Jump to content

Abortion Opinions (no flaming)


Muse

Recommended Posts

Wow, this argument has become about cows.

 

 

 

Anyways, I'm pro-choice. But I usually try to stay out of abortion arguments. They're just wars of relative morals. Its impossible to find an absolute right or wrong.

 

 

 

Is that an absolute statement? How do you know if there's not an absolute? Don't tell me you believe everything you hear in school.

 

 

 

Relativism doesn't even hold up to its own name. Either relativism absolutely exists or it doesn't exist at all which leaves us with absolutes. Relativism, by its definition, violates its own existence.

 

 

 

Thus, your argument is null and void. :wink:

I'm currently transitioning from a Wizard to a Mage and a Priest to an Archpriest. Lol both are nonexistant in the top 25. Hopefully I can change that. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 424
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Its down right murder anyone that does it is a murderer even if it threatens the mothers life Theres a chance that the baby will live

 

 

 

And if you dont want children dont get pregnant if your to late than there is lots of people wanting to adopt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its down right murder anyone that does it is a murderer even if it threatens the mothers life Theres a chance that the baby will live

 

 

 

And if you dont want children dont get pregnant if your to late than there is lots of people wanting to adopt

 

 

 

I am against abortion in just about any case. But when the mother's life is in danger then I think there has to be an exception. You have to choose between two lives: The mother's or the Babies, and as tough as that decision may be I think that the mother's life should take priority.

lope6jw0.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its down right murder anyone that does it is a murderer even if it threatens the mothers life Theres a chance that the baby will live

 

 

 

You do understand that up until quite late in the piece the fetus is completely dependent on the mother for it's survival. You can't just take it out at twenty weeks and put it into a vat and wait for it to become a baby. If the mother loses her life then the life of the fetus goes with it.

siganizq4.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what should a government do if there's no right or wrong we all agree on? (let's not start talking about "absolute" rights or wrongs, that's an entire debate in its own right )

 

 

 

Leave it to the individual to decide. If your pro-life, don't get an abortion.

Tetsuya.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest GhostRanger
So what should a government do if there's no right or wrong we all agree on? (let's not start talking about "absolute" rights or wrongs, that's an entire debate in its own right )

 

 

 

Leave it to the individual to decide. If your pro-life, don't get an abortion.

 

 

 

Leave it to the individual to decide. If you're pro-life, don't murder anyone.

 

 

 

But if you want to murder someone, go for it.

 

 

 

Your logic is astounding...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So what should a government do if there's no right or wrong we all agree on? (let's not start talking about "absolute" rights or wrongs, that's an entire debate in its own right )

 

 

 

Leave it to the individual to decide. If your pro-life, don't get an abortion.

 

 

 

Leave it to the individual to decide. If you're pro-life, don't murder anyone.

 

 

 

But if you want to murder someone, go for it.

 

 

 

Your logic is astounding...

 

 

 

I thought we already established that not everybody agrees abortion is murder, and hence your reply just doesn't apply at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just found this topic and don't fell like reading through all the post. I am pro life, killing babies who haven't done anything yet isn't right.

 

 

 

so to all you out there who r pro killing I'm sorry that you think kill little babies if cool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just found this topic and don't fell like reading through all the post. I am pro life, killing babies who haven't done anything yet isn't right.

 

 

 

so to all you out there who r pro killing I'm sorry that you think kill little babies if cool.

 

 

 

Sorry, I think you want the "Infantacide Opinions (no flaming)" thread down the hall.

 

 

 

A fetus is not a baby. A fetus may become a baby eventually. Until such time as it does, abortion is not "killing a little baby".

siganizq4.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am AGAINST abortion in most cases (except for the obvious case of abuse...)

 

 

 

Why? I believe that if you consider yourself mature enough to starting thinking about performing the acts that can make them, you should be able to take some responsability. Deal with the consequences of your actions.

 

 

 

But most of all:

 

 

 

Don't start with certain things at a too young age. You may think you are ready for it, but the question you should ask yourself is 'can I deal with the consequences' aka ''Could I raise a kid?'

 

 

 

And LEARN about anticonception. Learn what exists, how to correctly use it, etc.. And stick to it. Can't be that hard right? Id advise every youngster to start of with a 'double dutch' (condom + pil). Always remember 99% safety is nowhere near safe enough. Once can be enough..

