let the record show that aaronburro and JesusHChrist are in agreement on something

2/17/2012 8:42:52 PM

well waddya know...neither one of us think that the government should force doctors to rape women.

2/17/2012 9:52:45 PM

There's been way too much agreement on the last few pages....

THERE IS NO GOD!

2/18/2012 8:34:27 AM

you sonofabitch

2/18/2012 7:34:41 PM

And just in case anyone addresses that, it's not my actual position.

THERE IS INSUFFICENT EVIDENCE THAT A GOD EXISTS THEREFORE THE MOST REASONABLE POSITION IS TO TENTATIVELY DISBELIEVE GOD CLAIMS UNTIL EVIDENCE IS PROVIDED.

2/18/2012 8:17:13 PM

oh no you fucking didn;t

2/18/2012 8:30:13 PM

Wow. I just figured out why you are having such a hard time with the tree analogy. It's not because I abused the English language or anything like that. It's because you think humans are special. You think there's something about our cells that is fundamentally different than other lifeforms on this planet.

This assumption is completely unfounded. Vitalism has been disproven for a century and there is absolutely no indication that there is any external force acting on our bodies in any way and no physiology to support it anywhere in our bodies.

At it's very most basic, life is just chemistry and the chemistry of human lives is not fundamentally different than any other animal, only marginally different from a tree, and really not all that different from a rock or dirt. It's physics all the way down with no indication otherwise.

[Edited on February 21, 2012 at 6:44 AM. Reason : gramma]

2/21/2012 6:43:12 AM

Why not just allow the pill to be sold OTC? If a manufacturer just petitioned the FDA to remove the prescription requirement a lot of this nonsense would go away.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-potts-the-pill-revisited-20120220,0,4953131.story

2/21/2012 11:15:07 AM

^^ and, yet there is still the concept of a "human life" that we all agree upon, in concept. plus, the Constitution was written with people in mind, suggesting that our society looks at "human life" as somewhat meaningful.

2/21/2012 10:27:39 PM

abortion is sometimes murder /thread

2/21/2012 10:32:52 PM

So va. passed this ultrasound law thing.

But unless i'm mistaken, don't women have to have something shoved in their twats to get the abortion they came in there for anyway? Seems a little odd to be outraged about this law on the basis of sticking things into a woman's vag.

IOW...

step 1: shove ultrasound wand inside
step 2: shove abortion machine inside
step 3: have abortion

where's the violation here??

2/21/2012 11:11:08 PM

the violation is that she wanted one thing shoved in her twat and not the other. same reason I can't claim it's not rape if I ram my dick in some random chick's beaver against her will even if she was getting gang-banged not five seconds prior

2/21/2012 11:14:49 PM

I would assume though that as part of part 2, doctors would typically do part 1 anyway (how else do they confirm someone is preggers at this stage-- they wouldn't rely on an EPT i bet)?

2/21/2012 11:17:24 PM

I'm not sure if you have ever seen an ultrasound performed, but it is typically done by scanning the lower abdomen on the outside. A transvaginal ultrasound is much more invasive, and I guess you could say it adds a whole other level to it.

2/22/2012 12:19:12 AM

I realize those things, but what i'm confused about is when do they do one vs. the other?

Typically, when someone gets an abortion, the fetus is teeny-tiny, and my understanding is he/she wouldn't show up on a "regular" ultrasound.

Is this the case?

2/22/2012 12:23:20 AM

Quote :

"^^ and, yet there is still the concept of a "human life" that we all agree upon, in concept. plus, the Constitution was written with people in mind, suggesting that our society looks at "human life" as somewhat meaningful. "

Because we have a higher level of consciousness due to our physical brains. That's it. Nothing about our bodies indicate a soul or any special spark to differentiate us from animals. Just our brains. And that is clearly why a pre-brain human embryo is clearly not a person nor a "life." It's just animal cells like any other animal cells. Nothing special about being human without the human consciousness to go with it. Physics all the way down.

2/22/2012 12:24:36 AM

^ that's not really true.

in a static, 3D sense, that's the case, but as the famous AI writer Jeff Hawkins argues, the crux of intelligence is the ability to predict the future.

