NASA abortion and abortion

[Word]

I just noticed how many posts you have, Word. Didn't realize you were than active of a poster xD. Congratulations! (sorry off-topic)

I shouldn't have posted at least 40% of that, including this one.

[sinewav]

I hope we can at least agree for now that embryo cells are small units of life...

(I'm agreeing with Acid's statement but I wonder how it is logical to say that cells are life and embryos are nothing but cell clusters and don't deserve protection)

You just proved the logic yourself. "[E]mbryos are nothing but cell clusters and don't deserve protection." You didn't say embryos are human beings, because they aren't. And if all life needs protection, then good luck surviving in the world. Living things eat other living things to exist. You see Word, you are clearly able to make distinctions on what type of life you find acceptable to kill. You eat animals and plants I assume, and they are alive. A cancerous tumor is a living cluster of cells that grows inside you but somehow that's Ok to kill. So if you are able to make such arbitrary distinctions, why not we?

And finally, it's quite amazing to see someone so hung up on an issue that doesn't affect them in the slightest way. You will never perform or receive an abortion. You can get into heaven because you will never intentionally kill a potential baby. Why, oh why, do you care about what other people do with their lives when it has absolutely no meaningful effect on yours? Seems like your time could be served better elsewhere, like maybe adopting and raising orphans. Say, have you adopted and raised any orphans yet?

[Word]

there's no logic if you regard these cell clusters as phase 1 of a human being, unlike a tumour. Our consciousness, our character, our life hasn't started to develop in a moment someone could measure, it didn't come from nowhere.

And finally, it's quite amazing to see someone so hung up on an issue that doesn't affect them in the slightest way.

it's just wrong to kill millions of people (i know you don't call them like that) when there's no evidence that all of their lives will be filled with pain and, questionable or not, we applaud ourselves for that.

[sinewav]

Our consciousness, our character, our life hasn't started to develop in a moment someone could measure, it didn't come from nowhere.

That's right, we can't measure the beginning of human consciousness and character (yet). So you have no right saying it starts at conception. Again, you are making arbitrary decisions which are no more right or wrong than anyone else's. And what's this "it didn't come from nowhere" stuff? That sounds suspiciously like the classic "god put it there" argument, for which there is no proof of course. And if you really want to talk about consciousness, then you might already know the newest ideas about it's origin, which is, consciousness is a property of the universe that reveals itself through complex arrangements. It's one of the ways to explain the self-replicating nature of proteins. (Let's not even get into metacognition and how we might determine if other species besides our own posses it. That would be one of the most amazing breakthroughs in history.)

it's just wrong to kill millions of people (i know you don't call them like that) when there's no evidence that all of their lives will be filled with pain and, questionable or not, we applaud ourselves for that.

But it's OK to raise millions of animals into years of suffering, then kill them? Seems like you have a double standard for unborn over born lifeforms.

[Kijutsu]

Sine you silly goose, the bible says animals are here for us.

Cluster of cells > innocent, defenseless and CONCIOUS animals

[Word]

So you have no right saying it starts at conception. Again, you are making arbitrary decisions which are no more right or wrong than anyone else's. And what's this "it didn't come from nowhere" stuff? That sounds suspiciously like the classic "god put it there" argument, for which there is no proof of course.

No, the difference is that you're sure what's going on during meiosis and kill it, we don't. 'It didn't come from nowhere' means that I don't believe in radical gradualism that says the only being that deserves protection is the one that can articulate its own interests and by respecting others' interests its own one will be respected.

But it's OK to raise millions of animals into years of suffering, then kill them? Seems like you have a double standard for unborn over born lifeforms.

Sine you silly goose, the bible says animals are here for us.

I don't know why we are talking about animals now, but carnivorousness isn't a specifically Christian invention.
http://www.frontline.org.za/articles/animals.htm
http://www.thenazareneway.com/biblical_ ... _giron.htm


More to come when I continue to translate that journal text but now I have other things to do.

[þsy]

The eating of animals in the old and new testament was treated with a lot of respect, and all of the meat would have undoubtedly been free-range, healthy-living and organic - as well as locally-sourced, though that isn't so important when fuel isn't being consumed! It was not eaten everyday and when it did occur it was a special occasion. (In fact, in the book of Jonah, the people of Nineveh dressed up their animals in sack-cloth during a time of mourning!)

If you try and translate that into today, it doesn't really work. The consumption of meat is insane, unsustainable and inevitably leads to mass production of animals for butchering. It's gotten so bad that 'ethical living' has become a commodity, if you put that in a historical context, it's a sad reflection on the way humans have become.