Vmser.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Argh. Death_by_pod: robots can have traits, feelings or behaviour. The fact that something is programmed doesn't detract from what it is. Surely you won't say "evolution/God and individual growth put every neuron in my brain where they are now, so it's not my identity but God's/nobody's"?

 

 

 

As for reading your post, I did read it, though if I'm picky I might add that you only ever wrote that they need to recognize themselves in the mirror - leaving open how you would notice if they did. Either way, cognitive creatures can surely decide for themselves what they'll do? All I'm saying (and was saying, regarding this point) is that the test is not failsafe or objective.

 

 

 

Of course it is physical recognition, isn't the point of recognition that you manage to distinguish multiple (groups of) entities from eachother by their qualities? How is this not physical recognition?

 

 

 

I know the point of the mirror test, I'm simply saying the test is too simplistic and doesn't say much altogether, apart from: "The animal might have some level of self-awareness (or an itch wherever that dye was placed). We don't really know how much, but hey, at least it's doing better than a stone so far" versus "It doesn't seem like this animal is self-aware. Either that or it's not in the mood.". It's about as accurate as Freud's sexist interpretations of dreams. But I'm wandering off-topic now, so I guess I'll call this a post.

 

 

 

Or the fact that it doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have a brain so it can never inherently have any self awareness, traits feelings or behaviour; its like saying a windmill has behaviour because itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s spinning. Any self awareness a robot has is directly programmed by the programmer, not because the robot is self aware but is being told to act self aware. A proper comparison involving robots would be a deprogrammed responding to itself; wild animals arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t programmed like a robot to respond to their own image.

 

If you design a robot with a real, organic brain then why wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t you treat it like any other animal; however they donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have brains so there is no comparison.

 

 

 

Even if the test isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t failsafe its still is problematic to call a foetus a person if they donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t even have the mental faculties for self awareness (a working brain; brainwave). I was merely giving 1 example of something that can identify self awareness; I was never using it as the end all in experiments.

 

 

 

ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not physical recognition because you arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t recognising between ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åother animalsÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or the fact that it doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have a brain so it can never inherently have any self awareness, traits feelings or behaviour; its like saying a windmill has behaviour because itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s spinning.

 

Wait. You're claiming that only a brain is required to do any of these things? Why is that? The functional part of your brain is nothing more than a big bunch of neurons stuck together. You could theoretically simulate all those neurons with man-made equipment. Why does that immediately mean there is no self-awareness? Your windmill comparison is nice and all, but it doesn't fly here because you can't even tell a windmill what to do (as opposed to a robot which is told what do by the programmer, or so you said (I don't agree with that either, see below)). A windmill doesn't move on its own, it is moved by the wind.

 

 

 

Any self awareness a robot has is directly programmed by the programmer, not because the robot is self aware but is being told to act self aware. A proper comparison involving robots would be a deprogrammed responding to itself; wild animals arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t programmed like a robot to respond to their own image.

 

If you design a robot with a real, organic brain then why wouldnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t you treat it like any other animal; however they donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have brains so there is no comparison.

 

A robot, these days, is hardly ever only preprogrammed. Just about every robot these days has the ability to learn something - some, such as MIT's kismet, learn the meaning of social behaviour, others will learn how to beat people at games (no, I'm not talking about the stereotypical brute force chess computers). Others will try to figure out the optimal way to mow the lawn. Either way, before you go "but the algorithm used for learning was done by the programmers" - yes, that's true. How did you end up with your neurons? Biology did that, and neurons do the exact same thing - learning from existing connections with other neurons, and making new connections. It's just not sufficient anymore to see a robot as some box filled with (if (a) then (B)) type behaviour.

 

 

 

 

Even if the test isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t failsafe its still is problematic to call a foetus a person if they donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t even have the mental faculties for self awareness (a working brain; brainwave). I was merely giving 1 example of something that can identify self awareness; I was never using it as the end all in experiments.

 

 

I wasn't saying the fetus is a person, I think the debate is difficult and don't really have an opinion on that matter (apart from the rather ambiguous "maybe, after week X, in normal development, the right phase of the moon..."), and was merely responding to the, in my view very quick, drawing of conclusions by some other people here that cows were more self-aware than human babies.

 

 

 

ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not physical recognition because you arenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t recognising between ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åother animalsÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A fetus is not a baby. A fetus may become a baby eventually. Until such time as it does, abortion is not "killing a little baby".

 

 

 

What's the difference?

 

 

 

If you think about it, there are only 4:

 

Size-so is a giant "more human" than a midget?

