Abortion

[12th Doctor]

This moment of male-bonding was brought to you by Hypermagaglobalcom Co.  We run your life from sunrise ot sunset and you are probably sleeping on our mattress too.  

[Gustaf]

This moment of male-bonding was brought to you by Hypermagaglobalcom Co.  We run your life from sunrise ot sunset and you are probably sleeping on our mattress too.  

Lol...

[JohnFKennedy]

This moment of male-bonding was brought to you by Hypermagaglobalcom Co.  We run your life from sunrise ot sunset and you are probably sleeping on our mattress too.  

oh no, supersoulty went crazy!!!!!

[Beet]

How can you prove morality? If you can't, then must we automatically assume that morality is relative? Of course not.

All I was saying is the debate is involved with morality. Im not saying its relative.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here, all I was saying is that personal features alone don't make a human. I've already said why I think first consciousness, not just features and DNA, is necessary for humanity.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That analogy doesnt work because recovering means returning to a prior state; the coma person would be doing that by recovering; the fetus would not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So a fetus fails one criteria so you go look for others... thats not the way it works. I realize that there are other defining parts of humanity; I never said the mind was the defining part, but all the defining parts have to be present for the whole. Trunks and big ears are defining parts of an elephant but that doesn't mean everything with trunks and big ears is an elephant. Thats not to say that all fetuses have never had first consciousness (which, along with potential to continue conscioussness, I think is necessary to be a human person, as I have said). I suspect a great many of them have had first consciousness, even maybe some before 24 weeks, maybe as early as 8 weeks. But I don't know.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just because people with an IQ of zero don't reason doesn't mean they aren't human.

I would just like to say one more thing. It is true that a fetus has human taxonomy and is a living organism; from a biological standpoint it would be human. But this definition is a creation of science and DNA is a set of information. Can a classification system invented in the 18th century for scientific purposes, and a string of letters identified in the 20th, create human rights? No, human rights are something more substantial than can be created by strictly scientific definitions.

Overall, Brambilla, I think we've made a lot of progress in this discussion, but at this point we're sort of repeating ourselves a lot. I am willing to agree to disagree if you are. If you don't know already realize this, I don't agree with either "side" on this issue, though I think a lot of times its argued stupidly, especially from the pro-choice side. Thats partially why I enjoy talking with pro-life people, because they recognize that "life" trumps "choice". But where I disagree with pro-life is where that life comes from.

[Brambila]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

For the time being, we wont be discussing if it's moral or not. We're talking about survival. It's wrong to kill innocent people. The fetus is an innocent person. Therefore, it is wrong to kill the fetus.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We have to understand that consciousness is one part of defining humanity, but that's later. For instance, the definine parts of life are metabolism, reproduction, growth, and stimuli. But a newborn can't reproduce. Does that make it not human? No. The newborn has the ability to reproduce. It may come later, sure, but that doesn't mean that when the child turnes 13 he's suddenly alive, and was dead for the previous 13 years of his existence.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The fetus isn't brain dead either. It doesn't have a brain yet. Yes, the analogy works perfectly.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Once again, people in comas arn't human then. They're not entirely human. By your logic, infants born in comas are not human... and you have not addressed that premis yet.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sure, trunks and big ears define an elephant, but that doesn't make it an elephant. The same goes for having a mind. A mind wandering on it's own is not human- it's what makes one a human. The mind needs sensual things and a brain to work. Otherwise, it's useless. What defines a fetus? It's DNA as I've already said. The fetus has it's OWN UNIQUE HUMAN DNA. That's what differenciates it from everything else. If you compare an elephant  fetus with a human fetus, do you think the two would be identical- no. One would be a human fetus, because it has HUMAN DNA and HUMAN characteristics, the other would be an elephant for the oppisate reason.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

YES. I agree!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What does it mean? Laws are subject to change, true, but that doesn't mean law is the ultimate authority of what has rights and what doesn't. Every human being is entitled to life. That is a basic, fundamental, cornerstone law.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think we're quite finished, but if you want to end this I'm welcome to allow it without further adieu. The problem is, you don't know if the fetus is human or not. If it is human, that would mean that every year forty three million innocent human beings are being killed worldwide. If it isn't, then nobody is being killed. But since you don't know, how is it just to kill that 43 million who may be human?

