Pro-Life or Pro-Choice?

[Lacquer Head]

The heartbeat is a sign of life. As in, killing something with a heartbeat means you're actually killing it, instead of trying to get off on, "well, it wasn't really alive at that point".

But it's alive, no matter what. Sperm cells are alive, a heartbeat doesn't make them any more alive, it doesn't change anything. The closest thing I could see that could POSSIBLY be relevant would be brain development. If there were some kind of consciousness or self-awareness, otherwise, it's still just a wad of living tissue living off the mother, heartbeat or no.

Yeah, because we all can see that you of all people would never have to worry about having a substandard IQ, right? And of course there's no real detriment, you know, other than wholesale slaughter.

Sorry, no LOGICAL detriment. Morality is ju...this thread already exists. Killing off inferior genes is the epitome of natural selection, it would only benefit the human race, in a natural way.

The aforementioned heartbeat issue was brought up to point out that a child is alive before it is born, so whether or not is has traveled a whole ten inches or so through the birth canal makes absolutely no difference.

Once again, it's alive inside of the dad's testicles, so if we were to go down "killing a living POTENTIAL human is bad" road, cumming outside is murder. Is there a way to determine when cognitive function begins, or is that after birth? Because THAT is what makes a person human.

You're willing to slaughter children for the sake of population control, or those you dictate are lower-quality humans, and to force parents to pay fines or force sterilization upon them, and now you're whining that a child's right to life may be protected more than an adult's right to irresponsible sex. Don't pretend that you care about individual rights.

It's not about individual rights, it's about hypocritical thinking. I never said anything about slaughtering children, I condone slaughtering parasites. A good example is when there are conjoined twins, but one didn't develop correctly. If left alone, the parasitic twin will kill them both, yet it can't survive on it's own. It has cognitive function, but it must be removed, and thus killed for the other to survive.

I remember this exact scenario on Ripley's Believe it or Not or something along those lines, was pretty interesting.

[Clint]

Perhaps if it was based on gender, race or looks or whatever, it might be a different story, but to be honest, I wouldn't exactly be against population control based on IQ levels...

Now, waiting til a child is BORN to be preventive IS ignorant, my idea would be forced sterilization or face fines, if we were to go down that road, but this is getting WAAAAY off topic.

I mentioned a new form of slavery in my post. I said, and I quote, population control is bringing way to a rebirth of slavery, except that these slaves are helpless defenseless and innocent babies who get no support from anybody. Population control, in itself, is a flawed concept that under no circumstances could possibly work without turning the population into slaves. If you support slavery, that's fine, because you have every right to think like that, but simply given the right to think doesn't make you right. Both slavery and population control are immoral things, and they're ideologies that deserve to be allowed to die.

Regardless of whether or not the child is a person with rights, by not legalizing abortion, you're putting the child's rights above the parents, and that's hardly fair.

The child's rights are above the parents. Any parent would tell you that.

If there were some kind of consciousness or self-awareness, otherwise, it's still just a wad of living tissue living off the mother, heartbeat or no.

Infants have no awareness of their own state, emotions, and motivations. Older children even have limited insight to understanding their own actions. Self-awareness is a developed ability, that takes place over the course of many years. It's not present as soon as you come out of your mother's womb. This completely defeats the purpose of your statement. You make the assumption that any born human possesses consciousness and self-awareness, and that anything else is simply a "wad of meat," and can therefore be disposed of like garbage. But since children have limited consciousness and self-awareness, you are arguing that they, too, can be disposed of like garbage.

Killing off inferior genes is the epitome of natural selection, it would only benefit the human race, in a natural way.

Except if people are the ones killing off unwanted genes, such as in processes relating to population control, then it isn't exactly natural.

Is there a way to determine when cognitive function begins, or is that after birth? Because THAT is what makes a person human.

A baby typically develops cognitive function at 24 weeks after birth. By your word, you are stating that a human baby younger than 24 weeks is not human, due to the fact that cognitive function is what makes a person human. So if a newborn baby, who's parents are both humans, isn't a human, then what is it? If the baby growing in the human mother's womb isn't human, then I wonder what species it is?

If a human fetus wasn't a human, then there would be no humans, since they would apparently be an entirely different species to begin with. If you are currently a human now, then you were a human while you were still a fetus. Are you even aware how reproduction works? I am getting pissed off and frustrated even explaining this, because it's common sense that a human fetus is a human.

