Utopia Talk / Politics / I can see a scrotum! (ot)

Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Oct 05 07:53:08 Those where the words of the doctor doing the ultra sound on my wife. I really wanted this to be a girl, because then I didn't have to worry as much, the first one is already special, right? He is the first born, the only son. Birth order matter, we even aimed for beginning of the year to do what we could to off set that. It's a boy and I love him no less, but I am so conscious about these things. Very often you see two brothers in a family and one of them is exemplary, the other one is a bum. These are things explained to a degree in the study of genetics, it seems there is a bigger variance in how boys turn out. A girl would have been inherently special, she would be my only daughter and she wouldn't ape her brother at some point, the way a little brother can. I just look at my father and his 2 brothers. The oldest became a banker, the middle was an Imperial Iranian marine and my father, the youngest became an artist. Ok none of them are bums, but how is that variance even possible from the same two parents and home? It makes sense from a birth order perspective, the first born went into a sproper business, the forgotten middle child joined the military, and the baby, he went and studied liberal arts. I have fully internalized him now, I am having a son! I love him and I will make him feel just as special. I will dress him up and put make up on him :) My wife: On some level it would have been nice with a girl, because then I would know it was 100% certain we would have no more children, but now I am only 80% certain. And you know, the stats show this, couples with 2 of the same, the risk of having a third goes up significantly.. we will see :P
murder Member	Tue Oct 05 07:56:25 At least you won't have to worry about him getting knocked up. Congrats! :o)
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 05 08:03:59 "banker, the middle was an Imperial Iranian marine and my father, the youngest became an artist" That sounds like a party from dragon warrior 3, all you need is a pilgrim.
jergul large member	Tue Oct 05 08:17:59 Congrats on the ultrasound confirmation Nimi!
nhill Member	Tue Oct 05 09:56:11 Congrats!!
Dukhat Member	Tue Oct 05 10:20:08 Noone cares.
patom Member	Tue Oct 05 10:47:19 Nimatzo, with a preconceived opinion on which boy turns out good or bad. It won't be much surprise that your younger son will pick up on that and fulfill your expectations.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Oct 05 11:25:38 It’s the opposite of a preconcieved notion you old fart it’s based on tons of research. Facts raise awareness and allow us to take more informed decisions. Me being aware of these things and worrying about my sons future and upbringing, strengthens my resolve to take extra care so that he doesn’t feel like he is second. Think about it, the first child gets 100% attention from 2 parents, the second one will inevitably only get 50%, regardless of sex. That is a tough equation that no parents have managed to solve. The older ones learns to share attention, but the aecond will never feel the undevoted attention of both parents having their first child. It is ultimatly statistical probabilities, but you do what you can based on what you know. You don’t need to know these things patom, your kids are my age :)
Sam Adams Member	Tue Oct 05 11:33:33 Congrats! Also poor duckhat is butthurt at other peoples successes.
Dukhat Member	Tue Oct 05 11:36:18 How is having a kid a "success?" Just another future suicide bomber or child sex slave in Nim's case anyways.
Habebe Member	Tue Oct 05 12:15:25 Dukhat , Well generally people are the fathers of their wife's children. I can understand why you wouldn't feel it a success in your case.
Hot Dud Member	Tue Oct 05 12:19:16 Can you share a picture? I want to see the scrotum, too.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Oct 05 12:19:26 Ooooooo ouch duckhat is now the property of habebe
earthpig GTFO HOer	Wed Oct 06 00:23:35 Grats! FYI with 2, it's not twice as hard. It's like 4x as hard. Especially if they are close in age. "2 under 2" was an intense period of time for us.
nhill Member	Wed Oct 06 03:55:05 Age difference matters. Having 2 for me was extremely easy relative to one, but my first was separated by a little over 4 years. The second kid was a breeze, relatively speaking. As were the 3rd, 4th, and 5th. The first kid I was constantly trying to do everything right and worried about her future and how fragile she was. Second kid I was like, well, go ahead, climb the refrigerator and jump off the top. The first one survived. (hyperbole, obviously)
nhill Member	Wed Oct 06 03:57:44 Now I'm to the point where our kids as a unit can take care of themselves. No worries at all. They've been homeschooled and lived on a self-sufficient homestead. We can leave for a weekend or more without any issues! They have their own Amazon account (as a child account), know how to cook, order groceries, feed the animals, etc. It ain't all perfect, always a struggle to keep their asses productive. But they have basic life skills and can be self-sufficient if need be. After all, you've failed as a parent if they can't. That's pretty much your entire purpose. :)
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Oct 06 04:40:59 We are in that situation with the age seperation. The first one will be 4.5 when the second one is born. So there will a big age difference and they won’t have as much in common probably. On the other hand my 4 year old understands things at another level than if he had been 2 and is more independant. So, he will not need as much attention and that will reduce some stress for us. We saw some people around us get rekt having them right after another, made us wait a bit more. If both parents are working, that can be tough. I think that is a critical point where alot of marriages fail, after the second child.
nhill Member	Wed Oct 06 05:03:32 You'll be good. :) Our first two haven't grown very close with that age difference (and gender gap), but the older was responsible enough to help out. It's when people push out two in a row right away that they get rekt, as you've noticed!
Habebe Member	Wed Oct 06 14:50:35 Nimatzo, Semi on topic, what sort of cake did you settle on, I remember you were looking at rocket ships or something.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Oct 06 15:22:38 It was a rocket and the entire house was decorated with balloon rockets and astronauts :) I have taught him all the planets, including Pluto, he knows Olympus Mons and that it is on Mars and that we have sent robots there, he knows which are the gas giants. One night when I was putting him to bed, he asked me if he could go to Saturn. I said maybe you can go to the moon, but you have to be an astronaut and go to school and train hard. He assured me that he would train with me in the basement and then when he was big, he would go to the moon :,) Yea that first rocket launch I showed to him when he was 3 really left an impression ;)
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Oct 07 09:17:15 Habebe I didn't want to acknowledge his existence, but that was sweet pwnage of Ducuck.
Paramount Member	Thu Oct 07 10:46:40 Congrats! I haven’t read the thread but I understand that you have got a second baby?
jergul large member	Thu Oct 07 11:15:27 That is a pretty indepth understanding given you have not read the thread. Incidentally, I have been reading up on my family history going back 100 million generations or so (not sure how long my earlier forbears lived, but probably not much longer than a couple years). Turns out there is a whole group called up after scrotums. You know, as in any creature that has one in its gender mix. I found that pertinent. Ruggy Did I say 350 million years? My bad. I meant 5000 years but of course.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Oct 07 12:48:46 Thank you all for the well wishes. And I hope Jergul finds the answer he is looking for in the genealogy of his scrotal (is that a word?) ancestors =)
nhill Member	Thu Oct 07 16:21:00 Sounds like that investigation could get pretty hairy.
smart dude Member	Fri Oct 08 04:55:07 It's a fetus and therefore just a braindead lump of cells. You still have only one son, dude. If you have any emotional connection to it, that makes you a backwards savage. According to the libs, anyway.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Oct 08 06:16:12 hehe I have actually stopped myself from making a bunch of comment regarding that, but now that you broke the ice =) I was "amazed", how easy it was to tell the difference between a 14 week fetus and "all the other crap in the placenta" (Nekran), it looks nothing like a teratoma (Cherub cow). Jesus josh golly, it looked like a human being! With a head and a brain, a beating heart, a spine, organs, arms, legs and everything you can imagine! This is a human being at 14 weeks from conception. http://med...00129-Foetus_aged_14_weeks.jpg
jergul large member	Fri Oct 08 07:38:59 The placenta contains all the elements of a leathery egg our animote anscestors layed after the crawled out of the Ocean following some disaster that killed everything on land. I may be erring in the opposite direction when looking at evolution of 10s of million generations, but goddamn its intesting. Ruggy Did I say 10s of millions? My bad. I meant 177 generations since Adam and Eve.
Nekran Member	Fri Oct 08 07:48:56 The placenta was an example of why human DNA is not a good marker. This foetus is starting to resemble a human. That doesn't change my opinion that if the owner of the body it resides in doesn't want it, they should still be able to toss it.
Nekran Member	Fri Oct 08 07:49:11 *not a good marker by itself
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Oct 08 08:04:53 It's weird as hell, this whole procreation business. Inspired by Chappelle I have been looking my son in the eyes since he was born and told him, "you used to live in balls!" Now that procreation is a growing subject, he finally asked me one night. "Dad, mom was in grannies belly". She was, I responded, "and I was in your balls... how does that work?". I couldn't keep it together. I ROFLed pretty hard. Then I gave him the abstract of human procreation. Speaking ballsacks, you know he had no idea he had one, until he was 3. lololol. I was showering him and I bend over to pick up shampoo, I could see him through my legs on the other side, pointing at my balls and asked "what is that?". lol... It's a ballsack, you have one too, look under your penis! The look on his face and the giggle he made, discovering his balls for the first time, priceless. These moments are fucking precious.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Oct 08 08:24:00 Nekran I agree, what life is, is multivariate. I think that was clear from the original discussion, although a bit unstructured all the conditions were enumerated back then. My point back then was, it is contrary to all science we know, to call a human fetus, anything other than, a human life. It is a waste of time and involves a lot of counterfactual assertions about human biology to pretend otherwise. If the discussion is about when a human life form is afforded legal protection, that is another discussion, but it can not invent it's own set of biological facts to remain coherent and rational. Provided the facts, it is at best cognitive dissonance or worse, disingenuous to pretend that what I linked there, has the same moral significance as stuff floating in the placenta with the same DNA, or a tumor or nail clippings or any other clump of cells. I would today call myself, mostly pro-life, there are exceptions, there are grey zones and I do not have good answers for all the stuff in the grey zones and I am OK with that. My starting point is however that human life has intrinsic value and worth protecting, that this must be the center I hold from which I then in that case deviate from because [really good reasons].