[Beet]

Crap my login time was exceeded, I'll have to type this again. Since we aren't communicating well, I think we should keep going until we at least know one another's positions clearly.

For the time being, we wont be discussing if it's moral or not. We're talking about survival. It's wrong to kill innocent people. The fetus is an innocent person. Therefore, it is wrong to kill the fetus.

I agree it's wrong to kill people. The only reason I bring up morality is to say that statements built on strictly scientific definitions aren't the final word in this debate. The phrase "it is wrong to kill" means nothing outside the context of morality. It is wrong to kill, is a moral imperative that society agrees to. Thats why we have to consult what is moral and cannot just look at science definitions. Science definitions of human taxonomy and life were created for the purposes of classification and scientific study, not to make policy decisions. Moral definitions are distinct from that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree that potential consciousness can be part of a definition. I just disagree that just because a fetus has potential consciousness and so does a person in a coma, that makes them exactly the same.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not saying the fetus is brain dead. I'm just trying to distinguish between the fetus and a person in a coma. The person in a coma has had consciousness before, and even though that is in the past, it still matters. The criteria for distinguishing between a person in a coma and a fetus is not the state of having consciousness currently but the fact that this mind was once conscious for a person in a coma. Or if you prefer, the state of having had consciousness in the past. The consciousness of a mind has a right to continue, despite suspensions, once it has existed once, but it does not have a right to come into existence. This is what distinguishes the rights of a fetus from a person in a coma. The fetus's consciousness is asking for the right to come into being, the person in a coma is merely asking for the right to continue consciousness when possible.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I already accepted the premis that an "infant" born with absolutely no activity of the same nature as consciousness, and if it has never had any such activity, is not a human person. And although I voiced my skepticism about whether delta waves could be truly considered a complete absence of consciousness, I repeated that, assuming the can be considered a complete absence of consciousness, I accept that in that case the body is not human.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We're both trying to present properties of a human rather than a complete definition. I never said that first consciousness, or a mind, is a complete definition of a human. Here is my complete definition:

1. A living organism
2. With human taxonomy
3. Which is either conscious or once was, and
4. Has the potential to be conscious in the future

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree laws aren't the ultimate authority of what has rights. What we're debating is what constitutes a "human being", and thus what policies uphold the law in this case.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't think it's necessarily just. I may very well be a tragedy, and if I could, I would put a moratorium on abortion at 8 weeks and study the development process very carefully. As I said, I don't agree with either side. But I advance a different definition of life than both sides and since I don't know the exact number of weeks that first consciousness typically occurs, I dont want to make a determination of policy.

[Brambila]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then where does it come from? Obviously, humans couldn't have just invented morality... morality is natural, not unnatural, we must remember.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course it doesn't, but they both have equal rights, and their minds are in the same states.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

From here we move on to the situation which I've addressed about the infant in a coma.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you think it's just to kill these infants, even if they have the ability to be conscious? It's not debatable that the body is not human... it has human DNA, and it's parents are human. Automatically, that's what it is.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, we can kill infants in comas, even though the infant will become conscious.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

okay... i'll accept that I think.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, again, you don't know. So either millions of kids die and some people get birth control, or people get birth control.

[Beet]

Then where does it come from? Obviously, humans couldn't have just invented morality... morality is natural, not unnatural, we must remember.