Getting back to the abortion topic, talking about embryos as a "cluster of cells" sounds very artificial and cold. Somewhere down the line, life sparked up inside and the growth of a human started to occur. I wouldn't call that a cluster of cells, I'd call that a miracle!

And telling people they have no right to comment on abortion is not fair. It assumes that the man automatically dismisses any responsibility and leaves things to the woman. It may be a process that happens to the woman, but it is the responsibility of both people involved. As reproductive beings, the chances are we'll have sex at some point - and a good proportion will even have babies. That gives us the 'right' to deliver our own opinions.

Please note that I am not siding towards pro-life or pro-abortion. I'd appreciate any comments on my post to tackle my ideas, and not me. Word is attacked, word attacks back etc. Let's break this cycle and discuss rather than stab

[sinewav]

...I don't believe in radical gradualism that says the only being that deserves protection is the one that can articulate its own interests and by respecting others' interests its own one will be respected.

Well you are going to have to accept some form of gradualism because that's reality. The point you keep missing time and time again is that a fetus forms gradually from different states. There is a point where it will "most likely" survive outside the womb and a point where "definitely will not" survive outside the womb -- and questionable areas in-between. What difference does it make if a woman wants to terminate the the pregnancy before the fetus is viable? You can't save it, and forcing the mother to carry it against her will is abuse.

I don't know why we are talking about animals now...

Don't you roll your eyes at me kiddo. People ARE animals. The point (you keep missing the point) is that you express a selfish, egocentric, human-centric view of life. You already make horrible value judgments, like, Factory Farming is fine and dandy, but killing off a mammal before it develops a central nervous system is wrong. Doesn't matter if Christianity invented eating meat. It wrongly promotes the idea that animals are subordinate to humans and torture of them is Ok since they can't go to magic-fairy-land... oops I mean, heaven.

[þsy]

Word is attacked, word attacks back etc. Let's break this cycle and discuss rather than stab

Seriously c'mon

[Phytotron]

You're having a lot of trouble following the conversation here, and even your own arguments. Look at the quote of yours to which I was responding. You made a case for adoption over abortion. That would obviously mean the woman would be forced to carry that pregnancy for 9 months. Dude, come on.

I got that, but you always seem to generalize this. Not every woman considers abortion or feels as if the entire pregnancy was nothing but a useless suffering.

Uh, duh? Wait, do you think we're advocating that every woman consider abortion as an alternative to every pregnancy? Clearly, this conversation only applies to unwanted pregnancies.

At the risk of repeating myself, I'm aware it's not my decision. I just don't find it right. If you're pro-choice it's strange that you can't accept when someone wouldn't choose abortion.

But that's not the argument you've made, and certainly not the position of the Catholic Church, from which your position is derived.

A wikipedia link that is supposed to explain how the Catholic doctrine is consistent with this point of view.

But it's not. That's referring to a very specific, limited sort of abortion.

It's a choice between two methods of abortion, one vaginally and one via c-section, both resulting in a terminated fetus. (And those cases usually involve a desired pregnancy. Why the hell would a woman choose to terminate if there were, as you falsely imagine, such an easy and safe option for the fetus to survive?)

Then I misunderstood the scenario you're talking about, but the answer is given in the link above.

Not in the least is it.

And yes, you are disqualified from making reproductive health care decisions for women, who, in case you still haven't learned, are autonomous human beings of moral agency, not your subordinates.

And again, nobody said we men make these decisions.

The Catholic Church and many governments, run by men, do in fact make these decisions. This isn't theory, it's reality.

there's no evidence that all of their lives will be filled with pain

Last time I'm going to say this: Get off that. That is not an argument given for abortion (not a good one, anyway). It doesn't matter whether it would have a miserable or fantastic life. Get off that argument. Unwanted pregnancy, whatever motivation is behind it, is good enough reason.

says the only being that deserves protection is the one that can articulate its own interests and by respecting others' interests its own one will be respected.

NO ONE has made that contention. Ugh.

Sinewav rebutted the rest of your silly arguments well enough, so I'll leave them be. I will repeat, though, you seem to be having a hard time following the arguments being made. I don't know if this is the language barrier or a comprehension/logic problem, but we're not getting anywhere.

One of the main problems I have with abortion is that I feel it poses an easy way out for those who make ignorant mistakes and refuse to think out the potential consequences of their actions. ... I don't think it is acceptable for teenagers, or anyone else for that matter, to run around fornicating all over the place without utilzing any contraceptive options.

Are you following this thread at all? Read my post directly preceding yours. What you describe DOESN'T HAPPEN. And really, "fornicating?"