Nekran Member	Fri Oct 08 10:08:13 I take a pragmatic approach. Too many people already, no point in adding unwanted ones, whose lives are way more likely to be shitty. In my opionion by forbidding people to choose for themselves, you're condemning people to a likely shitty unwanted life that did nothing to desrve this punishment, just because of some misguided opinion on morality. And no, I don't agree that that fetus qualifies as a human. It's growing into one. I don't give it the same value as nail clippings, I give it just a bit more value than an egg cell, I suppose. Just a bit further along the process to becoming a human, and I don't mind at all if someone discards their own. And to me the most pragmatic approach is taking birth for the limit. Aborting almost fully developed babies is a non issue that would almost never occur. Maybe some bitch out for fame would do it at the latest medically possible moment to shock people at some point, but whatever... shit people do shit things, as they always do. This is not going to be a real problem in the general population. And any limit you set is gonna have its issues, as they always do, but birth imo is simply the most practical one which comes with the least problems, in which people can always make their own decision that is best for them and their situation.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Oct 08 10:57:30 "forbidding people to choose for themselves" It may be difficult to bridge this, but you can only understand me, if you realize I do not believe this is a choice, like going to a barber and shaving your beard, it is choosing life or death for a third human being. The contrast between the value of an unwanted baby and wanted baby, is mind blowing. I have no idea how you reconcile that, because there is no intrinsic difference between those two fetuses, none. "I don't agree that that fetus qualifies as a human" I interpret this as the legal rights worthy human, because the biological definition of "human" includes fetuses, a stage in the life of a human. And this was sort of my problem, this is not something that can be refuted on technical, biological or scientific grounds. It is a social and legal debate. "This is not going to be a real problem in the general population." Strange definition of "problem" in this case, since we are talking about legal principles. If it is a "non issue", it is a non issues 10 million times or a 100 million times. "Maybe some bitch out for fame would do it" And here, I can sense that deep inside you see a problem, but for whatever reason push that thought aside. I will be honest, having witnessed a birth, I am horrified by your inability to see the ethical and moral problems of aborting full term *babies*. I can think of many problems where the most "pragmatic and practical solution" is to euthanize people. I honestly believe that it is impossible to accept the biological facts and have the moral compass I know you have and still have _no_ ethical concerns about abortion. I think you see them, just as clearly as I do. You know there is something going on here, far more significant than an egg. In this case it is out of sight out of mind. 14 week old clump of cells in that picture. You have eyes, you can see what that is, it really is that simple, even if the consequences are non-trivial.
obaminated Member	Fri Oct 08 11:28:42 Congratulations
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Fri Oct 08 11:33:39 "misguided opinion on morality." Let's unpack this one. You and I have the same moral opinion Nekran, judging from how I have come to know you (just generic atheist humanist values will do), you believe that human life has intrinsic value and that it is worth protecting. You have just shielded yourself from the implications of this moral foundation with demonstrably misguided ideas about the facts of the matter. Like 99% of humanist atheists.
jergul large member	Fri Oct 08 17:00:09 The problem I may have is moral inconsistency. An adult pig is closer to a human than a featus by any measure except potential...
Nekran Member	Sat Oct 09 04:33:03 "because the biological definition of "human" includes fetuses, a stage in the life of a human." No, just the one you like. Don't act like there is an undebated and settled defintion of "a human". I know you know better than that. As I've explained before, "embryo" is also said to be a stage in the life of a human then, according to your choice of definition, so if you were serious about this, you should be up in arms together with the Jesus freaks about the massive worldwide use of these humans for experiments, them being kept in freezers undefinitely,... all sorts of inhumane treatment going on. But you're fine with it. Because they aren't humans. It's a pre-human stage... it is a thing that is developing into a human. Not a proper human yet. Like a caterpillar isn't a butterfly and a maggot isn't a fly. But yes, I do agree that aborting fully developed babies is crazy. Nobody should do that. And if they do, they are most likely shit people. But when it comes to the legal framework, birth is just the most convenient cutoff point that comes with the fewest problems as far as I can see.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Oct 09 05:04:15 "Don't act like there is an undebated and settled defintion of "a human". I know you know better than that." I am not "pretending". In any life form, including humans, conception is the starting point for a new life in that specie. From biological point of view there is no debate about this. The debate is a legal one. "I know you know better." On the facts of biology, embryology etc. I would concur. You want to coopt what "human" means for political purpose and warp it. It is one thing to have a legal definition of "personhood" that is different from what is a human in the biological sense. But these attempts of warp reality to fit the narrative. Please stop. ""embryo" is also said to be a stage in the life of a human then" Yes, from conception I have maintained, it is a human. But again, this discussion is completely meaningless, because you think there is no moral difference between an embryo and a 9 month full term baby. You believe a 9 month old baby has the same moral significance as your toe nails. I don't know how else to say it, that is insane! So I have no idea why you are spending time on redefining "human". Well I do, because deep inside you understand there is a problem here, if not with embryos, then with 3-4 months or 6 months or 8 months, you understand fully well there is something going on here that is nothing like toe nails. I know you do Nekran, because the alternative is horrifying to me. Truly. "with the Jesus freaks" This is your counter narrative, I am not part of it. "But you're fine with it. Because they aren't humans." As I said, I am mostly pro-life, there are instances and situation for which I do not have good answers for that fall within grey zones. I am not god so I remain pragmatic, but the center holds. I am not here to sell you an easy answer like the one you have bought. "most convenient" Exactly, not the one taking into account the full range of ethical and moral concerns, but the politically most expedient and socially most convenient. On this we agree 100%. It's not a great ethical argument though, I think you understand that.
Nekran Member	Sat Oct 09 05:12:13 "But again, this discussion is completely meaningless, because you think there is no moral difference between an embryo and a 9 month full term baby." You mean apart from that I just stated that I do in the last post? Why be so obviously disingenuous? It is you who states that there is no difference, because for you they are all humans. A one-celled human, a 4-celled human,... to you it's all humans. Until suddenly you realise that means you are against a bunch of things that are actually good and then you are suddenly talking about "grey zones". So how come the embryo is in a grey zone, Nim? To you it's a human. You just in the same post confirmed that they are humans to you, but also that they are in a grey zone, because... you're not god? Wtf are you even rembling about here? To me it's a cluster of cells that has the potential to become a human. Leading to a consistent position. "Exactly, not the one taking into account the full range of ethical and moral concerns, but the politically most expedient and socially most convenient. On this we agree 100%. It's not a great ethical argument though, I think you understand that." 100% agree... setting limits always comes with its own problems. I'm taking a pragmatic approach here... I do find it unethical to abort an 8 month old foetus. I don't want to forbid it though, because there's no better limit to use than birth.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Oct 09 06:01:36 ”Why be so obviously disingenuous?” Calm down now, I read and respond in the flow of the text. You have indeed confirmed what I suspected all along. You have changed your stance, even if slightly, I ackowledge this here now without ambiguity. It’s not just to me, I have put forward these facts about the biology so that we can seperate between the physical facts and the legal/philosophical discussion. I do believe that the legal and philosophical definition of person should have a high correlation with the biological reality of ”life”, I can’t put a number on it, but it should make perfect sense. It is on biological grounds that we deem people braindead and stop their heart beats, it is the biological reality of brain activity and emergence of consciousness that I am even concerned about the ethics here Nekran. When does it arise? Is it gradual? When in a human life is she conscious enough that she fits the legal definition? Those are not legal questions they are biological and neurological, and that point if there is one point, isn’t birth. And not knowing, not having the definitive facts that tells me a 14 week old human fetus has no correlation at all with what we think about when we read ”person”, considering what is being done if that is significantly higher than zero, I am sorry, there is no way I could justify it. I am even open that it may be gradual, but even then, that would severaly conplicate out current utterly simplisitic legsl view on abortions.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Oct 09 06:08:09 And my inability to justify what I just wrote based on those facts, you understand that perfectly, I know you do, because we have very similair ideas about the morality of unjustified killing of people. We both are against capital punishment, in part because of empirical humility and doubt, what if you are wrong? That is a terrible feeling to have and at the same time inject people with death. There is not an ounce of religion in anything I say, there is no god go answer to, no souls, just brains who feel stuff. In some ways that is worse, atleast the souls of the aborted humans go to heaven if I was religious.
Nekran Member	Sat Oct 09 07:39:21 I'd say the devolpment of consiousness being gradual is a given, considering it continues to develop gradually throughout our (early) lives. There being a single magical moment of the birth of consciousness seems like an inane idea to me. I'm just not a fan of getting into all of these neurological things though. Like there is definitely no way that a foetus could feel pain before about the 24 weeks mark, and probably not for quite some time afterwards either (but there are some necessary parts of the brain and some connections just not present yet before that), but I personally don't feel like that's a good reason to set the limit there. But perhaps that would work for you? Is the possibility to cause pain your problem? But also what about animal treatment? What's so special about human consciousness? Say a 30 week old foetus has a comparable level of consciousness as an earthworm (just picking something here... though I'd guess an earthworm is far more aware than a 30 week old foetus, so feels like a useful comparison to me). Does that really afford it human rights? I don't feel like it should. What I want is a simple good rule for everybody who was born already. Nobody gets forced to abort their unborn children. And if you think all the good that is happening by treating embryos as non-humans is a bad thing, I just don't have common ground with you. I mean I could live with 24 weeks, considering it's an improvement on most laws that are currently on the books (I think it's like 12 weeks out here). But I don't really get your stance. You know your stance is nonsensical, but somehow you have feels about it. What is the thing for you? What must we be sure of to allow abortion? Or experimenting? Do you think all the experiments on embryos are horrible inhumane affairs you only begrudgingly condone because of the benefits they deliver? If you had to make these laws about abortion and what can or can't be done with embryos, what would you decide on?