[Lacquer Head]

I mentioned a new form of slavery in my post. I said, and I quote, population control is bringing way to a rebirth of slavery, except that these slaves are helpless defenseless and innocent babies who get no support from anybody. Population control, in itself, is a flawed concept that under no circumstances could possibly work without turning the population into slaves. If you support slavery, that's fine, because you have every right to think like that, but simply given the right to think doesn't make you right. Both slavery and population control are immoral things, and they're ideologies that deserve to be allowed to die.

Immoral is just a concept I don't believe in. However, population control will ALWAYS be flawed, just like any good fascist system, no matter the intents, there will always be people to twist the purpose to their own wants or needs.

The child's rights are above the parents. Any parent would tell you that.

Well...Casey Anthony would disagree. I just don't believe that ANYONE should be able to force someone else to have a child, as I said earlier, if there's some kind of way to transplant a fetus into a tube or a donor woman, go for it.

Infants have no awareness of their own state, emotions, and motivations. Older children even have limited insight to understanding their own actions. Self-awareness is a developed ability, that takes place over the course of many years. It's not present as soon as you come out of your mother's womb. This completely defeats the purpose of your statement. You make the assumption that any born human possesses consciousness and self-awareness, and that anything else is simply a "wad of meat," and can therefore be disposed of like garbage. But since children have limited consciousness and self-awareness, you are arguing that they, too, can be disposed of like garbage.

Infants most certainly have a form of awareness, they might not have the same cognitive functions as us, but they do know to cry when they need something. They do need comfort. I never argued anything about LIMITED function, I said ANY function.

Except if people are the ones killing off unwanted genes, such as in processes relating to population control, then it isn't exactly natural.

Natural Selection is the theory that the strong survive and the weak perish thanks to genetic traits, however, due to the way humans have developed, nature doesn't reward the strong, it just rewards whoever spreads their seed the most. If anything, it's unnaturally making things natural.

A baby typically develops cognitive function at 24 weeks after birth. By your word, you are stating that a human baby younger than 24 weeks is not human, due to the fact that cognitive function is what makes a person human. So if a newborn baby, who's parents are both humans, isn't a human, then what is it? If the baby growing in the human mother's womb isn't human, then I wonder what species it is?

What does species have to do with anything? I'm saying that if there were to be ANY defining line to draw between what someone wanted to consider a living person, brain function is much more relevant than a heart beat, and 24 weeks seems like a fair amount of time, unless there are health problems, it's more than enough time for a person to decide whether or not they want or need a baby, other than unforeseen circumstances such as health issues or whatever.

If a human fetus wasn't a human, then there would be no humans, since they would apparently be an entirely different species to begin with. If you are currently a human now, then you were a human while you were still a fetus. Are you even aware how reproduction works? I am getting pissed off and frustrated even explaining this, because it's common sense that a human fetus is a human.

Would you consider semen to be a human? Honestly, I'm not seeing the difference here.

[Clint]

Natural Selection is the theory that the strong survive and the weak perish thanks to genetic traits, however, due to the way humans have developed, nature doesn't reward the strong, it just rewards whoever spreads their seed the most. If anything, it's unnaturally making things natural.

If human development caused a reverse action in natural selection, that means that the reverse action is natural. Forcing natural selection is like digging a canal. You're creating an unnatural pathway as a means to a short cut. It's arrogant human reasoning to argue that you can force nature, yet still call it nature. Your reasoning is unnatural selection, not natural selection.

I'm saying that if there were to be ANY defining line to draw between what someone wanted to consider a living person, brain function is much more relevant than a heart beat, and 24 weeks seems like a fair amount of time, unless there are health problems, it's more than enough time for a person to decide whether or not they want or need a baby, other than unforeseen circumstances such as health issues or whatever.

If you argue that a brain, and not a heart, is what signifies a life form, then you should know that the brain develops in a fetus at around 18 weeks. Abortions can be performed up to 24 weeks, indicating, by your standards, that what is being aborted at that point is a living human being, and not a "parasite," as you so disrespectfully referred previously. Therefore, you condone the murder of unborn, yet living human beings.

As far as people being given the time to decide whether they want or need a baby, that's a moot point. They don't deserve the time. Any time you have sex, there's a risk that the woman may get pregnant, unless if she's really old, or has a hysterectomy. The time to decide if you want or need a baby is the moment before you consent to having sex. Abortion is a perfect example of people not wanting to take responsibility for their actions. The unborn child shouldn't be punished for his parent's cowardly decision to take a short cut through life.