...it denies abortion availability for the women that might actually need it to save their lives from birth related complications.

What? Like there's a monthly quota on the number of abortions that can be performed? What are you talking about? The only thing limiting access and availability of abortions is the anti-abortion movement and resulting legislation.

A conditional abortion law would be ideal to me, but I doubt that would ever happen.

Sigh. Already have, all over the place. Get educated on the subject or don't post.

Somewhere down the line, life sparked up inside and the growth of a human started to occur. I wouldn't call that a cluster of cells, I'd call that a miracle!

But that's just the thing, whatever you mean by "life," it doesn't suddenly, spontaneously "spark up." It's a gradual progression, as sinewav pointed out (and the morality concerned can be thought of as being on a continuum as well). And there's nothing miraculous about it. It's biology. Now, biology and nature are amazing, not artificial or cold, but there are no miracles involved. (And there needn't be any miracles in order for it to be amazing and wonderful and inspiring and all those good things.)

And telling people they have no right to comment on abortion is not fair.

Comment, yes. Ultimately decide, no.

Word is attacked, word attacks back etc. Let's break this cycle and discuss rather than stab

I think Word is hanging in there pretty well, neither flipping his lid nor wilting away. I think we've done a rather good job of keeping this relatively civil, actually. Sure, there's been some smack talk here and there, but nothing too heavy—certainly nothing along what one would usually have expected from a controversial thread on this forum these days.

I also appreciate and respect that Word, unlike most guys his age, is at least thinking about meaningful subjects (not only this one, but others that come up) and is voluntarily studying on his own. Make no mistake, I don't have the least bit of respect for the Catholic Church or its teachings, however.

But, one other point I want to make, mainly directed toward Word, is that I hope you understand that when I make statements like "a pre-viable fetus (etc) is not a person...abortion can be a good, positive thing...abortion can be moral...unrestricted access to abortion is an indication of a humane society...an unwanted pregnancy is reason enough" that I'm not saying them to be snide, crass, or shocking. I mean them in the most sincere, humanitarian sense.

I won't get on you about the virgin thing, either. A) Nothing wrong—really, much good—with learning about and forming views on subjects outside your direct experience, provided you do your due diligence to get fully educated on it. That should be encouraged. B) Nothing wrong—and really, much good—with reserving sex for a legitimately romantic relationship. Although, I don't think the Catholic directive of abstinence until marriage is sensible, and could result in a bad marriage.

[Word]

You already make horrible value judgments, like, Factory Farming is fine and dandy, but killing off a mammal before it develops a central nervous system is wrong. Doesn't matter if Christianity invented eating meat. It wrongly promotes the idea that animals are subordinate to humans and torture of them is Ok since they can't go to magic-fairy-land... oops I mean, heaven.

To me it's worse to kill a part of our own species. The whole food chain depends heavily on plants (= living beings as well), and saying that Factory Farming is terrible distracts from the fact how many animals kill each other every day in the wild. In my part of the world Christianity was often the only authority that urged people to use their own reason and act responsibly. It doesn't say that torturing animals was OK, I don't know where you got that from. We humans have to help the weaker species - that's what I was taught, for what it's worth. I don't want to imagine what people will do when it turns out that plants can feel pain too. Who knows, maybe they have already developed a conciousness which is superior compared to ours in the course of evolution.

Ernst Haeckel (that is again part of this journal I linked) believed that the human embryo has to go through all phases of its (animalic) evolution. That was later proven wrong. Because of that I also believe that the states of a human's development are specific for humans, hence it's a human being the whole time. Humans don't develop to humans, but as humans. The main argument is that you can't split developing a personality and being a human.

edit: found a better OCR software, going to translate the Habermas part.

@Phytotron: I'm going to reply to your post when I'm awake enough

[þsy]

Somewhere down the line, life sparked up inside and the growth of a human started to occur. I wouldn't call that a cluster of cells, I'd call that a miracle!

But that's just the thing, whatever you mean by "life," it doesn't suddenly, spontaneously "spark up." It's a gradual progression, as sinewav pointed out (and the morality concerned can be thought of as being on a continuum as well). And there's nothing miraculous about it. It's biology. Now, biology and nature are amazing, not artificial or cold, but there are no miracles involved. (And there needn't be any miracles in order for it to be amazing and wonderful and inspiring and all those good things.)

I agree, though I think our understandings of what miracles are differ. The process of categorising and creating logical equations for processes within our surroundings - science - consists of a list of codes and human-made laws that attempt to make 'sense' of things. All of these codings are formulated within our human capabilities and experiences, which are perceived (and restricted) through our basic and additional human senses. When we look at the world through these eyes, we see a system that is based on discourse no matter how hard the facts are.