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Oct 12 09:07:43 "There being a single magical moment of the birth of consciousness seems like an inane idea to me." We can describe this as the light being on or off and how bright the light is shining. It's both a "magical" moment and a gradual development. Your certainty in these assertions lacks much needed epistemic humility. "I'm just not a fan of getting into all of these neurological things though." Too bad really, because everything that you are is neurological things. Everything that means anything to you is in your brain, this discussion wouldn't exist without these things. "Like there is definitely no way that a foetus could feel pain before about the 24 weeks mark" Although pain is another consideration it is not simply about pain, otherwise we could merrily go around and kill people under anesthesia. It is about a human life, the fact that is a new individual, despite it growing inside of you, it is a different human being than you. "But also what about animal treatment?" I am very big fan of the ethical treatments of animals, but that is a separate set of codes than those I apply to my own specie. "What's so special about human consciousness?" Apparently this is a serious question.. the fact that we are here and having this conversation and not two pigs or bald headed eagles. This is a very silly line of arguments. Some of this is a priori coded within me (virtually everyone) through evolution. I am more like another human being than any other animal, I understand humans on a completely different level and can empathize with them far deeper, the good the bad and the ugly. I can only do this for other species by anthropomorphizing them, making them more _human_ or them simply being more closely related to our specie. Human beings have far higher potential and moral value, in part because they can have discussions about the ethical treatment of other species than their own. "And if you think all the good that is happening by treating embryos as non-humans is a bad thing" Again the utility argument. Should we kill old people at a certain age, we give them 10 years of retirement and then we throw them off a cliff, consider the ticking time bomb of western demographics. Are you denying all the good that would come from that? You don't own other human beings, not even when they are, by no choice of their own, growing inside of you. "What is the thing for you?" lol... Are you not paying attention or is this just frustration? One of the things is the anti-scientific shield that the pro-life humanists have shrouded themselves in and the dissonance they are experiencing. You obviously do not at all understand the legal chasm between, aborting third trimester "fetus" and smashing a 5 second old "baby" in the head with a hammer, when the physical reality is not significantly different. You just want a "convenient" legal point for that, so you conveniently disregard the physical reality and just make up your own reality. You are being anti-scientific, at the same time that I know you admonish others (rightly) for their anti-science on cannabis and drugs in general, climate change etc. The other is the intrinsic value of human life. If it is conditional, then we can make up a lot of conditions when we can pro-actively take it away from you, if it is conditional on the utility your life has or the utility it takes away from the rest of society, there are a lot of those too. This is an article of "faith", but one that was probably ingrained in our DNA so that we feel a heightened sense of empathy towards each other, because there is no "objective" third eye logical reason, the "universe" doesn't give a shit about rats, bats, cats or humans, we do. "Do you think all the experiments on embryos are horrible inhumane affairs you only begrudgingly condone because of the benefits they deliver? If you had to make these laws about abortion and what can or can't be done with embryos, what would you decide on?" Great questions, but this is not where the rubber meets the road. The degree of pragmatism I could afford begrudgingly or not, comes no where near abortions in the third trimester. I already told you, there are grey areas and situations for which I have no answers, science will no doubt provide better facts in the future, which is still in relative infancy about things like the brain and consciousness. I stand to be correct, but ultimately the principle that is the center, my moral anchor, human life has intrinsic value and should be protected.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Oct 12 09:47:27 Jergul "An adult pig is closer to a human than a featus by any measure except potential..." I can think of a few like DNA, physiology, and phylogeny. You know what I called my my son the first 3 months? Little larva. That is a good metaphor for how far into the development they are at that stage. Gradually a human as we know it grows up. I believe that whatever it is we are gonna do with this issue, there is no good reason to have birth as the cut off. Either it is ok to kill newborns for some time after they are born, or it isn't ok to kill the unborn for sometime before they are born. This moral consistency is also gradual but also procedural. The countries that have come the furthest on animal rights, that was all preceded by coming quite far on human rights first. You know that corny saying? If can't love yourself, then you will not be able to love others, well there is some truth to that. :)
Nekran Member	Tue Oct 12 13:48:17 Your stance basically comes down to "I know I'm wrong, but you are too". Which... you know, fair enough and all that. But when it comes to the call to make now, what would you decide? Would you allow abortions? Up to 6 weeks like in Texas? 12 weeks like around these parts? 20 weeks? Would you allow scientific experiment on embryo's that are created in vitro? You're not taking any real stance at all. You can call me barbaric or whatnot, but at least I'm being clear... I'm not perfectly happy about it, but I think setting the limit at birth is both convenient and liberating for all people who are already born. And I'm quite fine with making and experimenting on embryo's. You're just harping on about "It's humans! It's humans!", which you know, fair enough if you think so. I personally disagree a one-celled organism could ever qualify as a human being, but I won't deny you can make the case for it. But science will never ever be able to say "At this exact point, this organism becomes conscious". That's just not how things work. My humility doesn't come into that, really. That's just reality. So what would you actually decide if you had a say in things? What would Emperor of all mankind Nimatzo decree today? That's what interests me... because it's very easy to stand on the sideline yelling at everyone, claiming they are "unscientific" when they are just making a call that is impossible to get perfectly right. There is no perfectly right. "Either it is ok to kill newborns for some time after they are born, or it isn't ok to kill the unborn for sometime before they are born." Yeah, but this is the inherent flaw of setting any limit. There will always be cases right before and after any limit you set, that are absurd to decide differently on than the ones just past the other side of the limit. Always. In anything. So what limit would you set? As I've said before, I'd be fine with 24 weeks in and of itself. Feels like enough time to be sure you're pregnant and make the decision. But the poor woman who makes the call 1 second later than that (theoretically, obviously, to once again point at the intrinsic problem of setting limits) shouldn't be condemned to the horrors of childbirth if you ask me. So birth works for me. That's a clear event after which there is no turning back. Much unlike all the other limits you can set, apart from the conception one. The conception one is really the one you seem to be championing. But you don't want to, because you know that sets back humanity and valuable scientific research and groups you with a bunch of idiots you dislike. Which... you know, I get it. Reality doesn't conform to your ideals. It sucks, but that's life for you. So what would your laws be? And how would you defend them? I've given you mine, you've expressed your abhorrence of them. Now how about you try to make yours?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Oct 12 16:37:19 "Your stance basically comes down to "I know I'm wrong, but you are too" Wow... My stance is that you are ignorant about basic biology and that your moral foundation for the value of human life is incoherent. Is that more clear? The fact that I admit I do not have the answers for every thought experiment you think is relevant, is called honesty and humility in the face of our collective ignorance about the facts. Unlike someone who asserts things starting with "Like there is definitely no way". It's double funny, because you further down the post are lecturing me on "that isn't how science works". LOL :) Someone who tried to convince me that my positions couldn't separate a fetus from all the other crap in the placenta, probably shouldn't twatsplain how science works. "one-celled organism could ever qualify as a human being" You have said so many demonstrably wrong things that I will not give you the benefit of doubt on this. Bacteria are one celled organisms. Zygotes, human or otherwise, are not. They are 1 cell for a very brief time and exponentially increase in complexity. Didn't they teach you this stuff in primary school? "I won't deny you can make the case for it." A case for it? How very post truth of you. Go read an embryology book and tell me about this case that can be made. "But science will never ever be able to say" I forbid you to tell us what science says and definitely not what it will _never_ be able to say. Go back into your anti-scientific cave and eat fetuses, after all, what is the difference between a fetus and a pig? *shrugs* :D "That's just reality." Reality is that research into consciousness is at an embryotic stage. You can assert all these things that you clearly lack even cursory understanding about with ever more certain words all you like. Just keep that in mind next time someone questions climate change. Use this thread as the rosetta stone to explore the psychology of your own ignorance and ideological convictions. I know dude, the things I am saying are an imposition on your ideology, an imposition on your convenient life. Nobody said doing the right thing was easy. Look for easy answers in Church, not here. "So what would you actually decide if you had a say in things?" Would you condemn a person to death if you had doubts about their guilt, doubts that you couldn't prove? That is where I am philosophically with the fetus, pain and consciousness. My pragmatic limit at the moment is 12 weeks, because there are reasons to believe pain sensations in a meaningful sense has emerged at that point. Enough of the brain has developed at that point where you can plausibly (given what we know now) say that the brain is experiencing things and stuff. I can break the bad news for you, there is no definitive evidence that 24 weeks is some magic point, there has never been a consensus about this. And again, the brain and consciousness are some of the least understood aspects of a person. If you are fine sending people to their deaths out of convenience, then we have found a point of principle disagreement. I am not. The problem is that when people are observing something like the development of a human being, they keep thinking in neat little discrete units that undergo some mechanical process, like flipping pictures and in each picture the thing has magically developed. That isn't how it works, but there are definitely points where there was no heart beat, now there is, there was no brain activity, now there is. The brain is important, not having brain activity is the threshold for when we pull the plug on respirators. I have no idea what future science will tell us about the brain or development of consciousness, so a more guarded position is 9 weeks, the brain has appeared by that time. I don't know when you last spent a good amount of time with a new born, but they are not human in the sense that we normally think about humans. The fundamental domains of human cognition are not there yet in any meaningful sense and it is very noticeable and the entire thing develops gradual over 18-36 months in an accelerated manner. Sometimes they wake up and it's like a switch has been flipped and they have leveled up. Well shit, look honey he laughed at his own fart! "when they are just making a call that is impossible to get perfectly right" Sorry, but this complete horse shit, you have not been getting anything right that could be gotten right. And this does not sit well with someone (me) who right off the bat said, there are grey zones and things for which I have no good answers for, and that is OK. Naturally I would extend the same grey zones to you, but 24 weeks dude? 24 weeks old premature have a 60 and 70 percent survival chance! That is crazy, there stories of abortions where the fetus is still alive and moving! "Yeah, but this is the inherent flaw of setting any limit. There will always be cases right before and after any limit you set, that are absurd to decide differently on than the ones just past the other side of the limit." Your position is scientifically illiterate (with all due respect) but also void of any moral principle and ethical concerns, as I have said all along. Arugably you have retraced, but only so slightly. It is 100% arbitrary and founded on "convenience", not a moral principle, ethical concerns, not any meaningful biological markers. Mine isn't. I start with the same humanist values that we presumably share and use actual science to figure out when the lights are on. When that "clump of cells" has become morally relevant and worthy of compassion and concern. "shouldn't be condemned to the horrors of childbirth if you ask me" Sam adam shouldn't be condemned to the horrors of "Africans" if you ask me. By now you should understand my position well enough, to understand that this isn't some killer argument. Don't get pregnant. If you are ignorant and don't know that is how babies happen, there is room for a pragamtic solution, if you are retarded (like for real) or get raped, there are exceptions here, conveniance and social utility are not good reasons to end human life. "So what would your laws be?" Despite giving your my personal thoughts about, I think it is worth pointing that my main focus are not laws. My "contribution" on this and the natural process I see that precedes any laws, is persuasion and opinion making. Change enough minds and the laws come naturally. This strange little religion you people have created around abortions, is not ethically sustainable and is increasingly coming into question in part thanks to progress in neuroscience. The entire thing is largely founded on the fetus being out of sight, not having a voice to protest and tons and tons of demonstrably false assertions of the physical facts or fact hidden in mists of the unknown. If you are concerned about all the problems that unwanted babies of crack addicts will create for society, then you should try harder to imagine more ethical solutions. Like why not kill the adult crack addicts or at least neuter them? "I'm not perfectly happy about it" See, it has already worked. Over the course of this conversation you gradually started seeing problems aborting full term babies and called the "poor woman" a bitch seeking fame. Many years ago I thought like you, my then gf got pregnant and I was the main driver behind convincing her to get an abortion. Fear and for purely selfish reasons. It was not an instant regret, it took 2 years. I was at the university so all these facts about biology where very fresh and in my face. I finally realized I had fucked up. I had bullshitted myself with ideas that were starring me in the face in the textbooks and reduced the value of that life to nothing. Whatever that value is, it isn't nothing, it isn't something you can end for your personal convenience. That can't be right.
