Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
That is generally my viewpoint. I think abortions are a bad thing in every case, although sometimes they are the least of the available evils.Darth Wong wrote:Regarding the original subject, I actually think Roe vs Wade is flawed too, but for different reasons. Survival outside the mother's body is not the issue; "I think therefore I am" is the issue. Once the baby starts exhibiting signs of higher brain function, he or she acquires human rights as far as I'm concerned. That's why I consider late-term abortions to be murder. The pro-abortion extremists who think that a baby is nothing but a sack of flesh until the moment it reaches atmosphere are painting themselves into an ethical corner.
Partial birth abortions aren't second trimester. A partial birth abortion is an abortion that terminates the pregnancy when the baby is on it's way out and is in almost all cases to perserve the life and health of the mother when giving birth would severely damage her (that's why it's called partial birth abortions, the child is partially born).Durran Korr wrote:Not as far as I'm aware. Only recent court decisions have made partial-birth abortions, which are second trimester, legal, I think. Though Congress recently voted on a ban of the procedure.
Ah, Jael... She on another board we visit...jegs2 wrote:Hmm, I'm in a debate over Paul right now. One of them questioned my faith. Asked them to quote John 3:16 -18, then I'd provide them the answer they sought...Enforcer Talen wrote:nah. Im a member, but read only.
I see some of your posts tho.
Darth Wong wrote:Regarding the original subject, I actually think Roe vs Wade is flawed too, but for different reasons. Survival outside the mother's body is not the issue; "I think therefore I am" is the issue. Once the baby starts exhibiting signs of higher brain function, he or she acquires human rights as far as I'm concerned. That's why I consider late-term abortions to be murder. The pro-abortion extremists who think that a baby is nothing but a sack of flesh until the moment it reaches atmosphere are painting themselves into an ethical corner.
Status of Artificial Womb ResearchTed C wrote:It would be nice if someone could invent the technology and procedures to safely remove an embryo/fetus from a womb without harming it and safely transplant it or incubate it, thereby ending the debate forever. Is anyone even trying to pursue this route?
Hrm... maybe, but won't that screw up the development of the baby? After all, a babies development is directly effected by the mother in more ways than just that the mother provides a nice wet and warm place to suck up nutrients. Neurocognitive development starts before birth, after all, it is effected by the environment of the mother.The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Just for the record, I actually think the artificial womb is a necessary step in the liberation of women; it provides an option of not carrying a child to term, and without that option, women who want to have children are limited in the workplace (thus forcing a contest between productivity and reproduction in our species which is dangerous).
That would just allow us to create an optimal enviroment around the artificial womb for neurocognitive development.Gil Hamilton wrote: Hrm... maybe, but won't that screw up the development of the baby? After all, a babies development is directly effected by the mother in more ways than just that the mother provides a nice wet and warm place to suck up nutrients. Neurocognitive development starts before birth, after all, it is effected by the environment of the mother.
Of course, we can't precisely define a discrete line that the child crosses in its development when it becomes a sentient life, but that's an unfortunate necessity of the law. All we know is that this line exists somewhere, because at one point the embryo is obviously not sentient (it doesn't even have a brain), and at another point, it is a fully-developed child. All we can do is try to approximate where that line is. For example, is every 21 year-old person responsible enough to drink alcohol? Is every person under 21 not responsible enough to drink alcohol? Is every 16 year-old fit to drive a car? Is everyone over 16 fit to drive a car?Prince-Admiral Krennel wrote:Agreed for the most part. Unfortunately if a law were made following that statement we would have to define when higher brain functions start, not something we can currently measure as far as I know. Plus with the stem cell thing comming out there is even greater pressure on pro-choice movements to defend abortion in any way, shape, and form.
you're missing the point. there is more to prenancy and birth than "creating an optimal environment for neurocognitive development". If that were the case then why let the parents raise the children. Fetuses develop in the worm in ways that are intangeble. they can hear their mother's heartbeat. her voice. it experiences what the mother experiences. That is how the baby knows it's mother at the moment of birth. to allow a fetus to develop in a labratory deprives them of their humanity. we aren't farming for ears of corn, we are creating human beings.The Duchess of Zeon wrote:That would just allow us to create an optimal enviroment around the artificial womb for neurocognitive development.Gil Hamilton wrote: Hrm... maybe, but won't that screw up the development of the baby? After all, a babies development is directly effected by the mother in more ways than just that the mother provides a nice wet and warm place to suck up nutrients. Neurocognitive development starts before birth, after all, it is effected by the environment of the mother.