So it can definitely be argued that to experience something amazing is a miracle. Instead of 'understanding' it through science, we can appreciate it on a different level (emotional, spiritual, physical etc. - let's not let language restrict us).

So the conception of a baby is a miracle. So is that feeling when you fall in love. So are those hairy caterpillars that literally freeze inside and out every winter for 14 years before turning into a moth (anyone else see frozen planet this evening!?). In fact, everyday you see miracles depending on how you choose to perceive things - don't let science drain the world of its colour!

But this is just an idea I like to play with, and I'm definitely not suggesting that you or anyone else here don't appreciate this! I do think that life is something to get excited about that though - but it does require a social structure and financial supply to slot into. It's easy to say that life should always get a chance and is more important when you're not embedded within that particular society, but it's also hard to get a true understanding of what life could bring to you when you are!

[Phytotron]

To me it's worse to kill a part of our own species.

Interesting, so are you acknowledging that morality and moral consideration can operate on a continuum, not absolute black and white, all or nothing boundaries? That's kinda our point in regard to embryonic and fetal (prenatal) development.

The whole food chain depends heavily on plants (living beings as well)

Living, not a life, in the sense of having any sort of sentience, consciousness, emotion, and foremost the capacity for suffering and an interest in avoiding suffering. This is the distinction and nuance that you don't get, because your conception of rights is based solely on this shallow, simplistic notion of a God and souls.

saying that Factory Farming is terrible distracts from the fact how many animals kill each other every day in the wild.

Huh? Apples and oranges. Wild, natural, and necessary versus artificial and unnecessary husbandry. Animal husbandry, expressed in its most vile in factory farming, is evil, pure.

In my part of the world Christianity was often the only authority that urged people to use their own reason and act responsibly.

You have got to be kidding. That statement is ridiculous on its face.

It doesn't say that torturing animals was OK, I don't know where you got that from.

The Bible states that animals are soulless automata and humans have "dominion" over them. Theologians down through the centuries have used this as a basis for the argument that animals have no feelings, physical or emotional, lack consciousness and cannot suffer. Factory farming and such is torture.

We humans have to help the weaker species - that's what I was taught, for what it's worth.

The other side of that same theology, which still holds animals are soulless automata, but we should only treat them well so that we may learn not to mistreat humans. It's still wrong in its premise. We should treat other animals well because they do, as we do, have the capacity to suffer and an interest in not suffering, both physical and emotional, and do have varying degrees of consciousness. They have dignity and deserve the moral respect and consideration attendant with that.

I agree, though I think our understandings of what miracles are differ.

I use "miracle" in its usual sense of supernatural intervention, which is nonsense. I do not define "something so amazing that I can't wrap my head around, that just rocks me emotionally" as a miracle.

don't let science drain the world of its colour!

It doesn't; that's the point. I lack the poetic eloquence to properly express it, but in my view, nature, the universe, human experience—reality—as understood through science is more colorful, more beautiful, more amazing, and wondrous, inspiring, enriching, sophisticated, meaningful, foundational, exciting, interesting, and poetic. Then add in human endeavor (art, music, literature, engineering, civics, secular political and moral philosophy, etc.), and it's that much more so. Go back to that "sermon" I posted from Neil deGrasse Tyson on the first page (ha, I almost forgot it's the same thread). I'll throw in a couple more little videos: Hitchens and Dawkins. Or even those Symphony of Science tunes and videos.

I don't love my wife less, or enjoy a kiss less, or experience the world in a more mundane way because I understand the science behind these things. To me, that makes it that much more thrilling, more satisfying, more meaningful, more romantic. I know that the love we feel is something real and material, not something "mysterious" and ethereal that may or may not be true.

Rather, I find the religious and other supernaturalist explanations for "reality" to be pathetic, insipid, shallow, simplistic, insufficient, squalid, dreary, insulting, demeaning to humanity, and really rather lacking in imagination as a young child could come up with most of these stories.

Like Darwin said, "there is grandeur in this view of life," not diminishment.

[Phytotron]

Last edited by Word on Wed Nov 02, 2011 8:10 pm, edited 11 times in total.

We're both guilty of this multi-edit habit, but at some point you should just make a new post, because people are going to miss those edits (you also don't want to find yourself accused of revising history to your benefit). It's OK to clarify or add to an earlier post in a later, separate post.

[Mecca]

It sucks that it is necessary for people to have abortions; but looking at the bigger picture, why is it so bad?

Haven't humans done nothing but destroy the earth so far?