Nekran Member	Wed Oct 13 01:32:27 You've conveniently avoided any questions about creating embryos for advancing the science you apparently believe at some point will set a definite marker for when a clump of cells suddenly get their magical value giving properties (even though you realise the gradual process still goes on long after birth, so that obviously is never going to happen). How are we going to learn, Nim? Are there millions upon millions of intrinsically valuable human beings being created and experimented upon and being kept in freezers or not? I also think it's hillarious that you claim to be some sort of science god. You think science could be able to pinpoint the exact moment "the light goes on" in a foetus, but completely disregard that there is no concensus at all for what constitutes a human being. The fact that in the past I was briefly a one-celled organism, doesn't mean that cell was already a human being at that time. Things change. Life at some point came from non-life as well, after all. You act like your opinions are set-in-stone-scientific fact, but people's differing opinions are scientifically illiterate. That's inane and actually very unscientific (unlike realising a gradual development that takes years won't ever have one single tada-moment where an already vague concept like consiousness starts... that's just understanding reality). The argument exists. Scientists actually experimenting on embryos are all of the opinion that these are not human beings yet. They're potential human beings still in development. I agree with this point of view. It is not unscientific, you just don't like it. And you keep on bringing up bullshit... I used the placenta argument exactly once, years ago, when you made the claim that it having human DNA was enough to be a human worth protecting. It is not, you were wrong. "See, it has already worked. Over the course of this conversation you gradually started seeing problems aborting full term babies and called the "poor woman" a bitch seeking fame." That's when I said "just before birth". Because if you make that the law, yes, some bitch seeking fame will abort her baby ludicrously late. That's not the poor woman who after 24 weeks and 1 second perhaps finds out that her man's an asshole who's leaving her and she's not prepared to go through with that shit. I'm not going to condemn her to childbirth, no. You have not changed my mind at all. I've always seen the problem. I already knew the development of human beings progresses over time, believe it or not. My stance has remained consistent and the same, unlike yours. "Many years ago I thought like you, my then gf got pregnant and I was the main driver behind convincing her to get an abortion." I'm starting to understand now that your guilt has warped your view on this subject. Whatever that value is, it most certainly isn't nothing. I'd even say the value of a potential human being is potentially very high. Dependent on how the owner values it. I most certainly believe the owner can end it for their convenience though, yes. But only the owner can properly value it. The loss of a potential human being is potentially hard on the one who loses it. Not hard on the being itself. It has no clue. We know enough about human development to know this. So if the owner is fine with it, I don't see why society should intervene. And yes, you could make the argument "Why stop there? Why not allow people to toss their babies?" and I will answer once more, that we have to set a limit somewhere. That limit will always have its flaws. But birth is just such a nice, natural and convenient limit. Why would we not use it? And yes, it is founded on convenience and not on moral principle. But if we take your view to its logical conclusion, we are back up shit creek with far too many unwanted humans being born into shit conditions and illicit backroom abortions going on. With countless women's lives effectively completely screwed, because they too get horny when they become stupid teenagers. I mean... apart from your guilt, aren't you happy that you don't have some adult child with some girl you were with for a while when you were a teenager? Do you think your and her life would've been better if you had kept that kid?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Oct 13 04:19:33 "You've conveniently avoided any questions about creating" I didn't, I explained to you this was not the heart of the matter, it isn't the most important issue to me. And yet I gave you a 9-12 weeks limit. That was an answer to you embryo dilemma. So the rest of the gibberish you wrote, I am going to ignore. "I also think it's hillarious that you claim to be some sort of science god." You are twisting my words in a hilarious, but understandable way. I called _you_ ignorant on the science, the things I am explaining are high school biology. "You think science could be able to pinpoint the exact moment "the light goes on" in a foetus" Again, a twisting of words. I am not as foolish as you to assert in almost complete ignorance what the future may never bring. "there is no concensus at all for what constitutes a human being." False. Again you have said so many stupid things already and I have tried to give you the benefit of doubt. There is no confusion about the biology, the confusion and debate is on a legal and social level. There was never not a consensus in "science" about what constitutes a human being. Our discussion is about when that human being is morally and legally relevant. You need use words with better precision. "one-celled organism" You were never a one celled organism. This is really a butchery of the english language and scientific nomenclature. You clearly do you not care to get even the most simplest thing right. "doesn't mean that cell was already a human being at that time" That is exactly what that means in biological terms. I implore you to crack open a science book about the matter and read such things as "a human life starts with the fusing of gametes". Ignorance is easy to fix if one is willing to learn. I would give you dozen of quotes with references, if I thought it would help. It won't because you could easily find them yourself. "You act like your opinions are set-in-stone-scientific fact" Sigh... what a being (any animal) is, when a new individual of that being starts, is unlikely to change for the forseeable future, we understand reproduction quite well at this point. The big things are practically set in stone. You seem to have huge difficulties seperating the science from the socio-legal, they are not the same thing. "development that takes years won't ever have one single tada-moment" As I explained for you, it is both, there are "tada" moments and things also develop gradually. For instance when the gametes fuse and the zygote forms, that is a tada moment, because at that moment new DNA just "magically" emerges. When the fetus brain activity starts that is a "magical" moment and then the brain keep developing gradually and rapidly for several years. Sorry Nekran, buy you are about as ignorant as one can be and adamant about not fixing that while at the same time making ever more certain assertions. I don't think that makes you less of a human being or me to a "god", but this severely limits the usefulness of the dialogue for me. Good day.
Nekran Member	Wed Oct 13 05:11:55 So to you a caterpillar is a butterfly, a maggot is a fly and a zygote is a human being. I disagree. I can spot plenty of differences despite the DNA matching. It's not because something can become something else, that it is already that thing. It is true that a zygote is a necessary step towards making a human being. That does not make the zygote a human being though. Your high school science book quoting doesn't change that. It's not because something has to be at the start of something, that these things are thus equal. That is the mistake you make. You need a caterpillar to make a butterfly, yet a catterpillar is no butterfly. You need a seed to get a tree, yet a seed is no tree. The examples are endless. But for a human and a zygote, you somehow refuse to see this? Because of some conviction? And you call that scientific litteracy? It's weird that this extermely simple concept bothers you so much. I mean, it is a disagreement in point of view and philosophy, not science. Yet you feel this misplaced urge to claim you have science on your side.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Oct 13 06:32:33 "So to you a caterpillar is a butterfly, a maggot is a fly and a zygote is a human being." lol you are precious, like a child. I swear the god, this is my 4 year old son's understanding of the world :) Yes Nekran, as magical as that looks the caterpillar is a stage in a butterflies' life. in fact in many butterflies the longest stage in their lives. It is a whatever specie of butterflies' caterpillar stage. It is still alive, it is still as morally relevant as a butter fly. Where exactly did you think this was going? This is arguably an even worse example than sticking with human life cycle, because the caterpillar is far more autonomous and lively than a zygote. You are grasping for straws. "bothers you so much" Nice gaslighting attempt. I thought such petty stuff was beneath you. I am not bothered, I was bothered back then when I had to swallow this pill and accept that imposition these things had on my life, values and world view. That was 15 years ago though. But perhaps more important, if you do not understand, why it would "bother" someone that you would kill what they think are morally relevant human beings, I am sorry no other way to put it, you are being stupid cunt. You may not agree with the propisition and conclusions, but surely you have enough intelligence, where you would understand how someone would be bothered by your "it's ok to abort full term babies" given the explanation. Maybe you don't, maybe the moral abyss is bottomless. "it is a disagreement in point of view and philosophy, not science." I agree, there is no disagreement on the science, that is what I have told you all along, that the disagreement is philosophical and one of jurisprudence. But you insist on warping the facts to suit your political convictions. I get it, you need to dehumanize the fetus so that it is ok to abort it, because as I said from the start, you have the same ideas about the sanctity of human life. Biology simply get's in your way, so instead of looking for better argument, you stamp at the same spot, trying to pretend the facts are different if we just look at from the right angle or keep saying silly things like "one celled organism". I am gonna help educate you a little here. There is a difference between "biological human being" and "legal personhood". We have a disagreement between how close those should correlate and when in the life cycle Zygote -> demented old fuck the first legal right (right to life) should be granted. Trust me I could argue your position probably 100 times better than you. This other stuff about the science, just stop, you are way out in the deep end and on a political level this stuff will come back and haunt your side of the political aisle in rather surprising and unpredictable ways, the climate stuff is only the beginning. I implore you to stop molesting science for your political ends.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Oct 13 07:03:45 "yet a catterpillar is no butterfly" I just want to point out that I preempted this: "The problem is that when people are observing something like the development of a human being, they keep thinking in neat little discrete units that undergo some mechanical process, like flipping pictures and in each picture the thing has magically developed." So you went and found the example in nature of the most eye catching mechanical looking process, called metamorphosis where one "thing" turns into some other "thing". Like a metal sheet that goes through a factory and becomes the hood of a car :,) and yet you only managed to provide a worse example. Or do you believe a caterpillar is morally less relevant because it is a caterpillar? Unless you do, and that would be retarded, your example is not even wrong.
Nekran Member	Wed Oct 13 07:33:38 I'm just trying to make you understand that one thing can turn into another. Which on the one hand you now admit, but on the other hand call scientific illiteracy. A caterpillar is not a butterfly. A caterpillar can become a butterfly. A seed is not a tree. It can become a tree. But a zygote... wow now, that is a human being all along! No... it's a cell that can become a human being. Words have meaning. Your position is constantly inconsistent. Which you also admit to, but then wave away as unimportant. "Sure sure, there's some grey areas, but science will fix that". No... it won't. It's a process, not a switch that gets flipped. But we need clear rules now. "I agree, there is no disagreement on the science, that is what I have told you all along, that the disagreement is philosophical and one of jurisprudence. But you insist on warping the facts to suit your political convictions." It is you who does this. It is you who says "it is a human being from the moment of conception and I hate when anyone claims otherwise!". But then, you turn around and say "sure some scientific experimenting and early enough abortions is fine". Horribly inconsistent thinking. Me I can see that a case can be made to call an embryo a human being, but that I disagree with it. You wholly refuse a differing view as scientific illiteracy, but then... you know... "there's some grey areas". "But perhaps more important, if you do not understand, why it would "bother" someone that you would kill what they think are morally relevant human beings, I am sorry no other way to put it, you are being stupid cunt." Of course I understand this! What I don't understand is your position. You claim a human being begins at conception, and that this is scientific fact, no less. But then you don't carry that through at all. Because the results of that suck and you realise that. Do you seriously not see the inconsistency in the things you say?