The fetus does not experience what the mother experiences. This is a paragraph of nice poetry, but none of it has any basis in fact. So what if the baby knows its mother from the moment of birth? Does this mean that we should outlaw adoption? Should we force women to raise children if they get pregnant?Col. Crackpot wrote:you're missing the point. there is more to prenancy and birth than "creating an optimal environment for neurocognitive development". If that were the case then why let the parents raise the children. Fetuses develop in the worm in ways that are intangeble. they can hear their mother's heartbeat. her voice. it experiences what the mother experiences. That is how the baby knows it's mother at the moment of birth. to allow a fetus to develop in a labratory deprives them of their humanity. we aren't farming for ears of corn, we are creating human beings.
Second, why do you feel women need to be 'liberated' from pregnancy like it is an errant bodily funtion?
Bullshit. Ever hear of a surrogate mother?If you don't want to be pregnant, then don't get pregnant. But saying you wanted to have a child that is your own flesh and blood, but not go through the trouble of a pregnancy is like saying you want the paramedics to rescue you if you ar in a car crash but don't want to pay the taxes that pay their salary.
Col. Crackpot wrote:Dammit durandal, you are missing the point.
The dutchess' statement is a perfect analogy of a greater problem in society. People want to reap the benefits of work they don't do! Make money without working (the government will pay me!). Get healthy without diet and excersise (i'll just take a pill!) And now have a baby without the inconvienence of a pregnancy!
You little fucking cunt. I can't even think of a vitriolic enough response for this. I'll just say that you should go and thank you mother by telling her, "Hey mom, thanks for undergoing the minor inconvenience that is pregnancy so a sorry sack of shit with no respect for women like me could come into this world."What a better way to tell your kids you love them than for them to find out that there existance wasn't important enough for you to deal with a little inconvienence. But never fear, thats what all the shrinks are for!
Fuck you. It is part of the human experience. The point i was making you boil sucking assclown, is that growing a fetus in a fucking lab will never truly replicate that of being incubated in a human being (a mother). Yes we have tecnology that can keep a premature infant alive, but the best situation is for that baby to go full-term.Durandal wrote:You had no point. You waxed poetic about how fetuses get their humanity from being in their mothers' wombs, even though this is incorrect. The rest of this post shows just what an immature, snot-nosed shit you are.
I did not sput no pain no gain nonsene, if you had the reading comprehension of a three toed lemur you'd have figured that out! I stated that i felt this was another example of society looking for the easy way out. talk about waxing poetic, are you sure you got the word "fuck" into that enough. Stop putting words in my mouth to further your argument you hog-fucker. NOWHERE did i say the pain of childbirth should not be reduced where possible. What i said was it is NOT FUCKING NATURAL TO GROW HUMAN FUCKING BEINGS TO FULL TERM IN A GODDAMNED LABRATORY!Col. Crackpot wrote:The dutchess' statement is a perfect analogy of a greater problem in society. People want to reap the benefits of work they don't do! Make money without working (the government will pay me!). Get healthy without diet and excersise (i'll just take a pill!) And now have a baby without the inconvienence of a pregnancy!
Are you done backpedaling yet? Nowhere in your previous post did you mention anything like this. You spouted a truckload of bullshit about the fetus experiencing what the mother does, and once I told you how stupid that was, you silently moved on to yet another truckload of bullshit about how something which is absolutely vital to the survival of the human race should be guided by the "no pain, no gain" mantra embraced by macho, dumbshit professional athletes, and then had the balls to say that I missed the point!