Would you consider semen to be a human? Honestly, I'm not seeing the difference here.

Would you consider a pine cone to be a pine tree? Semen is an unfertilized seed. It's a living organism in the same way that a sunflower seed is a living organism. So no, it's not a human. I'm not sure why you're comparing babies to semen. That's actually a little bit creepy. Being ethically minded, I believe that semen should be kept away from babies.

[Lacquer Head]

If human development caused a reverse action in natural selection, that means that the reverse action is natural. Forcing natural selection is like digging a canal. You're creating an unnatural pathway as a means to a short cut. It's arrogant human reasoning to argue that you can force nature, yet still call it nature. Your reasoning is unnatural selection, not natural selection.

I would argue that when we became civilized and more or less conquered the planet, we created the unnatural canal. We destroyed all predators to keep us in check, we're steadily increasing our ability to fight disease and able to harvest our own food.

If you argue that a brain, and not a heart, is what signifies a life form, then you should know that the brain develops in a fetus at around 18 weeks. Abortions can be performed up to 24 weeks, indicating, by your standards, that what is being aborted at that point is a living human being, and not a "parasite," as you so disrespectfully referred previously. Therefore, you condone the murder of unborn, yet living human beings.

No, I don't believe that IS what signifies a life form, I believe that it's a lot more relevant than a heartbeat. It puts a life form on a higher level than single-celled organisms and such. It's kind of like meeting an intelligent life form from another planet, wouldn't it be more like murder to kill it than to kill an insect or something? (both have brains, but are on different levels of existence) What is it that separates us from animals? Cognitive function, that's it. Cognitive function isn't a steady level, it increases and decreases as we grow and as we die, but if we are aware of the fact that we are alive, that's what makes us a person. It's the same as a brain-dead person on life support, pulling the plug isn't murder.

As far as people being given the time to decide whether they want or need a baby, that's a moot point. They don't deserve the time. Any time you have sex, there's a risk that the woman may get pregnant, unless if she's really old, or has a hysterectomy. The time to decide if you want or need a baby is the moment before you consent to having sex. Abortion is a perfect example of people not wanting to take responsibility for their actions. The unborn child shouldn't be punished for his parent's cowardly decision to take a short cut through life.

As soon as you're promoted to omniscient being, your opinion on responsibility will be relevant to this discussion.

Would you consider a pine cone to be a pine tree? Semen is an unfertilized seed. It's a living organism in the same way that a sunflower seed is a living organism. So no, it's not a human. I'm not sure why you're comparing babies to semen. That's actually a little bit creepy. Being ethically minded, I believe that semen should be kept away from babies.

I'm not, I'm comparing semen to parasitic beings inside of humans

[Clint]

I would argue that when we became civilized and more or less conquered the planet, we created the unnatural canal. We destroyed all predators to keep us in check, we're steadily increasing our ability to fight disease and able to harvest our own food.

The nature of the human mind allowed us to do those things. Human beings became the smartest species on the planet by natural evolution of the mind. The fact that we've invented medicine, provide a surplus of food, and protect ourselves from predators is not unnatural. We don't make ourselves a smart species. We're all born with the potential for intelligence. Intelligence is simply something that is naturally bred into humans.

What is it that separates us from animals? Cognitive function, that's it.

I see two mistakes here. One, humans are animals. We're a species called Homo Sapien. Our genus is Homo, our family is Hominidae, our order is primate, our class is mammalia, and our phylum is Chordata, all of which are classifications of animal life forms.

Two, animals have cognitive function. If they didn't, they wouldn't be able to think. I'm assuming that you're trying to argue that humans are the only species on earth with a functioning brain.

but if we are aware of the fact that we are alive, that's what makes us a person.

A newborn baby doesn't know it's alive, because it doesn't know what alive is. By your argument, you're stating that slitting the throat of a newborn baby isn't murder, because the baby isn't a person, since it isn't aware that it's alive.

As soon as you're promoted to omniscient being, your opinion on responsibility will be relevant to this discussion.

I wasn't stating my opinion on responsibility. I was stating a fact. People do need to learn to take responsibility for their actions. If you're a woman, and you get pregnant, you are responsible for the life form growing inside of you. It is irresponsible to kill something that you could have prevented in the first place by being more responsible.

If life throws you a curve ball, you don't take a short cut. You grow some goddamn balls and you deal with it.