Nekran Member	Wed Oct 13 08:43:41 You know what, never mind. I know enough. You are conflicted, because you know that following your convictions through to their logical conclusions sucks ass. Which at least is commendable. Just wanted to leave you with a bit of real scientific thought on the subject of the start of human life though: Scott Gilbert, the Howard A. Schneiderman Professor of Biology emeritus at Swarthmore College, is the author of the standard textbook of developmental biology. He has identified as many as five developmental stages that, from a biological perspective, are all plausible beginning points for human life. Biology, as science knows it now, can tell these stages apart, but cannot determine at which one of these stages human life begins. The first of these stages is fertilization in the egg duct, when a zygote is formed with the full human genetic material. But almost every cell in everyone’s body contains that person’s complete DNA sequence. If genetic material alone makes a potential human being, then when we shed skin cells – as we do all the time – we are severing potential human beings. The second plausible stage is called gastrulation, which happens about two weeks after fertilization. At that point, the embryo loses the ability to form identical twins – or triplets or more. The embryo therefore becomes a biological individual but not necessarily a human individual. The third possible stage is at 24 to 27 weeks of pregnancy, when the characteristic human-specific brain-wave pattern emerges in the fetus’s brain. Disappearance of this pattern is part of the legal standard for human death; by symmetry, perhaps its appearance could be taken to mark the beginning of human life. The fourth possible stage, which is the one endorsed in the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion in the United States, is viability, when a fetus typically becomes viable outside the uterus with the help of available medical technology. With the technology that we have today, that stage is reached at about 24 weeks. The final possibility is birth itself. The overall point is that biology does not determine when human life begins. It is a question that can only be answered by appealing to our values, examining what we take to be human. That just for future reference... when you once again think that your opinion is scientific fact. I'm listening to the man talk on the topic right now. It's interesting.
Nekran Member	Wed Oct 13 08:56:42 His pet peeve seems to be the spread of misinformation that says that biologists all agree when human life begins. That made me laugh. He also talked a bit about how the fertilization moment myth is a lovely story, but very wrong. You know... your ta-da moment example. Apparently takes more like around 24 hours and is a whole gradual process. Who would've thought? You were right... it's really easy to demonstrate how wrong you are with very minimal research.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Oct 13 09:55:42 Jesus christ, lord deliver me from these humanists anti science cult :D There is nothing in metamorphosis that helps you argue your case. Human do not undergo biological metamormposis, our life cycle is very different. Yet even if we were butter flies or wasps and having a discussion about aborting larva, this would be a very stupid argument. Larva are alive, they are as morally relevant as you think the emerging insect is. I grant you, it looks amazing and magical, one summer I cultivated fruit flies, I could see all the stages of their life in that container at the same time, from mating flies to new flies emerging from their pupa. It never occured to me that the larva were not of the species Drosophila melanogaster, that they were not alive or somehow less part of the life of a fly, they were just fly larva. It seemed obvious to me at 15 when I did this experiment, I have yet to read anything that would change my mind. "A caterpillar is not a butterfly. A caterpillar can become a butterfly. A seed is not a tree. It can become a tree. But a zygote... wow now, that is a human being all along! No... it's a cell that can become a human being. Words have meaning." Jesus christ, you are actually confused about the language? The pine corn tree (the tree) the seed of the pine cone tree, the monarch butterfly, the catarpillar the monarch butterfly, the great white shark, the embryo of the great white shark, these are analogous to Human adult, human zygote or homo sapien if you wish. What is exactly is confusing for you here? "I'm just trying to make you understand that one thing can turn into another. Which on the one hand you now admit, but on the other hand call scientific illiteracy." I am saying, you do not understand the limitations of the words "thing", "turn", "into" and "another" to accurately describe this context and really much of the reality you are experiencing at the moment. There are some areas I think, precision in getting reality right is critical, when a human life hangs in the balance. And the motte that you retreat behind is that, you don't really care to figure this one out, you already know everything there is to know or science alreaydy knows this. Well, that makes you not just ignorant, but the type of ignorant you yourself despise the most, often as political opponents. "Your position is constantly inconsistent. Which you also admit to, but then wave away as unimportant. "Sure sure, there's some grey areas, but science will fix that". No... it won't. It's a process, not a switch that gets flipped." Ah, so now pragmatism and humility before the unknown is a bad thing. A bit disegenious. I told you, I am not here to give you easy answers. Appreciate how much you are the religious nutbag in this debate, this is a basic theist argument, "you can't answer this or that about the universe, there for god exists". one Bill Orielly pulled on Richard Dawkins of all people :) A process has more or less significant events where more or less value is added. I understand my process mapping Nekran, I have done it proffessionally for years :) In this specific case we are talking about a "process" that exponentially grows in complexity... I understand you want "things" to be simple and only the "thing" you need them to be based on old facts someone spoon fed you decades ago, but the fact is, things are a bit more complex than that and as we move along we learn more. You understand that deep inside I think. I don't really care about your prediction of the future of science, more importantly, it isn't an argument. They are unimportant for the discussion, because our discussion is stuck at rather basic stuff, but I didn't wave them away as unimportant in the practical sense, I gave you 9 and 12 weeks, I breifly touched upon exceptions where I could justify an abortion. I don't see a need to flesh those things, but I already gave you enough details about the limits wher Are you not paying attention to what I am writting or simply being dishonest? "I agree, there is no disagreement on the science" There isn't a disagreement in science about when a human life begins. There is a sociopolitical disagreement aout when human life is morally relevant to be protected. That you still do not understand the difference, is mind blowing. "Horribly inconsistent thinking." Notwithstanding you inability to understand what I have desperately been trying to explaing for you, I would call my thinking pragmatic and nuanced. Not the easy answers clergy will give you. Here are your 10 rules for ethical abortions! "Of course I understand this!" Then don't act like a cunt and ask "I don't understand why this bothers you". I find the things you believe, morally and ethically regpunant. "You claim a human being begins at conception, and that this is scientific fact, no less. But then you don't carry that through at all. Because the results of that suck and you realise that." I have no idea what you mean with this? What does somwhere from 9-12 weeks mean for you? There is nothing to "carry though here". I am not of the opinion that there are not other concerns here than the potential human, that this life is just as morally relevant that every other human life. Things that are unimportant to go through without who thinks it should be legal to abort 9 month old babies. I explained all this stuff for you earlier. "I'm listening to the man talk on the topic right now. It's interesting." Absolutely, find the scientists that confirm your position, live blissfully ever after :) And that was the final nail in the anti-scientific cluessly biased nutbag coffin I think ;)
Nekran Member	Thu Oct 14 00:27:10 "these are analogous to Human adult, human zygote" I agree... so how fucking stupid do you have to be, not to see that a seed is something completely different from a tree? How... what...? Are you even trying to think about this? Let your preconceived notions go and try to consider other views and how they may be valid as well. Doesn't even mean you have to change your view, it just means being open to other views. Considering them fairly. "Absolutely, find the scientists that confirm your position, live blissfully ever after" The scientist? I've almost never seen a scientist take a stance like you have. "Definitely this, every other opinion is wrong", is just something you can only very rarely say in science. "Definitely not this", is what science usually works with. Disproving things. "Definitely this" is rare and you've chosen an absurd topic to try and proclaim it. I've heard a molecular biologist laugh at the idea that an embryo should be considered a human being (she's specialised in CRISPR, audience question about work on embryos), a thought, she felt, that was very hard to defend when you know how human development actually works. The excerpt I quickly found and pasted there was an example of scientific thought for you. We can give arguments from biology for each of these options. We don't have a definitive answer. That's how science tends to work. The zygote is probably the hardest one to defend as a human being though... an identical twin for example has 2 people starting from the same zygote. Was that one cell 2 human beings, then? And then there's things like chimera people... are they 2 human beings, despite living as one individual? And there's a bunch of details we could go into, bringing up valid questions about where a human life begins in the developmental stage. But what's the point if you've taken a pick and are defending it like a religious axiom?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Oct 24 22:56:55 "a seed is something completely different from a tree?" Does not mean anything in this context about the moral relevance of life. They are _not_ completely different at all, they are of the same species and they are alive. "I've almost never seen a scientist take a stance like you have." Your ignorance about differing views isn't an argument. It is in fact yet another fallacy, the argument from ignorance fallacy. You are on a roll Nekran! "I've heard a molecular biologist laugh" Another great argument. LOL <- I can do it too. "example of scientific thought for you" Thanks! "We can give arguments from biology for each of these options." We can't, you are completely clueless about the biology. As Ii said in the very first thread it is completely pointless to discuss the intricacies of seeds and zygotes and where personhood should be granted, with someone who thinks it should be legal to kill a full term 9 month fetus. Someone who still can not separate between the biological facts and legal/social norms. Someone who is actually confused by categorization and views the development of life as a flip book. "We don't have a definitive answer. That's how science tends to work." And so until we have definitive answers you are ok killing what you now seem to admit, potentially you can be convinced of by "science" as sentient and morally relevant beings. That is quite disturbing and perhaps the biggest difference between us. If I have doubts about something I usually tend to not support DEATH as a solution to the "problem". The same reasoning I apply to the death sentence, that you do as well. But since fetuses can't hire lawyers, since we do not see them or really understand their experience, it is OK to chop them up. My 23 week old son reacts to music Nekran. 3 nights in a row my wife has played the same song and he starts kicking. "But what's the point if you've taken a pick and are defending it like a religious axiom?" The only axiom I am defending, is that human life has intrinsic values. That doesn't mean there are no instances where I think it is OK to kill other humans. Self-defense is a very clear cut divergence from that tenet. To first make another individual dependent on you, knowing fully well that your actions may lead to the creation of a new individual that is dependent on your for life and then kill it because it would inconvenience your life, that is text book psychopath behavior. The fact that you have managed to internalize this psychopathy by dehumanizing the fetus and incompetently grasping after seeds and trees to justify it, well that is the bread and butter of every genocidal ideology in human history.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Oct 24 23:08:28 And you understand that perfectly well, you NEED to dehumanize the fetus for all of this to not be a horror show for you. That is the entire lynchpin of the pro-abortion stance, it isn't a human. Yes it is, it is most definitely a human individual at the very earliest stage of its' life cycle. It is most definitely alive and in my "religion", human beings do not have to earn their right to life, it is granted upon inception. But I am not here to force my morals on the rest of society, there I must be pragmatic and harmonize according to what is the most ethical solution and consider more factors, ergo: 9-12 weeks.
Nekran Member	Mon Oct 25 01:27:54 "To first make another individual dependent on you, knowing fully well that your actions may lead to the creation of a new individual that is dependent on your for life and then kill it because it would inconvenience your life, that is text book psychopath behavior." So what about creating them purely with the intent to experiment on them and then kill them? "We can't, you are completely clueless about the biology." And yet you avoid my questions based on biology. Can a single cell be two human beings simultaneously? According to you it can... seems absurd to me. And is a person who has DNA from a never developed sibling two human beings? They would have to be according to your view, I would say they're not. Just a single human being with a quirky condition. Whatever your points of view on these issues with your "a zygote is a human being" stance are (and I'm interested in hearing them, mind you), what really bothers me is that you refuse to look at other points of view, based on biology, and claim scientific fact and concensus where there is none. It's human DNA. It's alive. But that does not a human being make. And I don't need to dehumanize embryos and foetuses at all. I'm a responsible man, I've always had this conversation on first or second dates. Always was both careful and lucky enough not to have to abort. But taking your stance to its logical consequences is insane. I don't consider my sister and her wife monsters for having an embryo in a freezer somewhere. I don't consider scientists who create embryos for experimentation monsters. And I don't consider people who get abortions because having a child is not something they want in their lives to be engaging in psychopathic behaviour at all. As a last thing, to me 9-12 weeks is far too few time. You may easily only know about it after like 6 weeks already. I understand that most of society would not go for my "up until birth" view, which is fine. But 20 weeks seems like a minimum to me. Give people some time to consider things. "My 23 week old son reacts to music Nekran. 3 nights in a row my wife has played the same song and he starts kicking." Fish react to music too. I'm not impressed. I mean... you want this thing to develop into a human being and you love it already and that's beautiful. But you have to understand that that doesn't change my point of view. If your wife found out you're a disgusting no good scumbag tomorrow, I feel she should be able to get rid of that thing that is living inside her that was put there by a man she now hates.