Are you against anesthetics during labor, too? Because that's all labor pains are, right? Minor inconveniences. We should force women to deal with those trivialities because if we don't, they might think get some funny ideas about having the right to decide what happens to their bodies, or that they can get away with wanting a child but not liking the pain of natural childbirth.
Here's a hint, you little fucking twat. Men want children, too. Should we regularly beat men who are fathers-to-be because they might think that they can just go around having children without any work? Jesus fucking Christ, like raising a child isn't enough work and pain, you want to force people to go through pain that could be rendered unnecessary by modern technology. You're fucking pondscum.
Wow you must be pretty fucking smart (or psychic) to make a conclusion like that after reading one post on the internet. YOUR CONCLUSION IS BASED ON YOUR PISS-POOR INTERPETATION OF WHAT I SAID.You little fucking cunt. I can't even think of a vitriolic enough response for this. I'll just say that you should go and thank you mother by telling her, "Hey mom, thanks for undergoing the minor inconvenience that is pregnancy so a sorry sack of shit with no respect for women like me could come into this world."What a better way to tell your kids you love them than for them to find out that there existance wasn't important enough for you to deal with a little inconvienence. But never fear, thats what all the shrinks are for!
Really? So you have some sort of evidence to back this up? Because right now it sounds like a pile of abstract poetic bullshit. "A lab can never take the place of a mother's womb, even if science precisely replicates it ..." Give me a fucking break. It's not like the child is being raised in a lab.Col. Crackpot wrote:Fuck you. It is part of the human experience. The point i was making you boil sucking assclown, is that growing a fetus in a fucking lab will never truly replicate that of being incubated in a human being (a mother). Yes we have tecnology that can keep a premature infant alive, but the best situation is for that baby to go full-term.
I did not sput no pain no gain nonsene, if you had the reading comprehension of a three toed lemur you'd have figured that out! I stated that i felt this was another example of society looking for the easy way out.
You said nothing of the sort; you made up bullshit reasons as to why it was bad to allow an embryo to fully develop into a baby in a lab, but thanks for revealing your idiotic "If it's natural, it must be good" philosophy. It helps explain where your ideas come from. Please explain why something is bad if it isn't natural.talk about waxing poetic, are you sure you got the word "fuck" into that enough. Stop putting words in my mouth to further your argument you hog-fucker. NOWHERE did i say the pain of childbirth should not be reduced where possible. What i said was it is NOT FUCKING NATURAL TO GROW HUMAN FUCKING BEINGS TO FULL TERM IN A GODDAMNED LABRATORY!
See above. Your inability to realize the implications of your ideas isn't my problem.Col. Crackpot wrote:Wow you must be pretty fucking smart (or psychic) to make a conclusion like that after reading one post on the internet. YOUR CONCLUSION IS BASED ON YOUR PISS-POOR INTERPETATION OF WHAT I SAID.
You misunderstand. Studies have shown that prenatal nuerocognitive development is heavily influenced not only by biology (such as what chemicals and such make it through the placental barrier) but by the sort of environment the mother lives in. For instance, it's been shown in studies that women who sing and talk to their babies actually help them develop better. During the third trimester and even earlier it is encouraged for pregnant women to try and interact with their children. A set of speakers on a looping audio track to simulate mommy noises isn't the same thing.The Duchess of Zeon wrote: That would just allow us to create an optimal enviroment around the artificial womb for neurocognitive development.
Why not? Sound waves are sound waves, and fetuses aren't audiophiles. Furthermore, I've heard a lot about how it's "better" to let the fetus develop in the womb, but I haven't heard how it's better. Does the child come out more intelligent? Is it stronger? What makes it so much better?Gil Hamilton wrote:You misunderstand. Studies have shown that prenatal nuerocognitive development is heavily influenced not only by biology (such as what chemicals and such make it through the placental barrier) but by the sort of environment the mother lives in. For instance, it's been shown in studies that women who sing and talk to their babies actually help them develop better. During the third trimester and even earlier it is encouraged for pregnant women to try and interact with their children. A set of speakers on a looping audio track to simulate mommy noises isn't the same thing.