I think a big part of morality comes from human instinct, and another big part comes from the tradition of the society. I think it's really instinctive that to destroy a newly fertilized embryo is not murder but to kill a crying baby is. There's a definitive difference somewhere in between these two extremes, and it's the first consciousness.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well only accepting the premise that there is and has never been any consciousness at all. But like I said, I suspect delta waves may indicate some consciousness. The reason is, the only way they differ from higher level waves is by their amplitude and frequency. So I don't think we can actually kill it. Red is red, even if the pigment is so thinly spread that we can't see it. The same with consciousness. If the nature of consciousness is brain waves, then any brain waves, no matter how small the amplitude and frequency means consciousness. At least this is what I suspect for now based on my limited knowledge of neurology.
I'm not saying the body isn't scientifically human. I'm saying it has no moral value by itself.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a terrible trivialization for the many potential reasons for an abortion. Whether or not to have a child is probably the most important decision any man or woman will face in their lifetimes. It will determine the whole future of an entire family of people. If it really is no more than a mass of cells, yhe mother has a compelling interest to do what she wants with what is in her body.

But yes, I'm sorry for my ignorance. The sad fact of the definition of life I think is correct is that, I myself cannot say 'I support x policy' based on this position. However there are people out there... neurologists, specialists in fetal development, etc. who can provide the answers. This is such a complicated question... does it matter if the cerebral cortex is there? what is consciousness? how can we measure consciousness? are REM waves the only important aspect? and so many other questions.

[CTguy]

It's 2004, abortion shouldn't be an issue.  

People need to stop judging other people.  

None of you are ever going to convince the other of your point of view.

I will probably never think abortion is murder.  Nor would I ever want it outlawed.  I wouldn't want someone I got pregnant having an abortion but it wouldn't be my choice.

I doubt anyone here really loses sleep at night thinking about all the fetuses being aborted...  especially not someone like Brambilla who obviously doesn't care about other human life after seeing how he has bashed gays up and down... now he somehow cares about saving fetuses...

BS, this issue has been so politicized it's pathetic...  Is anyone here going to tell me they lose any sleep at night because of abortion?  Lets be real.

[Beet]

Come on, you'd be surprised at people. I haven't heard anything from Brambilla that says he doesn't care about people. And I think people's minds can be changed. A lot of people changed their minds after seeing the results of ultrasound technology in the 80s and 90s. If a well presented and coherent line of reasoning, as well as indications of sincerity on the issue on the part of the presenter (rather than coming off as trying to use the issue for their own goals of social control) can't convince people to change their positions, this country is in really crappy shape.

[CTguy]

So you don't think the fact that he has called people who have abortions murderers or gays - mental cases, is insensitive?  Yeah he sounds like a real caring guy.

[Beet]

Well it's possible he honestly believes that those two statements are true, though I agree, if Republicans showed more sensitivity, they would have more credibility in advocating their positions. It worked for Bush (but only as a tool), but now that he's high and might on terrorism he doesn't need that anymore. The amount of manipulation in politics is overwhelming.

[MarkDel]

Supersoulty,

No, but I read a book he wrote for some reason...not sure why. As I recall, he was something of an academic up and comer in conservative circles in the 1980's.

Gustaf and JFK,

I do tend to forget that you two guys are so young. Both of you are mature beyond your years.

He's acctually a Democrat, but in the Catholic conservative tradition.  He worked to co-author a book with Ken Duberstien, who was Reagan top political advisor.  I'm glad you have read his book.  So have I (obviously).  He acctually has two more I think and is coming out with another one soon that wil feature a graph on congress that I did for one of his classes.

Anyway, after he retired from the Air Force, he came back to Gannon and then went to West Point for three years and now he is back.  He's a great guy.  I think he knows everyone there is to know in politics.  And he is a HUGE help to his students when it comes to placement after college.

That's so awesome that you know of him.  I'll have to tellhim about that.

Supersoulty,

It's possible that I know who he is because of his association with Duberstein, who is obviously a pretty popular guy in Conservative circles. My memory is failing me here, so it's also possible that I am thinking of a different professor from the War College...not sure to be quite honest. But the name sounds very familiar and I think I read a book by him a few years back.

