected to my liver, then I would object to being told I couldn't end the session, even if I fully intended to see it through to the end.

If you woke up and found yourself in a hospital hooked up to someone on dialysis connected to your liver, it is your moral and ethical responsibility not to pull the plug and wait it out for the process to complete. Why would you kill another person to relieve some temporary discomfort? It is your obligation to try and preserve life, not be selfish and end it. If you straight up killed that man, I would have no problem with you going to jail. You don't get to decide who lives and dies.

A baby which is aborted is innocent. They didn't ask to be put into the situation they are in. We owe it as a society to do anything we can for that innocent life. The moral obligation is quite clear. The innocent baby wants to be born and live and their selfish parents want to destroy it. How can you justify those terrible actions?
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Rama Set on October 25, 2016, 04:47:37 PM
If you woke up and found yourself in a hospital hooked up to someone on dialysis connected to your liver, it is your moral and ethical responsibility not to pull the plug and wait it out for the process to complete. Why would you kill another person to relieve some temporary discomfort? It is your obligation to try and preserve life, not be selfish and end it.

So then you think it is one's ethical and moral responsibility to donate one of their kidneys?  Or a lobe of lung?

Quote
A baby which is aborted is innocent. They didn't ask to be put into the situation they are in. We owe it as a society to do anything we can for that innocent life.

Why do we owe it as a society to do anything we can for innocent life?  You need to justify this.

Quote
The moral obligation is quite clear. The innocent baby wants to be born and live and their selfish parents want to destroy it.

You still have not shown that a baby "wants to be born".  I do not accept this premise yet.

Just as a sidebar, how would you justify the following scenario:

A single woman, who has no intention of ever bearing children is raped by a gang of men, impregnated and left unable to work.  She will not be in any position to provide for the child.  Is it your position that this woman should be made to carry the child to term, give birth, and then give up the child for abortion?  Who should bear the cost of this?
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 25, 2016, 05:06:29 PM
So then you think it is one's ethical and moral responsibility to donate one of their kidneys?  Or a lobe of lung?

Not donating your kidney is not the same as deliberately ending a life. Maybe if you were somehow the only match and there were no other options and you flatly refused, you would be culpable.

Quote
Why do we owe it as a society to do anything we can for innocent life?  You need to justify this.

As a society we value innocence and honesty and look down on selfishness and evil.

Quote
You still have not shown that a baby "wants to be born".  I do not accept this premise yet.

Of course the baby wants to live. If the baby didn't want to be born it would abort itself.

Quote
Just as a sidebar, how would you justify the following scenario:

A single woman, who has no intention of ever bearing children is raped by a gang of men, impregnated and left unable to work.  She will not be in any position to provide for the child.  Is it your position that this woman should be made to carry the child to term, give birth, and then give up the child for abortion?  Who should bear the cost of this?

Yes. Those men should certainly be found and punished, but the baby is innocent. Why punish the baby? What did it do?

The woman should be made to complete the pregnancy and allow the baby to live. The adoptive parents typically pays for the maintenance of the woman while she is pregnant if she is unable to do so. If no adoptive parents can be found, the state should step in. This is not some terrible injustice to the woman. The baby is not some dangerous intruder being forced upon her. The baby is HER CHILD, and the state is simply protecting her child from her selfishness.

What those men did is not a nice thing, but she could have easily been murdered or received life long injuries. The temporary inconvenience she must go through to preserve the innocent life of her own child, her own flesh and blood, is the right thing to do, and pales in comparison to what could have happened.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on October 26, 2016, 08:26:32 AM
Quote
If you woke up and found yourself in a hospital hooked up to someone on dialysis connected to your liver, it is your moral and ethical responsibility not to pull the plug and wait it out for the process to complete. Why would you kill another person to relieve some temporary discomfort? It is your obligation to try and preserve life, not be selfish and end it. If you straight up killed that man, I would have no problem with you going to jail. You don't get to decide who lives and dies.

Any treatment carries an inherent risk, and some treatments riskier than others - would you still object to the donor kidney pulling the plug if there was a very good chance that by continuing either the donor or the patient or both could die?

it is up to us whether we accept the risks a medical procedure such as donating the use of an organ or bringing a baby to term, not the hospital, not the state, and not Tom Bishop: Emperor of the Internet.

Quote
A baby which is aborted is innocent.

Irrelevant.

Quote
They didn't ask to be put into the situation they are in. We owe it as a society to do anything we can for that innocent life. The moral obligation is quite clear. The innocent baby wants to be born and live and their selfish parents want to destroy it. How can you justify those terrible actions?