Why not? Sound waves are sound waves, and fetuses aren't audiophiles. Furthermore, I've heard a lot about how it's "better" to let the fetus develop in the womb, but I haven't heard how it's better. Does the child come out more intelligent? Is it stronger? What makes it so much better? And even if it does, why should we force women to go through pregnancy if they could have the option of growing the child in a lab?Gil Hamilton wrote:You misunderstand. Studies have shown that prenatal nuerocognitive development is heavily influenced not only by biology (such as what chemicals and such make it through the placental barrier) but by the sort of environment the mother lives in. For instance, it's been shown in studies that women who sing and talk to their babies actually help them develop better. During the third trimester and even earlier it is encouraged for pregnant women to try and interact with their children. A set of speakers on a looping audio track to simulate mommy noises isn't the same thing.
Durandal, just ask yourself this. Is it morally acceptable to experement on humans in this way? If you are the researcher in charge of growing a crop of kids in a lab, and they end up seriously mentally and developmentaly challenged, can you live with yourself? Doesn't this level of tinkering with human develoment rise to the level of Eugenics and cloning? Why is that immoral, and this not? That bothers me, even more than whatever societal trends i mentioned that pissed you off. (in which i concede i may have favored rhetoric over logic)Durandal wrote:Why not? Sound waves are sound waves, and fetuses aren't audiophiles. Furthermore, I've heard a lot about how it's "better" to let the fetus develop in the womb, but I haven't heard how it's better. Does the child come out more intelligent? Is it stronger? What makes it so much better? And even if it does, why should we force women to go through pregnancy if they could have the option of growing the child in a lab?Gil Hamilton wrote:You misunderstand. Studies have shown that prenatal nuerocognitive development is heavily influenced not only by biology (such as what chemicals and such make it through the placental barrier) but by the sort of environment the mother lives in. For instance, it's been shown in studies that women who sing and talk to their babies actually help them develop better. During the third trimester and even earlier it is encouraged for pregnant women to try and interact with their children. A set of speakers on a looping audio track to simulate mommy noises isn't the same thing.
It's different because a stereo with an audio track on loop doesn't respond. The idea behind talking or singing to your baby prenatally is the interaction. Studies have shown that prenatal interaction speeds along a babies prenatal neurocognitive development, which allows babies to pick up on things faster. You may not believe it, but environment does matter.Durandal wrote:Why not? Sound waves are sound waves, and fetuses aren't audiophiles. Furthermore, I've heard a lot about how it's "better" to let the fetus develop in the womb, but I haven't heard how it's better. Does the child come out more intelligent? Is it stronger? What makes it so much better? And even if it does, why should we force women to go through pregnancy if they could have the option of growing the child in a lab?
Col. Crackpot wrote:Durandal, just ask yourself this. Is it morally acceptable to experement on humans in this way? If you are the researcher in charge of growing a crop of kids in a lab, and they end up seriously mentally and developmentaly challenged, can you live with yourself?
Eugenics is artificially engineering humans to be superior. This is not comparable to simply sparing a mother the 9 months of trauma that pregnancy involves while still allowing her to have a child made up of her and her husband's DNA. Cloning is simply making a genetic duplicate of someone. If the person is willing, I don't see a problem. If someone wants to have his legacy live on in the form of a clone instead of a child, that's his prerogative, and the government has no right to tell him that he can't do it.Doesn't this level of tinkering with human develoment rise to the level of Eugenics and cloning? Why is that immoral, and this not? That bothers me, even more than whatever societal trends i mentioned that pissed you off. (in which i concede i may have favored rhetoric over logic)
Mindlessly repeating your ideas does not make them valid. Is there a link to such a study? Do children whose mothers do not interact with them come out mentally deficient? Or does prenatal interaction just enhance what could be considered the average cognitive abilities of a child?Gil Hamilton wrote:It's different because a stereo with an audio track on loop doesn't respond. The idea behind talking or singing to your baby prenatally is the interaction. Studies have shown that prenatal interaction speeds along a babies prenatal neurocognitive development, which allows babies to pick up on things faster. You may not believe it, but environment does matter.