We humans, when we look at a fetus, or brains naturally envision them in the 4th dimension, we don't just see the clump of cells, we see how that clump might interact in the future with everything else.

When we look at a plant seed, we see the same thing, but for the typical tree, there's nothing remarkable about living in the dirt soaking up sunlight.

Yes, a fetus is just a clump of brainless cells, but the thing that having a brain bestows on us uniquely compared to other animals-- consciousness -- forces us to perceive this clump of cells as more than just a clump of cells. We look through both space and time to see a human.

The clearest demonstration of this is how you would react if someone were to physically abuse your recently pregnant wife causing a stillbirth. You'd be upset your wife was abused, but you would also feel like your child was taken from you, wouldn't you? The transient social perception of what a fetus is is just as important when considering legal/political issues.

2/22/2012 12:42:06 AM

Quote :

"When we look at a plant seed, we see the same thing, but for the typical tree, there's nothing remarkable about living in the dirt soaking up sunlight."

And there's nothing truly remarkable about being one in a long string of primates. It's only subjectively remarkable. You're proving my point.

Quote :

"Yes, a fetus is just a clump of brainless cells, but the thing that having a brain bestows on us uniquely compared to other animals-- consciousness -- forces us to perceive this clump of cells as more than just a clump of cells. We look through both space and time to see a human."

No we don't. And even if we did this wouldn't be evidence of an inherent difference between the actual human embryo and any other animal embryo. It's only evidence of subjective bullshit our human brains project on reality. Science has proven that the fundamental stuff that we are is no different than the fundamental stuff of anything else. What we perceive is meaningless and we know is subject to error.

Quote :

"The clearest demonstration of this is how you would react if someone were to physically abuse your recently pregnant wife causing a stillbirth. You'd be upset your wife was abused, but you would also feel like your child was taken from you, wouldn't you? The transient social perception of what a fetus is is just as important when considering legal/political issues."

No, I wouldn't feel the same as if someone took my actual child. I would feel loss of a potential child. Are you imagining that every early term miscarriage has an even comparable emotional impact to losing an actual child? This is absolutely rediculous.

And to base laws on "transient social perception?"

[Edited on February 22, 2012 at 12:56 AM. Reason : .]

2/22/2012 12:52:51 AM

Quote :

"No we don't. "

Yes we do. Think about it... (or read that guy's book)

Quote :

"And even if we did this wouldn't be evidence of an inherent difference between the actual human embryo and any other animal embryo. It's only evidence of subjective bullshit our human brains project on reality. Science has proven that the fundamental stuff that we are is no different than the fundamental stuff of anything else. What we perceive is meaningless and we know is subject to error."

LOL how is that subjective? You realize that in the real world, you do actually have to consider things in the time domain? Any engineer will tell you this...

And secondly, how can you say that when considering human systems, you can inconsequentially ignore human reactions? You can't. It's illogical to do so. It's irrational to model humans as static, purely logical entities.

Quote :

"No, I wouldn't feel the same as if someone took my actual child. I would feel loss of a potential child. Are you imagining that every early term miscarriage has an even comparable emotional impact to losing an actual child? This is absolutely rediculous."

If this miscarriage is due to another human's actions, yes, people take this very harshly. How is this ridiculous?

You realize Santorum forced his family to snuggle with a miscarriaged child? this is the extreme but people take this harshly.

If you want to boil this down to scientific reasoning: your model will ALWAYS fail in the long run by ignoring human emotions/intuition/empathy. You have to account for this variability.

[Edited on February 22, 2012 at 1:02 AM. Reason : ]

2/22/2012 12:58:36 AM

So what we have here is a glorified appeal to emotion no more sophisticated than "look at the tiny hands, it must be a person." Tell me, what point where you trying to make exactly? A blastocyst which is likely to be spontaneously aborted anyway should be counted as a person because of its potentiality? OMG fourth dimension!

Quote :

"And secondly, how can you say that when considering human systems, you can inconsequentially ignore human reactions? You can't. It's illogical to do so. It's irrational to model humans as static, purely logical entities. "

It's not unreasonable to do so because human reactions are subjective and prone to error. That's the whole point of science. This would be like saying we should really support the death penalty because of the devastating emotions the victim's family are feeling. Maybe you think emotion is a good thing to base societal policy on, I don't.