 

Level of Development-is a 40 year old man more human than a 7 year old kid?

 

Environment-is an American asleep in their bed more human than a Chinese man working in rice fields?

 

Degree of Dependency-So are diabetics less human than non-diabetics?

 

 

 

The only differences really have no effect on the entire matter.

I'm currently transitioning from a Wizard to a Mage and a Priest to an Archpriest. Lol both are nonexistant in the top 25. Hopefully I can change that. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am AGAINST abortion in most cases (except for the obvious case of abuse...)

 

 

 

Why is that an obvious case? Why should the baby be punished because of the actions of it's father?

 

 

 

If you read the rest of my post you'll see that the key to my opinion is the word 'responsability'. Thats why.

Vmser.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A fetus is not a baby. A fetus may become a baby eventually. Until such time as it does, abortion is not "killing a little baby".

 

 

 

What's the difference?

 

 

 

If you think about it, there are only 4:

 

Size-so is a giant "more human" than a Little person?

 

Level of Development-is a 40 year old man more human than a 7 year old kid?

 

Environment-is an American asleep in their bed more human than a Chinese man working in rice fields?

 

Degree of Dependency-So are diabetics less human than non-diabetics?

 

 

 

The only differences really have no effect on the entire matter.

 

 

 

You forgot about - consciousness, ability to suffer, ability to have an ongoing life independent of another human. If you think there are only 4 differences between a fetus and a baby it might be time for you to flick through "Where did I come from?" again.

siganizq4.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am AGAINST abortion in most cases (except for the obvious case of abuse...)

 

 

 

Why is that an obvious case? Why should the baby be punished because of the actions of it's father?

 

 

 

If you read the rest of my post you'll see that the key to my opinion is the word 'responsability'. Thats why.

 

 

 

So your opinion on abortion is based more on punishing people for being irresponsible rather than any concern for the welfare of children.

 

 

 

Charming.

siganizq4.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am AGAINST abortion in most cases (except for the obvious case of abuse...)

 

 

 

Why is that an obvious case? Why should the baby be punished because of the actions of it's father?

 

 

 

If you read the rest of my post you'll see that the key to my opinion is the word 'responsability'. Thats why.

 

 

 

So your opinion on abortion is based more on punishing people for being irresponsible rather than any concern for the welfare of children.

 

 

 

Charming.

 

 

 

Guess if you consider having to raise your own flesh and blood to be a punishment: Think so.

 

 

 

Perhaps some people have different ethical standards but im certain there's no way Id ever let a child of mine get aborted. I will take whatever action needed to ensure it gets what it needs.

 

 

 

Maybe that's old-fashioned. But at least it's a mature way of dealing with things. Which - as I sadly have to repeat - is something alot of people lack when they go to bed with eachother...

Vmser.png
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A fetus is not a baby. A fetus may become a baby eventually. Until such time as it does, abortion is not "killing a little baby".

 

 

 

What's the difference?

 

 

 

If you think about it, there are only 4:

 

Size-so is a giant "more human" than a Little person?

 

Level of Development-is a 40 year old man more human than a 7 year old kid?

 

Environment-is an American asleep in their bed more human than a Chinese man working in rice fields?

 

Degree of Dependency-So are diabetics less human than non-diabetics?

 

 

 

The only differences really have no effect on the entire matter.

 

 

 

You forgot about - consciousness, ability to suffer, ability to have an ongoing life independent of another human. If you think there are only 4 differences between a fetus and a baby it might be time for you to flick through "Where did I come from?" again.

 

 

 

Consciousness-Level of development.

 

Ability to suffer-Level of Development

 

Ability to have an ongoing life independent of another human-level of development/degree of dependency

 

 

 

What the heck are you talking about me missing stuff? Perhaps you should think about what you say before you say it. :wink:

I'm currently transitioning from a Wizard to a Mage and a Priest to an Archpriest. Lol both are nonexistant in the top 25. Hopefully I can change that. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Consciousness-Level of development.

 

You were comparing a forty year old to a seven year old. Both of which are conscious, and aware of their own existence. A fetus is not.

 

 

 

Ability to suffer-Level of Development

 

You were comparing a forty year old to a seven year old. Both of which are capable of experiencing pain and suffering. A fetus is not.

 

 

 

Ability to have an ongoing life independent of another human-level of development/degree of dependency

 

You were referring to an insulin dependent diabetic who is dependent on a syringe of insulin as opposed to a fetus who is dependent on it's mother's womb.