Habebe Member	Mon Oct 25 01:43:17 "And you understand that perfectly well, you NEED to dehumanize the fetus for all of this to not be a horror show for you. " Agreed. I'm in favor of legal abortion but with limitations.The dehumanizing aspect isn't that different from slavery or other atrocities. Nekran, "It's human DNA. It's alive. But that does not a human being make." But what does? Sentience? How about a retarded person? Or someone in a coma?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 25 02:13:58 ”And yet you avoid my questions based on biology.” Either you are actually retarded or completely full of shit, either way not worth more time.
Nekran Member	Mon Oct 25 13:38:04 "But what does?" That is a very good question. Defining things is hard. I don't have a clear answer for you. I posted 5 points which one can argue biologically speaking. Though from what I read there are more like 7 or 8, but these are supposedly the most obvious ones. But yeah, we also euthanize people in some conditions in which they are still alive and that is a tough call to make in most cases too. I just think the mother should have the final say on the inhabitant of her body until it comes out. It's pragmatic, it's not perfect. "Either you are actually retarded or completely full of shit, either way not worth more time." Yeah, you don't like bothering with hard questions, I get that. Just stop claiming you have scientific concensus on your side. Kthx.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Oct 25 19:13:55 I have no idea what "difficult" questions you think I have avoided, nor do I care. There is a level of ignorance that you embody that is best avoided for the sake of personal sanity and happiness. I walk away from this conversation with less faith in humanity, my god have mercy on your soul.
Nekran Member	Tue Oct 26 01:15:43 Considering this conversation, it doesn't surprise me that you have gone full theist :)
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Oct 26 03:46:02 "Just stop claiming you have scientific concensus on your side." I don't know what *my* side is, but I am going to repeat this again for you, there total consensus on when life begins, there is disagreement about when that life qualifies for personhood. And the list of different opinions you linked, it goes without saying, that you are too ignorant to understand that not all of those positions are equally valid and hold up under scruity, so to uncritically just paste them in as if oh look "science" is this buffe of ideas and you can pick whatever you fancy. Do you understand that the fact that this thread is the first time you have bothered to look up any information about thi subjects, shines through like a supernova? Here is the secret, you can actually accept the science and still equally arbitrary as now say that convenience trumps every other concern and that you do not give a shit about brains. It would not make your position any less repugnant, but atleast you wouldn't say retarded things. For instance both me and Sam Adams accept that "Africans" are of the same specie as "Europeans", but we have very different ethical concerns and moral footing. I tried to help you several times by differentiating between the biological facts about life and when life starts on the one hand and the legal rights granted to human life i.e legal "personhoood" on the other. You refused and instead went full retard talking about how a maggot is a "completely" "different" "thing" than a fly. I even explained for you that personally as the basis for laws I am not proposing personhood start at conception. But nay, you decided to double down, yet I was kind enough to repeat things you clearly did not read and kept bringing up and then when I finally grew tired, you declared yourself "victorious". That is a level of pathetic and sad behavior I have not seen in this place for a long time and the last person I was expecting it from was you. You broke my heart :,(
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Oct 26 03:47:07 Forgot this, this should go first: "Defining things is hard." Is it? It sounded so simply when you defined larva and butterflies as "different" "things". I tried to explain the limitations of these words you are using and how meaningless they are in context and how people such as yourself view these words as discrete categories. The only thing that matters is what is actually going on with the thing we are calling fetus/baby/human/individual, whatever category and name you want to put on it, is not only meaningless for the discussion, but as you clearly display, actually a hurdle to understanding. I brought up brain activity and neuroscience and you made clear you were not interested in that stuff. Did you actually say that? Yes you did! Was that a proud moment, where you dismissed the science of the brain, because the difficult questions inconvenienced your life style? *I* don't like the difficult question? lolololol :)
Nekran Member	Wed Oct 27 00:11:35 "I brought up brain activity and neuroscience and you made clear you were not interested in that stuff." I am super interested in that stuff. Not so much for making the law though. As I've repeated before, I'd prefer to have it easy and be pragmatic there. Constantly changing the law by a week or a few days, because we learn something new about brain development or develop new techniques for keeping foetuses alive outside of wombs seems needlessly inefficient and tiresome to me. "Do you understand that the fact that this thread is the first time you have bothered to look up any information about thi subjects, shines through like a supernova?" Not at all true, but it had been long (probably since a similar conversation as this one in this place like 10 years ago or so) since I read about it. There's so much interesting stuff out there, this isn't a necessary go to if you don't have kids. I did enjoy reading up on it though. "Here is the secret, you can actually accept the science and still equally arbitrary as now say that convenience trumps every other concern and that you do not give a shit about brains." OK, my stance is that one can argue several beginnings to human life based on biology, I've laid 5 of them out for you (well... copy pasted them). I think zyogte is the hardest one to defend of all, because it has a bunch of super weird consequences. Both biological ones (a zygote is two human beings? An indivdual person can be two human beings?), as ethical ones (what about creating embryos for science? and helping people with IVF and such). You can still take and defend the position that it is, but then there's some weird consequences you're going to have to either accept or try to explain away. I'm still interested in your opinion on that, even if you're not in mine. So for the law, I very much like birth as the cutting off point. Biologically speaking, I liked the idea of the emergence of the human brain-wave pattern, but I'm definitely not well versed enough in the subject to vigorously pick a stance there. I find it very hard to defend the time before gastrulation though, because of previously mentioned bizarre consequences. But this is a scientific stance. You saying "It is at conception and every other opinion is scientifically illiterate" is so antithetic to science though, it genuinely makes me worry about you. Also, I've never declared victory. What I definitely do claim though, is that it is your stance that is highly unscientific. But you keep claiming something different, like now you said "There is total consensus on when life begins". Life... it begins before conception. A sperm and an egg are well alive. And as for "when it begins". A human life begins as a zygote, sure. Every human being developed from a zygote. That is most certainly undeniable. But they were not yet human beings back then in my opinion. That took development. Every human life also began as a seperate sperm and egg, after all. Also an undeniable fact. It's not because something began as something else, that you can automatically equate those two things. Development matters. So yes, every human being was once a zygote. But no, that does not make a zygote a human being. You can argue it, but I think you would not find a lot of support you'd like. So the question is, when does it become a human being? An interesting biological question that could be superinteresting to talk about. I'd love to see you defend your zygote stance and the consequences it brings with it. You've refused to do so so far. When does it deserve personhood and protection in society? Eh... I prefer birth. Easy and practical. Everything before 20 weeks I find far too limiting to actual people who are already actual members of society. Even 20 weeks feels like such a short time, just typing it out right now. It can be such a hard decision for people. Also on one more sidenote, as I've said before, zero impact on my lifestyle. Not wanting to be needlessly harsh, but I'm not the one who's ever pushed someone into having an abortion. I've always made very sure that anyone ending up in bed with me, did not want children. And I've always made sure precautions were taken to avoid getting into that situation, even knowing children were unwanted by both parties. Mostly because an abortion is a heavy thing to go through for a woman though, not out of concern for some embryo.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Oct 27 07:37:15 "As I've repeated before, I'd prefer to have it easy and be pragmatic there." Sorry, that makes you anti truth seeking and science. Easy answers is one of the reasons people seek religion and ideology. This is an inescapable fact, the world is not easy and the more our understanding progress the more complex things will get. I stopped reading there, because everything else you say must be viewed through this lens. I appreciate your transparency and honesty, but there is no amount of facts and science that can convince a person who thinks like this.
Nekran Member	Wed Oct 27 08:33:17 Lol... because I want clear and easy laws, science can not be of interest to me? OK Nimi... keep on not defending your stance. I do see how that makes it far easier to keep it.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Oct 27 09:27:19 "because I want clear and easy laws" I work with interpreting the laws that regulate the building you live in and the products you use. They change because more complex products come out and because our understanding of the world grows. This is a fact and actually a problem because our laws become outdated due to exponential developments in technology. The only thing you have managed to figure out (I am being very charitable) is that there is an inherent problem to how we regulate and govern society, because things are on several fronts getting exponentially more complex. Go look at environmental laws from 50 years ago and look at them now. Go look at the medical devices framework the EU gave out less than a decade ago, it was about 40 pages and then look at the 400 page behemoth they gave out a few years ago. You want clear and easy laws? The 10 commandments should be right out your ally, have not changed for millennia, straight forward and easy. I keep coming back to this thread and am repeatedly amazed by how poorly you understand anything important. "not defending your stance" lol from WHAT? You are the black knight from the monty python sketch bro. I can just walk right past you.
Nekran Member	Wed Oct 27 10:03:07 From the things you refuse to read, you dolt.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Wed Oct 27 10:13:50 I stopped reading after you said a critical amount of stupid things and kept asking for things I have already answered. Do you understand that your desire for simple answers, be they codified laws or personal moral imperatives is not a valid argument for killing people?