They don't (generally) want to destroy the foetus, but to stop the procedure of bringing it to term. If there was a safe and effective means to remove a foetus  and transfer it to an artificial womb, I'd support every effort being made to ensure that was the legal abortion option.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: la xasop on October 26, 2016, 09:02:19 AM
It is your obligation to try and preserve life

I have already addressed this (and numerous other points which you have summarily ignored, but let's take this one step at a time):

This is a common line of reasoning among anti-abortionists, who try to boil down the issue to being about the preservation of life. It is not about life unless you are also campaigning against the harvesting of crops. It is about a sapient human being, and the question you should ask is at what point sapience begins, not what point life begins.

Quote
A baby which is aborted is innocent.

Irrelevant.

Actually, it's not, but that doesn't imply that abortion is always wrong. It's extreme stances like this, refusing to even acknowledge that some consideration to the baby's right to live is warranted, which makes the conventional pro-choice stance so easy to dismiss to pro-lifers.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Tom Bishop on October 26, 2016, 10:52:22 PM
It is your obligation to try and preserve life

I have already addressed this (and numerous other points which you have summarily ignored, but let's take this one step at a time):

This is a common line of reasoning among anti-abortionists, who try to boil down the issue to being about the preservation of life. It is not about life unless you are also campaigning against the harvesting of crops. It is about a sapient human being, and the question you should ask is at what point sapience begins, not what point life begins.

What does the ability to think and reason have to do with it? That is ridiculous. A newborn baby can't think or reason at any high level, but killing a newborn baby is wrong and illegal. Are you saying that it's okay to kill newborns because they can't reason with you?
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: la xasop on October 26, 2016, 11:46:22 PM
What does the ability to think and reason have to do with it? That is ridiculous.

Then why do anti-abortionists never protest yards being weeded?

A newborn baby can't think or reason at any high level, but killing a newborn baby is wrong and illegal. Are you saying that it's okay to kill newborns because they can't reason with you?

I'm not saying anything about what I believe. It is simple observation that the issue has nothing to do with life when routine, everyday destruction of life is so abundant and never protested.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Boots on October 27, 2016, 12:07:51 AM
What does the ability to think and reason have to do with it? That is ridiculous.

Then why do anti-abortionists never protest yards being weeded?

A newborn baby can't think or reason at any high level, but killing a newborn baby is wrong and illegal. Are you saying that it's okay to kill newborns because they can't reason with you?

I'm not saying anything about what I believe. It is simple observation that the issue has nothing to do with life when routine, everyday destruction of life is so abundant and never protested.

Most pro-lifers are against the taking of innocent, defenseless, human life. Weeds and weasels are not considered to be in the same category by any pro-lifer that I know - or anyone that I know regardless of their stance on abortion, for that matter.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: la xasop on October 27, 2016, 12:54:57 AM
Most pro-lifers are against the taking of innocent, defenseless, human life. Weeds and weasels are not considered to be in the same category by any pro-lifer that I know - or anyone that I know regardless of their stance on abortion, for that matter.

That's exactly my point. It's not about life if not just any form of life qualifies.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Boots on October 27, 2016, 01:28:21 AM
Most pro-lifers are against the taking of innocent, defenseless, human life. Weeds and weasels are not considered to be in the same category by any pro-lifer that I know - or anyone that I know regardless of their stance on abortion, for that matter.

That's exactly my point. It's not about life if not just any form of life qualifies.

Pro-choice is referring to a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, not all other types of choices in the universe. Pro-life is referring to human life - specifically the lives of unborn babies, not all other types of life in the universe. Are you arguing semantics or am I completely missing your point?

Pro-lifers are against the taking of human life regardless of said human's ability to think and reason.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: la xasop on October 27, 2016, 01:40:26 AM
Pro-choice is referring to a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, not all other types of choices in the universe. Pro-life is referring to human life - specifically the lives of unborn babies, not all other types of life in the universe. Are you arguing semantics or am I completely missing your point?

Pro-lifers are against the taking of human life regardless of said human's ability to think and reason.

I'm not talking about the term "pro-life". I don't care what pro-lifers call themselves. I'm talking about arguments based on claims such as:

It is your obligation to try and preserve life

"Life" is not the foundation of their argument, and by pretending it is, they make it impossible to respond to what they actually mean. I can't criticise a viewpoint based upon values which have not been communicated.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Boots on October 27, 2016, 02:01:41 AM
OK. Tom can speak for himself but in general, would it be fair to say  that "human life" is the foundation of their argument? And if it was, what would your response be to that?
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: la xasop on October 27, 2016, 02:04:17 AM
OK. Tom can speak for himself but in general, would it be fair to say  that "human life" is the foundation of their argument? And if it was, what would your response be to that?

I don't know if it's fair to say that because I don't know what most of them base their beliefs on, but it sounds plausible.