 

 

 

What the heck are you talking about me missing stuff? Perhaps you should think about what you say before you say it. :wink:

 

Why the heck are you even posting? It's quite obvious that you don't think at all.

siganizq4.gif
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

A fetus is not a baby. A fetus may become a baby eventually. Until such time as it does, abortion is not "killing a little baby".

 

 

 

What's the difference?

 

 

 

If you think about it, there are only 4:

 

Size-so is a giant "more human" than a Little person?

 

Level of Development-is a 40 year old man more human than a 7 year old kid?

 

Environment-is an American asleep in their bed more human than a Chinese man working in rice fields?

 

Degree of Dependency-So are diabetics less human than non-diabetics?

 

 

 

The only differences really have no effect on the entire matter.

 

 

 

A foetus has no functioning brain; a person that has no functioning brain would be called dead. I.e. the foetus isn't living hence isn't human.

 

 

 

Thanks for playing the ignorance game and over generalising the argument. If you bothered to read the thread you would have found what makes a human more human then a foetus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Wait. You're claiming that only a brain is required to do any of these things? Why is that? The functional part of your brain is nothing more than a big bunch of neurons stuck together. You could theoretically simulate all those neurons with man-made equipment. Why does that immediately mean there is no self-awareness? Your windmill comparison is nice and all, but it doesn't fly here because you can't even tell a windmill what to do (as opposed to a robot which is told what do by the programmer, or so you said (I don't agree with that either, see below)). A windmill doesn't move on its own, it is moved by the wind.

 

 

 

A robot, these days, is hardly ever only preprogrammed. Just about every robot these days has the ability to learn something - some, such as MIT's kismet, learn the meaning of social behaviour, others will learn how to beat people at games (no, I'm not talking about the stereotypical brute force chess computers). Others will try to figure out the optimal way to mow the lawn. Either way, before you go "but the algorithm used for learning was done by the programmers" - yes, that's true. How did you end up with your neurons? Biology did that, and neurons do the exact same thing - learning from existing connections with other neurons, and making new connections. It's just not sufficient anymore to see a robot as some box filled with (if (a) then (B)) type behaviour.

 

 

 

I wasn't saying the fetus is a person, I think the debate is difficult and don't really have an opinion on that matter (apart from the rather ambiguous "maybe, after week X, in normal development, the right phase of the moon..."), and was merely responding to the, in my view very quick, drawing of conclusions by some other people here that cows were more self-aware than human babies.

 

 

 

And then there was someone a few posts up saying self-awareness doesn't require reasoning. Which is it? And I'm aware what the test tests for, I'm just saying that for recognizing your physical self, you need considerably less resources/logic than to make any sense of your psychology/Freud-like 'self/super-ego'.

 

 

 

Actually, I didn't say that at all. I said that the test was not good enough to convince me. I've given a fair amount of arguments as to why, I believe, and I also said that there is no certainty that anyone is self-aware. No scientific certainty if that makes it any easier to digest for you. I'm not trying to be a relativist here, I'm simply saying that even from a scientific POV, I think the test doesn't suffice.

 

 

 

You are 100% correct, the only requirement is a brain thus if a robot has a fully functioning brain then it would be no different to any other animal (ever see any sci-fi movies).

 

You could theoretically simulate all of humanÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s neurons but it requires much more computational power then whatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s available in the world. To simulate something simpler (like protein folding) you require tens of thousands of computers doing the maths and takes many months of combined computational time to show how a protein folds over the time span of a few seconds. So to get from tens of thousands of computers and the span of months to get to move to real time modelling of protein folding (which is far, far simpler then a brain) would require something in the magnitude of millions of computers. So to even attempt to model a protein fold we need millions of computers, so I can only imagine the sort of scale we need to replicate a brain (my guess would be in the hundreds of billions); now try packing all those CPUÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s into a body. Hell you could theoretically simulate the brain with enough windmills and wind generators. You can program a windmill, clockwise is 0 and anti clockwise is 1 to program it you need a moveable wind generator.

 

 

 

Well if you want to put it another way the robot is pre programmed to learn and adapt to specific tasks. The robot is still doing an If-Then statement except it is less obvious, how else do you program a robot without some sort of structured code? It can only do what you tell it to do, if you tell it to go out and read facial expressions then it will only do that if you program it to; it just doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t think ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åhey IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m out to collect facial expressions todayÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are 100% correct, the only requirement is a brain thus if a robot has a fully functioning brain then it would be no different to any other animal (ever see any sci-fi movies).

 

So who says that that is the only requirement? Who defines that? It's like arbitrarily deciding that you need to wear a red shirt if you want to cross the street - having a biological brain is merely one way of making a 'mind' that is aware of itself and/or others. Granted, it's currently the only way (at least, if you're aiming for the extent humans are aware of others and themselves), but that doesn't mean it's a requirement.

 

You could theoretically simulate all of humanÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s neurons but it requires much more computational power then whatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s available in the world. To simulate something simpler (like protein folding) you require tens of thousands of computers doing the maths and takes many months of combined computational time to show how a protein folds over the time span of a few seconds. So to get from tens of thousands of computers and the span of months to get to move to real time modelling of protein folding (which is far, far simpler then a brain) would require something in the magnitude of millions of computers. So to even attempt to model a protein fold we need millions of computers, so I can only imagine the sort of scale we need to replicate a brain (my guess would be in the hundreds of billions); now try packing all those CPUÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s into a body. Hell you could theoretically simulate the brain with enough windmills and wind generators. You can program a windmill, clockwise is 0 and anti clockwise is 1 to program it you need a moveable wind generator.

 

It's not like protein folding is at all comparable to a brain, except that both seem hard to do, with the protein folding thing being 'easier'. Which is mostly because we understand how we can tell a computer to do these calculations, while we don't really yet understand how we could instruct a computer to be self-aware, or interpret human speech at the same level as humans can. Either way, just linearly comparing the amount of computing power needed for both is ridiculous.

 

 

 

Well if you want to put it another way the robot is pre programmed to learn and adapt to specific tasks. The robot is still doing an If-Then statement except it is less obvious, how else do you program a robot without some sort of structured code? It can only do what you tell it to do, if you tell it to go out and read facial expressions then it will only do that if you program it to; it just doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t think ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åhey IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m out to collect facial expressions todayÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâæ

 

 

 

A brain to one life form might be different to another life form but the organ/ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s that deal with consciousness is what we know of as a brain. Note I didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t say biological brain; we could possibly one day in the future develop a functioning inorganic brain. ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not what the brain made of but what it does. LetÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s put it another way, is there anything out that that is self conscious and doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t have a functioning brain?

 

 

 

Why canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t I compare computing power, I have an idea about how to go about both (in folding, we calculate the electron interactions between atoms; in the brain we calculate reactions between neurons, small groups of neurons and large groups of neurons), we can compare the size of both things (proteins in their 10 thousand, and neurons in the 10-100 billion) and so forth. You can quickly begin to see there is considerable difference between a large protein and a brain, if anything my guess for computing power needed is rather conservative. I didnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t linearly go from millions of computers to hundreds of billions; I could probably get a better estimate if I compare computing time per atom of protein and multiply it by the number of atoms in the brain, but it isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t really necessary.

 

 

 

The IF-THEN statements are similar in essence however there are some differences. A computer linearly goes through a set of statements; a brain goes through multiple statements in parallel (many neurons here, fire here, there and everywhere). IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢m not saying we will not get a robot that learns, it is just we wonÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t see it in the near (or far future) since programming such a thing is beyond our knowledge. If it ever reaches that point then why treat robots like robots anymore. Maybe we could develop a programming language that is adaptive; however it would be nothing like what we have now.

 

 

 

I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t think zoo animals are a good test group for something like the mirror test. Human interaction and removal from the natural environment are too much of an influence to give the results any meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

uhmm.. only read the first three posts =\ okay.. "abortion shouldn't be permitted unless..." why? you forgot to tell us why you do think so.

 

 

 

btw.. i know young mothers who lived unhappy ever after getting there child. in fact they hate themselves for ever getting that kid. (and they were so confident during pregnacy...) i know girls who are really grateful, they could abort theirs.

 

 

 

another point. in times when abortion was forbidden, girls made it undone by backstreet abortionists. you can imagine how clean their work was...

 

 

 

edit: "it is murder" well.. the beef you just ate belonged to a living being to(and it is entirely possible to live without meat =P), not to speak of the tree, that needed to be chopped down, so that you can wipe your *** with a neat soft piece of paper. one could argue: "but it's a human!" soo.. humans are worth more then animals or plants? why? because they poison the planet? because they extinct other races? lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.