Quote :

"If you want to boil this down to scientific reasoning: your model will ALWAYS fail in the long run by ignoring human emotions/intuition/empathy. You have to account for this variability."

Completely unfounded assertion. How do you know this is true?

In fact, I think the counter point has more evidentiary support. History has been a litany of humans getting shit dead wrong thanks to emotion and irrationality. The scientific method has the potential to save us from ourselves and bring us closer to seeing reality as it is, not as we project it to be.

I'm not suggesting that we suppress all human reactions or emotions. I'm suggesting that factoring them into reasoning about reality is worse than useless; it's dangerously reckless. It leads to people believing in garbage like chi or gods because they really really feel it in their hearts.

[Edited on February 22, 2012 at 8:57 AM. Reason : .]

2/22/2012 8:57:19 AM

Quote :

"in a static, 3D sense, that's the case, but as the famous AI writer Jeff Hawkins argues, the crux of intelligence is the ability to predict the future. We humans, when we look at a fetus, or brains naturally envision them in the 4th dimension, we don't just see the clump of cells, we see how that clump might interact in the future with everything else. When we look at a plant seed, we see the same thing, but for the typical tree, there's nothing remarkable about living in the dirt soaking up sunlight. Yes, a fetus is just a clump of brainless cells, but the thing that having a brain bestows on us uniquely compared to other animals-- consciousness -- forces us to perceive this clump of cells as more than just a clump of cells. We look through both space and time to see a human. The clearest demonstration of this is how you would react if someone were to physically abuse your recently pregnant wife causing a stillbirth. You'd be upset your wife was abused, but you would also feel like your child was taken from you, wouldn't you? The transient social perception of what a fetus is is just as important when considering legal/political issues."

While I understand that this is an opinion that you have thought thoroughly about, I still have to disagree. I think it is irresponsible to bring a clump of animal cells into consciousness knowing full well that they will be at a disadvantage, emotionally or economically. If you decide to keep a baby that you cannot really provide for, then that child will be at a disadvantage and will not necessarily reach their potential anyway. While it is certainly not impossible for a poor kid to grow up to become educated/successful or both, you cannot tell me that the odds are not seriously against a child born into poverty. Also, have you ever met children with a mom that could be their sister, and a grandma that could pass as the mother? well a poverty stricken child born to a young mother is more likely to reproduce when they are young as well.

Quote :

"The children of teenage mothers have lower birth weights, are more likely to perform poorly in school, and are at greater risk of abuse and neglect. The sons of teen mothers are 13 percent more likely to end up in prison while teen daughters are 22 percent more likely to become teen mothers themselves."

while these numbers grabbed from a women's health website, are not directly from the CDC or any other health organization, obviously unintended pregnancies have big consequences. So we are not allowed to get abortions, but welfare is communism? unwanted pregnancies are more of a burden on the individual and the society than anything, and I am sorry but we don't need quantity, we need quality in our population in order to maintain our competitiveness in the global arena.

If you don't like facts and statistics then I am not sure what else there is to tell you.

2/22/2012 10:32:09 AM

Quote :

"A blastocyst which is likely to be spontaneously aborted anyway should be counted as a person because of its potentiality?"

no. we take away from it that we should kill it off simply for matters of convenience or lack of any foresight or responsibility.

Quote :

"I think it is irresponsible to bring a clump of animal cells into consciousness knowing full well that they will be at a disadvantage, emotionally or economically."

I agree. So the time to make that decision is BEFORE you have sex, BEFORE those cells are in existence.

Quote :

"If you decide to keep a baby that you cannot really provide for, then that child will be at a disadvantage and will not necessarily reach their potential anyway. While it is certainly not impossible for a poor kid to grow up to become educated/successful or both, you cannot tell me that the odds are not seriously against a child born into poverty. Also, have you ever met children with a mom that could be their sister, and a grandma that could pass as the mother? well a poverty stricken child born to a young mother is more likely to reproduce when they are young as well."

So, all poor mothers should have abortions. It's the "responsible" thing to do. Fuck, tie up their tubes, just to be sure!

2/22/2012 12:53:36 PM

Quote :

""A blastocyst which is likely to be spontaneously aborted anyway should be counted as a person because of its potentiality?" no. we take away from it that we should kill it off simply for matters of convenience or lack of any foresight or responsibility."

This is one of the most incomprehensible responses I've read. What the heck were you trying to say?

We take away from it? Take what away from what?

Killing off a blastocyst is simply for matter of convenience and foresight? Have you gone mental?

2/22/2012 1:23:20 PM

Hey we gotta make sure that fetus makes it out of the womb alive so it can die on the street after we slash welfare.



[Edited on February 22, 2012 at 1:27 PM. Reason : .]

2/22/2012 1:26:42 PM

I would like aaronburro to describe his typical sexual encounter.

I don't want the dirty particulars about the actual act, but I would like the situational details.

2/22/2012 2:37:17 PM

So if fetuses were recognized by the Federal government as humans, would that mean foreign couples could come to the US, do the dirty, get deported, then give birth in 9 months to a US citizen?

2/22/2012 3:19:12 PM

Quote :

"So, all poor mothers should have abortions. It's the "responsible" thing to do. Fuck, tie up their tubes, just to be sure!"

I am talking about poverty. I came from a very poor family, and it was hard enough to be competitive with all of the new technological advances that we could never afford. While it is a shame that it was not brought into life, it is much more insensitive to try to reverse an already made decision so that a person who should not be raising a child, ends up raising a child and perpetuating an ultimately detrimental cycle that will only grow into a much larger societal burden.

Quote :

"I agree. So the time to make that decision is BEFORE you have sex, BEFORE those cells are in existence."

really? so then you must be one of the people that thinks abstinence should be the only material covered in sex ed? in a perfect world, humans would only have sex when they wanted children, but in reality sex is very important to human relationships and makes us the very complex creatures we are, we attach many things to sex, so unless you live in a cave, sex is going to happen, with or without the intentions of having babies.

2/22/2012 3:25:30 PM

Quote :

"So the time to make that decision is BEFORE you have sex, BEFORE those cells are in existence."

I thought you said you were okay with Plan B? Keep in mind fertilization can occur as soon as 30 min after sex.

2/22/2012 3:28:30 PM

This is a side effect of believing humans were specially created not terribly long ago on a geologic timescale. They expect us to as a population be able to suppress instincts of millions of years of evolution driven by sexual reproduction.

2/22/2012 3:29:11 PM

^thank you! the sex organs have so many nerves and pleasure receptors for an evolutionary reason.

2/22/2012 3:31:38 PM

Quote :

"So if fetuses were recognized by the Federal government as humans, would that mean foreign couples could come to the US, do the dirty, get deported, then give birth in 9 months to a US citizen?"

that's as dumb as an evangelical's argument.

Citizenship is granted/determined at birth. Even pro-lifers distinguish between conception and birth, the argument has always been if life begins at conception or birth.

2/22/2012 3:45:35 PM

Virginia has backed off of the mandatory wand-rape

2/22/2012 3:48:00 PM

Now it's just a mandatory groping followed by voluntary wand rape.

Which is still fucking pointless at less than 30 days because you can't see shit at all on an external ultrasound.

All this stupid law has ever been about is slut shaming.

2/22/2012 3:56:47 PM

Quote :

"Citizenship is granted/determined at birth. Even pro-lifers distinguish between conception and birth, the argument has always been if life begins at conception or birth."

So pro-lifers want the rights of a fetus to overrule the rights of the mother, or try mothers for murder, but that's the only right the fetus gets? The right to be used as a legal tool against women?

2/22/2012 3:57:04 PM

what?

That has nothing to do at all with what you quoted or the moronic point about citizenship. one has nothing to do with the other.

[Edited on February 22, 2012 at 4:03 PM. Reason : .]

2/22/2012 4:03:42 PM

Quote :

"This is one of the most incomprehensible responses I've read. What the heck were you trying to say?"

sorry, left off the "not" after the "should".

Quote :

"really? so then you must be one of the people that thinks abstinence should be the only material covered in sex ed? "

how the fuck do you pigeonhole me into that? there are more options to prevent pregnancy than simply abortion and abstinence. come on.

Quote :

"I thought you said you were okay with Plan B? Keep in mind fertilization can occur as soon as 30 min after sex."

What would be the difference in taking a Plan B and just gargling down a couple BC pills? Same difference. There's no guarantee that a fertilized egg will implant, so, as incongruous as it may be, I'll allow BC to be used before "pregnancy." Yeah, it sux. deal with it.

Quote :

"So pro-lifers want the rights of a fetus to overrule the rights of the mother, or try mothers for murder, but that's the only right the fetus gets?"

no, I think pro-lifers just want the fetus to have some kind of right to life that must be respected on some level. How far we go with that makes up for the difference of opinion in the pro-life camp. As opposed to the pro-abortion stance of "fuck it"

2/22/2012 10:25:49 PM

Quote :

"All this stupid law has ever been about is slut shaming. "

This is true. They've backed off the law though.

What do you all think of the stat that 53% of births to women under 30 are to unmarried mothers? Seems like an unstable situation... i think few people would argue that having 2 parents makes everything about raising a child easier, what does this say about future generations?

2/22/2012 10:33:10 PM

^ To answer your question moron from earlier, you can see a fair amount depending on what resolution the ultrasound machine is. Granted, before the 2nd trimester there's not much you're going to be able to see regardless but as far as dating the fetus and attempting to look for any major anomalies that can be seen that early on I'm pretty sure the standard external ultrasound can show you what you need to know.

I have seen a transvaginal ultrasound done in person and it was for a woman whose fetus had exencephaly - they only decided to do the transvaginal one after the external ultrasound to be doubly sure that's what they were seeing (but honestly, you didn't need the transvaginal one to know she needed a D&C). And let me tell you, those things are not small and are pretty intimidating.

2/22/2012 10:40:28 PM

Quote :

"While I understand that this is an opinion that you have thought thoroughly about, I still have to disagree. I think it is irresponsible to bring a clump of animal cells into consciousness knowing full well that they will be at a disadvantage, emotionally or economically. If you decide to keep a baby that you cannot really provide for, then that child will be at a disadvantage and will not necessarily reach their potential anyway. While it is certainly not impossible for a poor kid to grow up to become educated/successful or both, you cannot tell me that the odds are not seriously against a child born into poverty. Also, have you ever met children with a mom that could be their sister, and a grandma that could pass as the mother? well a poverty stricken child born to a young mother is more likely to reproduce when they are young as well."

I don't see how your position disagrees with mine.

Yes, you're right, from an objective, humanist, evolutionary perspective, it is somewhat "irresponsible" to raise a child in an environment that society deems suboptimal. This doesn't mean that we as a species don't view unborn fetuses, brain or otherwise, as humans. This doesn't mean it's inaccurate to call abortion murder, when viewed from this angle.

2/22/2012 10:45:59 PM

Quote :

"This doesn't mean that we as a species don't view unborn fetuses, brain or otherwise, as humans."

How we view something doesn't make it reality.

We as a species viewed the Sun orbiting the Earth for millenia. The Universe doens't give a rip about how we view anything.

2/22/2012 10:58:47 PM

Quote :

"How we view something doesn't make it reality. "

Generally speaking, it does, when you're talking about social policies in particular.

If you have people who are against abortion on the grounds that it's murder; and people who oppose abortion, on the grounds that it's not murder, what makes you think the solution to "win" them over is to keep asserting that it's not murder, because it doesn't have a brain?

This argument itself has tons of issues (what level of "brainness" does it have to have, etc.), but the worst amongst them is that it is actually perfectly reasonable, and consistent, for a person to believe that a fetus is a human, just like you and me. This is not illogical, considering how we treat pregnant women.

Does this mean abortion should be illegal, no. Does this mean that people who think abortion is murder and thus SHOULD be illegal are completely nuts? Nope.

If you want to "solve" the abortion issue, you'll NEVER, EVER, EVER do so by arguing that unborn babies aren't human, then it's okay to kill them, because in some situations, we will always treat killing an unborn baby as killing a human.

2/22/2012 11:09:34 PM

We're going in circles and you're proclaiming wildly unfoundedly how things will always be.

I can only imagine the pre-Galileo moron proclaiming assuredly that humans will always know with certitude that the sun revolves about the Earth.

Yes, I agree humans are generally non-rational. The answer may not be "pander to their subjectivity" so much as "illustrate how their subjectivity is flawed."

Quote :

"This argument itself has tons of issues (what level of "brainness" does it have to have, etc.), but the worst amongst them is that it is actually perfectly reasonable, and consistent, for a person to believe that a fetus is a human, just like you and me. This is not illogical, considering how we treat pregnant women."

conclusion no follow premise. How we treat pregnant women says little about how we view thing inside pregnant woman belly. human society for thousands year revere and protect pregnant woman because good thing do for species propogation.

2/22/2012 11:19:06 PM

Quote :

"illustrate how their subjectivity is flawed."

Thus far, you, and everyone else, have failed to do this. That's the problem.

It doesn't make sense to say "x doesn't have brain, therefore we can ethically kill x."

And the point about pregnant women isn't that we protect them, it's that if you cause a pregnant woman to miscarry by hurting her, legal precedent and social perception is that you've committed a murder. If you kill a pregnant woman, you've committed 2 murders.

2/22/2012 11:28:16 PM

Quote :

"It doesn't make sense to say "x doesn't have brain, therefore we can ethically kill x.""

Says you. Pulling the plug on a person in persistent vegetative state would be murder otherwise.

Quote :

"Thus far, you, and everyone else, have failed to do this. That's the problem."

Maybe. Neuroscience isn't done yet.

Quote :

"And the point about pregnant women isn't that we protect them, it's that if you cause a pregnant woman to miscarry by hurting her, legal precedent and social perception is that you've committed a murder. If you kill a pregnant woman, you've committed 2 murders. "

Sort of. But even aaronburro will tell you, just because the government says so, doesn't make it so. We also have laws that say you can't buttfuck. Granted, I've been drinking so I'm sure I wanted to make a more lucid argument. That laws written with the same subjective biases don't make the biases substantiated by evidence.

2/22/2012 11:36:09 PM

Quote :

"Says you. Pulling the plug on a person in persistent vegetative state would be murder otherwise."

It would be murder actually, if you didn't get the requisite approval.

If you walked around a hospital, looked for people in PVS, and killed them, you would rightly be tried as a murderer.

That's the whole point i've been trying to make.

We as a society tolerate the MURDERING of humans in various situations (self defense, war, death penalty, euthanasia, abortion), why not just ADMIT that abortion is murder, but is in the same vein as the other forms of murder we tolerate?

Why dick around trying coming up with inconsistent, arbitrary definitions of when life begins, that no one will ever agree on?

Why not just face this truth?

It seems the pro-choice people only maintain this argument because they don't have the guts to own up to the fact they support murder. We ALL support murder, some people are just either delusional about it, or are in denial.

2/22/2012 11:53:51 PM

abortion != murder

2/23/2012 1:31:28 AM

Quote :

"We as a society tolerate the MURDERING of humans in various situations (self defense, war, death penalty, euthanasia, abortion), why not just ADMIT that abortion is murder, but is in the same vein as the other forms of murder we tolerate? "

Oh, so this was a semantics issue all along!

When I say "murder" I mean "should be charged with the crime of murder and tried as an accused murderer". By your loosey-goosey definition where self defense is murder, I'll admit that later term abortions could be called "murder." I maintain that even by your definition a blastocyst/embryo/early fetus can't be "murdered", which is all I really have been arguing for the past few pages.

2/23/2012 8:41:47 AM

If abortion is murder then forcing a woman to carry a child to term is slavery

[Edited on February 23, 2012 at 8:52 AM. Reason : .]

2/23/2012 8:48:44 AM

Quote :

""A blastocyst which is likely to be spontaneously aborted anyway should be counted as a person because of its potentiality?" no. we take away from it that we should not kill it off simply for matters of convenience or lack of any foresight or responsibility."

So aaronburro does think that killing a blastocyst is shouldn't be done because we lacked foresight.

2/23/2012 8:49:01 AM

Quote :

"If abortion is murder then forcing a woman to carry a child to term is slavery"

I agree heartily with this sentiment.

2/23/2012 8:51:15 AM