[12th Doctor]

Supersoulty,

No, but I read a book he wrote for some reason...not sure why. As I recall, he was something of an academic up and comer in conservative circles in the 1980's.

Gustaf and JFK,

I do tend to forget that you two guys are so young. Both of you are mature beyond your years.

He's acctually a Democrat, but in the Catholic conservative tradition.  He worked to co-author a book with Ken Duberstien, who was Reagan top political advisor.  I'm glad you have read his book.  So have I (obviously).  He acctually has two more I think and is coming out with another one soon that wil feature a graph on congress that I did for one of his classes.

Anyway, after he retired from the Air Force, he came back to Gannon and then went to West Point for three years and now he is back.  He's a great guy.  I think he knows everyone there is to know in politics.  And he is a HUGE help to his students when it comes to placement after college.

That's so awesome that you know of him.  I'll have to tellhim about that.

Supersoulty,

It's possible that I know who he is because of his association with Duberstein, who is obviously a pretty popular guy in Conservative circles. My memory is failing me here, so it's also possible that I am thinking of a different professor from the War College...not sure to be quite honest. But the name sounds very familiar and I think I read a book by him a few years back.

No you probably have the right guy.  I'm almost certain of it.  What you described is basically him.  Like I said, he is a Conservative Democrat, so he maybe highly regarded those circles as you said before.  But I am certain that you are talking about the same Dr. Kozak.

[MarkDel]

Supersoulty,

Maybe, but the guy I'm thinking of is very conservative...highly doubtful that he would be a member of the Democratic Party. The guy I'm thinking of is a big pro-military guy who used to teach at the War College, and he's not that old, maybe late 40's at most.

[MarkDel]

Supersoulty,

By the way, I remember reading that you were a Civil War buff. One of my professors in college was James McPherson...very, very cool guy.

[12th Doctor]

Supersoulty,

Maybe, but the guy I'm thinking of is very conservative...highly doubtful that he would be a member of the Democratic Party. The guy I'm thinking of is a big pro-military guy who used to teach at the War College, and he's not that old, maybe late 40's at most.

Kazak IS very pro-military and he is not that old.  Probably in his 50's.  It could be someone else, ut what in the Hell would be the odds?

[MarkDel]

Supersoulty,

Then it must be the same Kozak...like you said, what are the odds?

[12th Doctor]

Supersoulty,

Then it must be the same Kozak...like you said, what are the odds?

Do you know the title of the book?

[MarkDel]

No, but it was about the Department of Defense.

[12th Doctor]

No, but it was about the Department of Defense.

I'll ask him about it.

[MarkDel]

Supersoulty,

Do you know who James McPherson is?

[Brambila]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Human instinct does not define any part of morality. It's in certain people's instincts to kill others- and they truly believe what they did was just. It's in certain people's instinct to rape women... and they believe what they did was just, but it's obviously not.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Brainwaves arn't part of the mind. Simply because there are brainwaves does not mean that a mind exists. Brainwaves are no more a mind than the nervous system. A mind is actually feeling, percieving, reasoning, willing, et cetera. Having brainwaves or activity in the nervous system doesn't do any of that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No she doesn't. If it's another body within her, then she can't do anything with it. It's not her right. This isn't a trivialization, it's completely true.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Neurologists don't know exactly when the fetus gains consciousness, but they do know it's before the 24th week. Also, brainwaves start at 6 weeks.

[Gustaf]

Supersoulty,

Maybe, but the guy I'm thinking of is very conservative...highly doubtful that he would be a member of the Democratic Party. The guy I'm thinking of is a big pro-military guy who used to teach at the War College, and he's not that old, maybe late 40's at most.

That kind of sounds like my dad...you'd be surprised by the way some people choose their political parties..not everyone do so on issues, you know.

[minionofmidas]

Nobody does, whatever we all of us like to believe about ourselves.