Nekran Member	Thu Oct 28 00:16:34 "Do you understand that your desire for simple answers, be they codified laws or personal moral imperatives is not a valid argument for killing people?" It's not really a desire for simple answers in general, so much as a desire for a clear and easy limit to be set for this particular law. A limit needs to be set... "birth" is not inately simpler than "12 weeks" or whatever. Definitely more clear and practical though. But yeah, I understand society will likely never go along with my pov on this one. And I happily argue it. I'm not some sort of douche who goes around claiming my opinion is the only valid one. I don't mind it that much either, as it doesn't affect me personally. I feel for people who get forced to have kids against their will or end up getting illicit and dangerous abortions though. Luckily I live in a place where it's not too bad. Do you understand that your opinion is not scientific fact? Because it doesn't look like you do.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Oct 28 04:47:10 "But yeah, I understand society will likely never go along with my pov on this one." No no no. There is no other domain where you would reason like this about the law Nekran. You have accepted that living on this planet has become more complex with regards to our understanding of it and our own condition, things were much simpler when only 1% of the population decided things and women couldn't vote, when marriage was between a man and a woman. Things were much simpler when our environmental laws didn't have to care about biodiversity, toxins, the oceans, plastic, CO2 emission etc. Not society, YOU would not go along with your own POV anywhere else and call the people who reasoned like you do, backwards, anti-science nutbags. The anti vaxxers, climate deniers, war on drugs, anti-gay rights etc. etc. people of this world. You concede this special pleading, but clearly do not understand that this concession validates me calling you anti science, anti truth seeking, religious nutbag. This is what they do in the face of growing complexity and new facts about the world. They make special cases for their beliefs. That is not what I am doing, I have not made a special case for fetus, in fact I am trying to increase the correlation of the nature of the fetus closer to how we view human life the other 99,9% of the life cycle and accept new facts and a growing understanding of that nature and openness to being wrong and applying the cautionary principle where there is doubt, because a sentient life potentially hangs in the balance. Do you concede that you are making a special case and I am not? Do you concede that in any other domain you would think the author of these thoughts is probably a conservative Christian and likely a Trump voter? "I'm not some sort of douche who goes around claiming my opinion is the only valid one." That is the kind of relativism that excuses heinous acts like genital mutilation and oppression. This is not "opinions" about the tax rate and the high speed limits, we are talking about when humans should be granted the right to life. You still do not understand regardless of where you personally think that limit should be, how serious the topic is, because you have for your entire life de-humanized the "thing" we are talking about. "I feel for people who get forced to have kids" Unless you are raped or lack the proper sex education, no one is forced to do anything. I addressed this and said I would make exceptions for these things. "Do you understand that your opinion is not scientific fact?" I have been clear about what are scientific facts and what my a priori moral anchor is and where those things converge to produce my own personal moral convictions and how that is different from the ethical conclusions I reach. The fact that you and some people in the science community who can not disentangle themselves and discern the different issues, have difficulties with this, they are your difficulties, not mine. I have no idea why I keep coming back, but I am certainly not avoiding any difficult questions, it's just that the difficult question in this discussion are not what you think. We can get to your killer arguments about biology, but you have to first internalize that the biology is a separate issue that the normative legal/moral/ethical questions. There is no objective reason to care about human well being and suffering regardless of how old they are, period. My position is as arbitrary as yours is "objectively". But I care about sentient and suffering the moment that things is sentient and can experience suffering. If you don't, then you don't.
Nekran Member	Thu Oct 28 07:16:09 You seem to have gotten the idea that I crave simplicity. I do not. A difficult to determine limit has to be set in this case, and I think the simplest and most practical one is also the best one. I give my arguments for this. "Unless you are raped or lack the proper sex education, no one is forced to do anything." Unless you find out, for example, that your partner is scum and definitely no longer want to aid his reproduction too late into pregnancy. For example. There's cases of women who keep on having bleedings throughout pregnancy as well, they could easily find out too late. Yes... there are plenty of cases where people would be forced to go through with a horrid experience. I think that suffering would always be greater than what could be the suffering of an underdeveloped proto-human, inhabiting the aforementioned suffering human. "But I care about sentient and suffering the moment that things is sentient and can experience suffering." Something we don't know yet though, afaik... when can they experience suffering? Obviously before birth, mind you. But as I explained in the previous point, I think their suffering would pale in comparison to the suffering of the person who is being forced to have a baby against their will. "I have been clear about what are scientific facts and what my a priori moral anchor is and where those things converge to produce my own personal moral convictions and how that is different from the ethical conclusions I reach." I have challenged your "scientific fact" though. A case can be made, but "zygote = human being" really, really, really isn't a scientific fact. Thinking like that has several bizarre biological consequences (and so many horrible ethical ones). I really find it the hardest position of all to defend. Not recognizing that there are several valid positions one can defend though, that's worrying. Because I don't consider your position invalid... just very strange. "but you have to first internalize that the biology is a separate issue that the normative legal/moral/ethical questions." Obviously... I've been addressing this quite a bit in the posts you either really haven't read or are ignoring.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Oct 28 07:23:41 "You seem to have gotten the idea that I crave simplicity." Because you have repeatedly said that you crave simplicity on this issue, I have expanded the simplicity to other complex and legally challenging and changing terrain to show the folly in your reasoning. You have not provided anything arguments that breaks the symmetry between the right to life and the equal rights or a toxin free environment. Nekran, we can move on to all the other questions you want. Do you concede the point I raised?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Thu Oct 28 07:28:21 For clarity: Do you concede that you are making a special case and I am not? Do you concede that in any other domain you would think the author of these thoughts is probably a conservative Christian and likely a Trump voter?
Nekran Member	Thu Oct 28 09:27:02 I don't concede this at all. I make a rational argument for my pov. I don't defend it with any sort of religious conviction. In fact I fully admit that it has its flaws and regrettable consequences. I'm quite open to other arguments, but I've yet to be convinced by any. I'm just making my case. Weighing up suffering is hard. I prefer that the law prioritizes members of society over the potential future members of society the aforementioned members of society carry inside them. I fully understand that someone else might prioritize differently. I feel it's wrong to just dismiss their suffering as "being uneducated" though. Not to even mention that being uneducated is often not people's own fault. If your wife finds out tomorrow that you are a horrible human being in her eyes (any number of revelations could cause this), I would consider it an unspeakable act of horror to force her to go through with birthing your child, because whoopsie, it's been over 12 weeks now. In my opinion far worse than just killing the unborn proto-human living inside her. Even though it has done no wrong. I can see how others would prefer the law to prioritize the innocence of the unborn. But I would not. I would prioritize the current members of society. On top of that I feel it more cruel to force the unborn to live in a society where they are unwanted then to terminate them before they enter it. But once again, very much how I feel and not some sort of objective fact. I do hope though that you can see how different that is from thinking women should not be allowed to vote or allowing genital mutilation (allowed and practiced throughout the world too... now this is something that really bothers me, that circumcision of the newborn is just allowed here, without any sort of medical need, though I realise you were obviously talking about the more brutal female genital mutilation) or whatnot?
Nekran Member	Thu Oct 28 09:31:20 To be clear, the simplicity isn't the main reason I propose the limit I do. It's just a huge added benefit. The main reason is prioritizing rights and minimizing suffering.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Nov 01 22:44:36 Nekran "You seem to have gotten the idea that I crave simplicity." You have repeatedly said that you want things easy, convenient, simple, these are words you have used. You actually say here explicit that you are making a special case: "It's not really a desire for simple answers in general, so much as a desire for a clear and easy limit to be set for this particular law." So let me rephrase, you accept universally that as things move along and we learn more we have to revise our laws, ethics and understanding, you just don't want that here. Do you understand that your special pleading, is a fallacy and inconsistent with your views in all other domains of knowledge? There is btw nothing unclear or difficult about 12 weeks, or any other week, it would simply be reflective of a growing understanding and application of ethical principles we already have in our societies. So apart from being a fallacy, it actually isn't a valid argument. Your aversion for complexity came when I started talking about neuroscience and you said "you don't like that stuff", inconvenient science that makes the world more complex for you. In this vein you said: "Constantly changing the law by a week or a few days, because we learn something new about brain development or develop new techniques for keeping foetuses alive outside of wombs seems needlessly inefficient and tiresome to me." That's how it is suppose to work and you realize and accept this for everything else in this world. Concede or retract? "The main reason is prioritizing rights and minimizing suffering." This prioritization and minimizing of suffering is not receptive to new facts, since you have created a compartment where no new facts may make things more complex as to revise the ethical framework that delegates rights and minimizes suffering. Your "main" reason as you call it, is grounded in the special pleading fallacy. I suggest you rethink your position from the ground up, it just imploded.
Nekran Member	Tue Nov 02 02:01:35 "There is btw nothing unclear or difficult about 12 weeks, or any other week" It really is... we usually don't know the exact starting point of a pregnancy, for starters. And then you needlessly put a (very much inexact) ticking clock on what would often be a very difficult decision for people. "This prioritization and minimizing of suffering is not receptive to new facts," Sure it is... if it turns out an unborn embryo/foetus is capable of worse suffering than a fully developed adult human being, I'll have to revise that stance. Seems pretty doubtful to me though. "That's how it is suppose to work and you realize and accept this for everything else in this world." You're right... I've gotten caught up in the discussion and have poorly worded things. I accept it for everything, including this topic. It just so happens that it is largely irrelevant to the question to me, considering how much I prioritize the mother over the unborn. I don't see how we could realistically learn anything that could make the unborn's rights ever trump the mother's. Why should we prioritize the unborn over the fully developed members of society? Why should we force people to go through an unwanted pregnancy? Why ignore the suffering that comes with that?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Tue Nov 02 03:26:10 "It really is...we usually don't know the exact starting point of a pregnancy, for starters." This is shifting the goal posts. You were perfectly fine with 24 weeks, if you want more precise markers, by all means, but you are not concerned with any kind of precision on this issue, so to demand cellular level granularity when you are fine chopping up full term babies, not an honest counter argument. I support increased precision beyond "weeks", actual biological and neurological markers. Do you? If not then 12 weeks is clear enough for the sake of this argument. Agree? "capable of worse suffering" There are adult humans who objectively are not capable of the same suffering you and I are. Their brain is wired different, their threshold for pain is higher all kinds of stuff. You don't believe it is ok to kill them, because they are not capable of the equal suffering, let alone capable of worse, which is a strange qualifier. The biggest sufferer has the most right to live? "Why should we force people to go through an unwanted pregnancy?" Why should society terminate a life because you regret creating it? Your question presupposes that it is a right to end life because you don't want it. "Why ignore the suffering that comes with that?" Suffering was an unfortunate word I introduced, truth is we live and we suffer. Not what I was going for. It is sufficient that I had said "I care about human sentient and consciousness", suffering is just one of the meaningful experiences such creatures can have. But to unpack this, legal adults must suffer the consequences of their actions, especially from their "mistakes". It is morally, ethically and legally unacceptable that others pay with their life for your mistakes. I think you agree. "Seems pretty doubtful to me though." There are parts of the human physiology that are transient as part of normal development, in fact transient stuff exist well after birth as things keep developing. This is true for the neurology as well. It does not look and function exactly like a fully developed human in a fetus. But it is a leap to assume that does not endow it with some kind of sentient or sensation of pain. There is simply now evidence to say that definitively. Because a life potentially hangs in the balance and we are literally talking about ending it, legally, the onus is thus on those in favor to present evidence that this creature is not sentient and does not have consciousness.