I would want to know what precisely is meant by "human life". At what point on the evolutionary spectrum between Australopithecus and Homo sapiens do embryos stop qualifying for abortion, and more importantly, why?

That is, what about human life makes it more precious than other life?
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Boots on October 27, 2016, 02:19:41 AM
OK. Tom can speak for himself but in general, would it be fair to say  that "human life" is the foundation of their argument? And if it was, what would your response be to that?

I don't know if it's fair to say that because I don't know what most of them base their beliefs on, but it sounds plausible.

I would want to know what precisely is meant by "human life". At what point on the evolutionary spectrum between Australopithecus and Homo sapiens do embryos stop qualifying for abortion, and more importantly, why?

That is, what about human life makes it more precious than other life?

Before I attempt an answer I would like to ask you a question. Assuming that it wasn't illegal and that there was no chance of retribution, would you kill a man you didn't like (Thork?) as casually as you would pull a weed from your yard that you didn't like? Why or why not?
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: garygreen on October 29, 2016, 03:28:47 PM
Very simple and repeated tasks with generalizations that "this does that". It's no more astute than claiming you understand the human genome by pointing out errors in it.

indeed, meticulously altering the parameters of a system and carefully observing the resulting changes is in fact an excellent way to learn how things work.  this is just as true of the genome as it is of the brain.  tracking "errors" in heredity is actually exactly how we came to understand the genome. 

if the only means of affecting cognition is to affect the brain, then it's a pretty decent bet that the brain has something to do with cognition.  if structural damage to one specific part of the brain always causes a specific and repeatable change in cognition, and if no other damage to any other part of the body causes those same changes, then it seems highly likely that the two are related.

In what way, though? If I wanted to build a conscious brain, how would I go about doing so? Which wires go where, so to speak?

one of the neat things about brains is that the build themselves.  that said, we understand how brains build themselves quite well. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989000/) 

nevertheless, the capacity to understand a thing and the capacity to build a thing are different matters.  no one can build a yeast cell, but it would be asinine to assert that this implies that yeast has nothing to do with leavening.  or that we don't understand yeast cells very thoroughly.

you claim that "The brain is simply one part of our spiritual machinery. The heart and stomach are just as important."  in what way, though?  if i wanted to build a conscious spiritual machine, how would i go about doing so?  which wires go where, so to speak?

This is false, the heart is even more important to cognition than even the brain. You can still live without half a brain, but living with half a heart will give you quite some trouble.

you apparently didn't read the link i provided about the human who lived for more than a year without a heart.  he had zero hearts in his body, yet his cognition was unaffected.

please tell me more about the folks who continue to live without half of a brain.  i'm specifically interested in their cognitive abilities before and after losing half of their brains.

and again, no one disagrees that death affects cognition.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Rushy on October 30, 2016, 07:19:40 PM
indeed, meticulously altering the parameters of a system and carefully observing the resulting changes is in fact an excellent way to learn how things work.  this is just as true of the genome as it is of the brain.  tracking "errors" in heredity is actually exactly how we came to understand the genome. 

if the only means of affecting cognition is to affect the brain, then it's a pretty decent bet that the brain has something to do with cognition.  if structural damage to one specific part of the brain always causes a specific and repeatable change in cognition, and if no other damage to any other part of the body causes those same changes, then it seems highly likely that the two are related.

Yet the brain isn't the only way to affect cognition. In fact, the neurons in the brain play very little in the ways of our cognitive abilities, and instead most of our desires are controlled by other body parts. For example, the stomach determines when you're hungry or not, not your brain.

one of the neat things about brains is that the build themselves.  that said, we understand how brains build themselves quite well. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989000/) 

nevertheless, the capacity to understand a thing and the capacity to build a thing are different matters.  no one can build a yeast cell, but it would be asinine to assert that this implies that yeast has nothing to do with leavening.  or that we don't understand yeast cells very thoroughly.

you claim that "The brain is simply one part of our spiritual machinery. The heart and stomach are just as important."  in what way, though?  if i wanted to build a conscious spiritual machine, how would i go about doing so?  which wires go where, so to speak?

Ah, so seeing as how you understand how brains work, you can build one, right? If you understood precisely how it works, then you could easily build a logic system replicating a brain out of anything. I'm sure experts in AI are eagerly awaiting your groundbreaking discoveries.

[...] human who lived for more than a year without a heart.

Incorrect.

please tell me more about the folks who continue to live without half of a brain.  i'm specifically interested in their cognitive abilities before and after losing half of their brains.

and again, no one disagrees that death affects cognition.

I never claimed one could live normally with half a brain. One cannot live with half a brain, half a heart, half a stomach.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: Ghost Spaghetti on November 01, 2016, 03:30:11 PM
Quote
Actually, it's not, but that doesn't imply that abortion is always wrong. It's extreme stances like this, refusing to even acknowledge that some consideration to the baby's right to live is warranted, which makes the conventional pro-choice stance so easy to dismiss to pro-lifers.

Everyone else has the argument about when a foetus should be considered a 'baby' fairly well wrapped up; in the full debate it's one facet to consider, but it is irrelevant the argument from a woman's autonomy, which is the argument that I am making.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: garygreen on November 01, 2016, 07:38:17 PM
Yet the brain isn't the only way to affect cognition. In fact, the neurons in the brain play very little in the ways of our cognitive abilities, and instead most of our desires are controlled by other body parts. For example, the stomach determines when you're hungry or not, not your brain.

this greeting-card view of the origins of our emotions may be well-supported by disney films, but not by any serious investigation of human physiology.  neurons are precisely where our appetites originate: (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2710609/) "The brain detects alterations in energy stores and triggers metabolic and behavioral responses designed to maintain energy balance. Energy homeostasis is controlled mainly by neuronal circuits in the hypothalamus and brainstem, whereas reward and motivation aspects of eating behavior are controlled by neurons in limbic regions and cerebral cortex."  emphasis mine.

In what way, though? If I wanted to build a conscious brain, how would I go about doing so? Which wires go where, so to speak?
one of the neat things about brains is that the build themselves.  that said, we understand how brains build themselves quite well. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989000/) 

nevertheless, the capacity to understand a thing and the capacity to build a thing are different matters.  no one can build a yeast cell, but it would be asinine to assert that this implies that yeast has nothing to do with leavening.  or that we don't understand yeast cells very thoroughly.

you claim that "The brain is simply one part of our spiritual machinery. The heart and stomach are just as important."  in what way, though?  if i wanted to build a conscious spiritual machine, how would i go about doing so?  which wires go where, so to speak?
Ah, so seeing as how you understand how brains work, you can build one, right? If you understood precisely how it works, then you could easily build a logic system replicating a brain out of anything. I'm sure experts in AI are eagerly awaiting your groundbreaking discoveries.
   
one of the neat things about brains is that the build themselves.  that said, we understand how brains build themselves quite well. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2989000/) 

nevertheless, the capacity to understand a thing and the capacity to build a thing are different matters.  no one can build a yeast cell, but it would be asinine to assert that this implies that yeast has nothing to do with leavening.  or that we don't understand yeast cells very thoroughly.

you claim that "The brain is simply one part of our spiritual machinery. The heart and stomach are just as important."  in what way, though?  if i wanted to build a conscious spiritual machine, how would i go about doing so?  which wires go where, so to speak?  seeing as how you understand how spiritual machinery works, you can build it, right?

[...] human who lived for more than a year without a heart.

Incorrect.

you appear to be replying to my posts without actually reading what i've written.  here's the link again: Man lives 555 days without a heart. (http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/10/health/artificial-heart-555-days-transplant/)

I never claimed one could live normally with half a brain. One cannot live with half a brain, half a heart, half a stomach.

for like the fifth time, i agree that death affects cognition.  your ability to keep living is indeed a function of the integer number of each organ you have.  not in dispute even a little bit.

dead bodies are not ideal candidates for understanding the cause and effect relationship between brains and thoughts.  'cause they're like, you know, dead and shit.

also you absolutely can live with half a brain (http://motherboard.vice.com/read/what-its-like-to-live-with-half-a-brain), half a heart (http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/hypoplastic-left-heart-syndrome/home/ovc-20164178), or half a stomach (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bariatric_surgery).  only one of those causes cognitive impairment.  guess which one.
Title: Re: Abortion is selfish and should be abolished
Post by: disputeone on November 25, 2016, 06:34:08 AM
The problem today is the lack of information concerning the higher aspects of sexuality.

Men need to learn how to sublimate their erotic energy, to exercise their seminal sphincter, to really understand the link between the generative force and vitality and spirituality. Women need to find out how to transmute the power of their menstrual blood into divinity, and the methods are very easy to learn (one must be very careful though, since most of the information on the subject is transmitted by false teachers).

There is a very simple procedure to be followed if the period is late, so that there will be no pregnancy, and no need to even think about an abortion... so many things which are lacking from a proper education on one of the two most fundamental energies in our bodies (the other being the emotional energy).

A woman needs to learn the deer exercise, the most fundamental practice which links the ovaries with the heart; if the period is late, it is necessary to increase the heat in the lower abdomen...
Everything you said is absolute gibberish.
The only way 'heat' will help is to kill the fertilized egg attached to the uterus wall.  This is called an Abortion.

It's an occult thing, I had no idea Sandokhan. Pretty impressed actually, every time I think I've figured you out...

Also Tom you have every right to state your opinion but IMHO it's the womans body and the womans choice.