Nekran Member	Sat Nov 06 02:56:19 "I support increased precision beyond "weeks", actual biological and neurological markers. Do you? If not then 12 weeks is clear enough for the sake of this argument. Agree?" Just poijnting out that is not "completely clear" when 12 weeks is. This is a problem, when you set a 12-week limit. I do support looking at an actual biological marker, but you dislike the one I prefer :p It probably is a better method though, but I don't know which other ones one can reliably use. Perhaps the emergence of the human brain wave pattern could be a good one once more. I seem to keep coming back to that one for a compromise. "There are adult humans who objectively are not capable of the same suffering you and I are. Their brain is wired different, their threshold for pain is higher all kinds of stuff. You don't believe it is ok to kill them, because they are not capable of the equal suffering, let alone capable of worse, which is a strange qualifier." They are members of society and get protected as such. "Why should society terminate a life because you regret creating it? Your question presupposes that it is a right to end life because you don't want it." Society is not terminating anything. A person is deciding that they do not want a life developing inside them. I feel like that should be their decision. "It is morally, ethically and legally unacceptable that others pay with their life for your mistakes. I think you agree." No... I don't agree. But not with the sentiment. It's a fine sentiment. I don't agree that this is an example of this sentiment though. I still don't consider them people. So it's not "another" paying with their life. It's a person rectifying their mistake. Oddly enough it is you who doesn't agree with that statement, considering you do see an embryo as a human being, but are fine with an abortion up to 12 weeks. "Because a life potentially hangs in the balance and we are literally talking about ending it, legally, the onus is thus on those in favor to present evidence that this creature is not sentient and does not have consciousness." Proving a negative tends to be a problem in any case. Proving a negative about a vague concept like consciousness is simply a ludicrous ask. Can you even theorize a valid test? I mean... all the consiousness tests we currently do for both animals and people, I'm quite sure embryos and foetuses would fail pretty damn hard. Once again, the biggest difference is our point of view though. You consider an embryo a human being and I do not. You write "a life potentially hangs in the balance" and I would write "a potential life hangs in the balance". And to me that potential life is completely subordinate to the person inside which it is developing.
Habebe Member	Sat Nov 06 03:22:29 If we didn't have abortion, how would we keep the negro population in check? Its sort of a founding pillar alongside crack and guns. I guess we could hire more cops.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Nov 06 11:03:01 "I do support looking at an actual biological marker, but you dislike the one I prefer :p" Birth is not a biological marker. And even we would broaden the definition that is a "marker" it is of no ethical significant in a way that is congruent with a coherent ethical framework. "Society is not terminating anything." This is the law Nekran, society has indeed decided that they can be terminated. It was not always legal and it isn't legal everywhere as we speak. For a doctor to preform the abortion, there is an entire hierarchy called "society" behind it. You are confusing the decision with the actual termination. I could rephrase that as why should society grant you the right to terminate.... "A person is deciding that they do not want a life developing inside them." It's not up to that person though, this is a regulated activity. Even the most progressive abortion laws have limitations and mile stones where you can't just walk into hospital and have an abortion. In Sweden after week 24 the doctor requires legal clearance from a judicial body that regulates medical activity. And again, you made that life dependent on you. "No... I don't agree." We do agree, you go on to agree with the principle (you call it sentiment) and that is what I said. I know what we agree about and what we disagree about, I told you from the start and you have not disagreed with any of the things (values) that I said we agree on. I know you better than you know me ;) "I still don't consider them people." You definition of "people" is arbitrary. Every time you try to narrow it down to something principled like "fully developed", let's say people are fully developed at 25. Is it ok for their parents to terminate them before that? No I presume. Why? Describe and define "people". "Oddly enough it is you who doesn't agree with that statement, considering you do see an embryo as a human being, but are fine with an abortion up to 12 weeks." Already addressed this, TL:DR I have moral convictions and then I reach ethical conclusions based on more things that my moral convictions. "Proving a negative tends" This is NOT proving a negative, I was very clear that this a legal issue, since these terminations are occurring LEGALLY. This is not about science now though as evidence in the "trial" science plays a role. The way legal systems in most civilized countries work is that you have to prove guilt, the accused does not have to prove innocence. In this case prove that this creature does not posses the qualities that we deem worthy of protection everywhere else in our society, that we can just discard them at our convenience. "You consider an embryo" The embryo of which specie are we talking about, pigs, eagles, dolphins? If we are shorting it down, "human" is more correct logically. Not all embryos become human, but all humans were once embryos. Just calling it "embryo", even if unwittingly, is de-humanizing. [Whatever] you want to label it, is the beginning of human life. It is definitely human, it falls within the standard definition of life, even if there are discussions about the border regions of life there is no question that an embryo (of any specie) falls within the borders. There is *no debate* about this. The larger debate is confused and the scientists themselves have a hand in it, because they are individually driven by all the same motivations as everyone else, especially when their field is socially/politically relevant and/or interesting. So these words "human" and "life" start to mistakenly merge the social with the biological in confusing ways. All this does is that we just have to use more technical words, like instead of "human" say "homo sapiens" and instead of "life" say "active biological processes". The zygote of homo sapiens has active and significant neurological processes at week 12 of gestation, it is unethical to terminate it.
Nekran Member	Sun Nov 07 03:08:08 "I could rephrase that as why should society grant you the right to terminate.." And society should grant you this right, because it is supposed to care for its members and its own well being. Forcing unwanted births isn't good for anyone. And no members of society are harmed by allowing it, so I feel society has not a single reason to outlaw it. "You definition of "people" is arbitrary. Every time you try to narrow it down to something principled like "fully developed", let's say people are fully developed at 25. Is it ok for their parents to terminate them before that? No I presume. Why? Describe and define "people"." I've asked you to make this definition a long time ago, which you haven't done yourself. For me it's not hard to include a form of independence in the defintion. Or even just "not living inside another person". You would run into far more problems to make a workable definition that includes the things you want to include and exclude the things you don't want to include. "Already addressed this, TL:DR I have moral convictions and then I reach ethical conclusions based on more things that my moral convictions." But for you personally, it's immoral? Like you wouldn't outlaw it for the good of society, but you personally cringe at the idea of scientists creating and discarding embryos for experiments at will? This is a question that really interests me. Is that idea revolting to you? "If we are shorting it down, "human" is more correct logically. Not all embryos become human, but all humans were once embryos. Just calling it "embryo", even if unwittingly, is de-humanizing." I disagree once more... a pig embryo has a lot more in common with a human embryo than a human embryo has in common with a fully developed human. "It is definitely human, it falls within the standard definition of life, even if there are discussions about the border regions of life there is no question that an embryo (of any specie) falls within the borders. There is *no debate* about this." Very much true. It is alive and has human DNA. But once again, so is the placenta and we all discard it. Just being alive and consisting of human DNA does not make you a human being. There is no debate about that either. "The zygote of homo sapiens has active and significant neurological processes at week 12 of gestation, it is unethical to terminate it." Active neurological processes don't automatically make something unethical to terminate. If you want to go back to your consciousness argument, we would be around the week 24 limit again... where one could start to begin to argue that the necessary development has occurred so that there might be some sort of glimmer of consciousness present. I think if it was up to us 2 to settle on a law that we have to both agree on, we'd have to end up there. I still think it's not a good marker either though... I mean people debate when it is that babies become conscious as well. Consciousness is such a vague concept.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Nov 08 09:44:15 "Forcing unwanted births isn't good for anyone." Utility argument. Why do you not extend the utility argument about ending more lives? "I've asked you to make this definition a long time ago, which you haven't done yourself" You are not paying attention or for whatever reason have not managed to figure out that I have already _several times_ defined it, both from a moral perspective and a scientifically grounded ethical one. But I also answer in that last post in more "technical" terms. So please go ahead and answer mine now. If you have additional questions about this that are not answered already or in this post, go ahead and ask them. "You would run into far more problems to make a workable definition that includes the things you want to include and exclude the things you don't want to include." Go ahead and show me the problems, and keep in mind the definition: an individual of the specie homo sapien (human), with active biological process (alive) with special emphasis on neurological processes (active brain). Show me all the things that would fit that definition that I do not want to include. "But for you personally, it's immoral?" Yes for me personally it feels wrong, but I do not make normative suggestions simply based on what I feel is wrong. For instance, I think it is wrong to become a prostitute, I wouldn't want anyone I know to be a prostitute, I really don't want anyone to be a prostitute, but I think it should be legal and regulated to protect the people involved in it. Legal adults may do whatever they want as long as the exercising of their rights are not impinging on other's. "where one could start to begin to argue that the necessary" Do you know the rational behind week 24? "I disagree once more" You are disagreeing with your own imagination. I asked you a question and then explained why "embryo" is the wrong term, since not all embryos are of the same species. This may be redundant in a discussion about abortions of >human< embryos, but it actually isn't since you have been indoctrinated to not view it as part of our specie. But you know some people say that Africans have more in common with chimps than they have with Europeans. I mean they both live in Africa *shrugs*, they have wide and flat noses. "Very much true. It is alive and has human DNA." I give you half a point, *it is of the specie homo sapiens*, one marker for that is DNA, but not the only one, but most certainly it isn't that is has human DNA. Your placenta example does not fit in with the definition of an individual of the specie homo sapien at any stage of it's life. Nekran, do you understand that a placenta is not an individual at any stage of the life of homo sapien? *Keep in mind that I didn't define this according to biological jargon for shits and giggles, it was precisely to close the door on these ignorant pro life talking points about placentas and pigs.* "Active neurological processes don't automatically make something unethical to terminate." This is not a counter argument to what I said, it is just a vague statement that is completely wrong in most context I can think of. In the context of medicine and the right to life support it is very relevant. Active neurological process is everything you and I consider "life", without them, you are just a bag of meat, a vegetable. This is for instance one of the drivers behind lab grown meat, there is no actual cow brain there to feel or experience anything. It is the rational behind sedating animals before slaughtering them etc. etc. This is really you going back to "I don't like the neurological stuff". Do you not understand the importance of brain activity AKA active neurological processes?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Nov 08 11:19:15 "but most certainly it isn't *simply* that is has human DNA."
murder Member	Sat Nov 27 17:21:24 Just checking up. Can you still see a scrotum?
Im better then you 2012 UP Football Champ	Sat Nov 27 18:36:34 At what age does this question become "problematic"?
murder Member	Sat Nov 27 18:40:32 I think that kind of depends on whether you have a history child molestation or child porn.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Nov 29 07:20:31 As far as I know, the scrotum is still there. This guy has a different temperament/personality already. He is far more active in there and moving and kicking. My oldest he moved, but in 1 week I felt this guy move more than my first son did over the entire course of the pregnancy. This guy clearly reacts to my voice. Almost every time I talk to him or make noises for him, he reacts, starts moving and pushing. It is at a level that my wife is getting "fed up" with all the moving in there and asks me to not encourage him LOL :)
murder Member	Mon Nov 29 08:09:10 "He is far more active in there and moving and kicking." http://as0...24_noticia_normal_recorte1.jpg
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: