Abortion Opinions (no flaming)

[How2PK]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

What scientific study backs your belief that at three months "voila!" it turns into a "fetus?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

3. FETAL DEVELOPMENT

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14-16th WEEKS: Brain developed to the point that baby can suck, swallow and make irregular breathing movements.

 

 

 

16th WEEK: 6", 6 oz. (180 grams)

 

 

 

Complete closure of nasal septum and palate.

 

 

 

Fetal heart beat heard with amplification.

 

 

 

Fetal movement is recognized.

 

 

 

Sex is distinguishable now.

 

 

 

Meconium formation in intestines.

 

 

 

20th WEEK: 8", 10 oz. (300 grams).

 

 

 

Lanugo - fine hair covering over entire body, probably for protection of skin.

 

 

 

Vernix Caseosa - secreted by fetus, made of sebaceous material, and other materials and is probably protective.

 

 

 

Has some antimicrobial substances.

 

 

 

Fetal heart beat heard: 120-160 beats per minute.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As you hopefuly see; brain is created after 3 months.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think you evidence supports the fact that the brain has reached a certain point at three months, not that it begins to form at three months. Define "created," to clarify your position.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My God, don't you think it is a little childish to pick somebody at every word they say, you know what I mean, thats what its about.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, after three months the brain is at a certain point, that the baby can breath, suck and swallow, and I think that after the three months the baby is in a state that it shouldn't be removed, it is starting to breath, suck, swallow etc. its realy getting human.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The woman has three months to decide weither she keeps the baby or not, after the three months the baby is at a certain stage that it shouldn't be removed + the woman has had enough time to decide what she wants in those three months.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Instead of having a normal discussion I think you are more trying to make me look like a 'fool'.

[da-pk-artist]

Depends on the circumstances.

[JohnnySmum]

 

 

 

 

Again, there's nothing wrong with killing animals, but humans are more important.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:shock: I really can't believe you just said that. That is so narrow minded. Why do we have more right to be here than a spider? Tell me that. Because we're bigger than them? I don't agree that killing any living creature is right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We're more important than animals because God created us with a soul, to be the one creature that can have a relationship with Him. I'll make it clear that I'm against cruelty to animals and the like, but there is no moral implication in killing an animal for food (as long as it's done humanely).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even if you leave Christianity out of it, it's not practical to not kill animals. We get valuable food and clothing from them. The real question is, why shouldn't we kill animals?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And at Daan, why does it matter at what stage the pregnancy is at? Even if the embryo is aborted before 3 months has elapsed, it still would have developed a brain and every other feature if it had been allowed to live.

[How2PK]

Well, at three months it starts breathing, sucking etc. all things that born human stuff do, it is realy getting something, you arn't realy talking about some eggs or whatever anymore, plus womans have three months time to make up their mind, this combined makes three months a good deadline I think, this way it isn't realy "murder" and woman can still have their own choice.

[NorthernHero]

And at Daan, why does it matter at what stage the pregnancy is at? Even if the embryo is aborted before 3 months has elapsed, it still would have developed a brain and every other feature if it had been allowed to live.

 

 

 

It matters because if what you just said: "it still would have developed a brain and every other feature if it had been allowed to live" would be correct, then would be correct also saying "people shoudn't be allowed to masburtate or practise safe sex because sperm cell should not be allowed to die because what they could have been".

[doorbell]

Say what you mean, and you will be misunderstood less often. Which god is your god anyway?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you don't want to appear as a fool, then use good logic, which excluedes ad hominem arguments.

[meadowmont]

Well, at three months it starts breathing, sucking etc. all things that born human stuff do, it is realy getting something, you arn't realy talking about some eggs or whatever anymore, plus womans have three months time to make up their mind, this combined makes three months a good deadline I think, this way it isn't realy "murder" and woman can still have their own choice.

 

 

 

Are people on respirators, or people who are disabled less human than those who aren't? Ending the life of a human being in cold blood isn't murder?

 

 

 

JohnnySmum wrote:

 

 

 

And at Daan, why does it matter at what stage the pregnancy is at? Even if the embryo is aborted before 3 months has elapsed, it still would have developed a brain and every other feature if it had been allowed to live.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It matters because if what you just said: "it still would have developed a brain and every other feature if it had been allowed to live" would be correct, then would be correct also saying "people shoudn't be allowed to masburtate or practise safe sex because sperm cell should not be allowed to die because what they could have been".

 

 

 

Sperm, when given the chance does not develop into an unborn baby. An unborn baby, when given the chance becomes a newborn, then a toddler, teenager, and adult.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

 

 

 

A virus acts much in the same manner as a child. A virus is a parasite to the host and the foetus is a parasite to its mother.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Babies aren't parasits. Mothers get the advantage of absorbing stem cells from the foetus, which increases life expectancy and reduces the chance of cancer.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Yes they are parasites are an organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host. Well it comes under the first 3 points and on the last point you said that it absorbs stem cells. Stem cells are the cells of which are used to create the child.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Taken from Wikipedia encyclopaedia: "Adult stem cells have been successfully used in treatments for over one hundred diseases and conditions. The use of embryonic stem cells has not yet resulted in any successful treatments, although many researchers believe that they have great potential as the basis of treatments."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Embryonic stem cells have no use to us yet. Even if there are left over stem cells its like shedding skin the child will just leave in the womb. The absorption process does not keep the cell intact. It breaks down to the smaller components; there is no further use for them. If you want to remove adult stem cells this requires human intervention, without scientific progress this process would not even exist. Further more these adult stem cells may not even be suitable for the adult as it is based on the childÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s specifications.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As I'm not a Biology expert so I could be wrong so any external links (unbiased. So none of those dodgy Christian anti-abortion sites would be appreciated).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A virus is very much alive; its hijacked cells are its living aspect to the organism

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Many scientists would disagree with you there. The host cell is alive; but the virus itself isn't. Hehe I'm not really sure why we're talking about viruses anyway:).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Then how does it hijack its host cells to reproduce? It needs some form of penetration to inject its DNA. This relates to abortion because they are parasitic much like babies yet are normally classified as Dead.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The zygote needs human intervention to exist. Sure this human intervention is automatic still does not invalidate the point that, without the mother the child would not be created if left to itself

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not sure how this is relevant to abortion?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is relevant as it is proof that the zygote and subsequent forms are parasitic and that it is not anything until enough of the parent's energy is used in the production of a "living" foetus. The implications are that itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s the parents right to abortion as a child may be an unwanted parasite physically destroying the life of the mother.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You would have no qualm removing a leech from your body but without a host body this leech would not survive for long. Why not extrapolate this idea further, would it not be murder if we kill any living organism.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is no moral implication in killing animals. Humans are a different matter. We kill millions of animals every day for food.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I believe that millions of vegetarians, vegans and PETA supporter's would believe otherwise. It is a moral dilemma and some people (much like anti-abortionists and in greater numbers, spread across a greater diversity of the world population) do believe that it is just as much murder no matter what animal you kill. Buddhists anyone?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This would mean we could not kill animals or trees, but surely such a law would not be passed; it is too absurd.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again, there's nothing wrong with killing animals, but humans are more important.

 

 

 

See above point. We are only more important as we perceive we are. If we could take to animals they too would perceive that they are superior to each other. We even see it in out own population; some people perceive that some races are above others. Animals are just as much like us as we are like them (they share the same base which they reproduce and form); we just have not spent enough time in learning their language.

 

 

 

If you have ever got close to a pet animal you would understand what I'm talking about. My ex-pet was more of a companion then any baby could ever be.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only way you could take a moral stance is if you are a creationist (over an evolutionist) and a Christian (over an agnostic or atheist). And guess what until there is ANY REAL PROOF that a god exists then you are going to have to accept the scientific and non bigotry view of biology.

[Death_By_Pod]

Good grief. If alcohol and drugs make you do stupid things that you regret later, then don't drink/do drugs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You better not eat anything with fat it may cause a heart attack.

 

 

 

You better not breath the air its full of bad chemicals it may give you cancer.

 

 

 

And so forth and so forth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is always a small risk in EVERYTHING you do. It is just nature that brings about this unpredictability. You can not say dont do x because of y; because the is always a y with anything. Cause and effect, they only way to stop it is to die.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

 

 

Again, there's nothing wrong with killing animals, but humans are more important.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:shock: I really can't believe you just said that. That is so narrow minded. Why do we have more right to be here than a spider? Tell me that. Because we're bigger than them? I don't agree that killing any living creature is right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does that mean you don't eat anything? B/c eating plants or animals requires (usually at least) that the plant/animal die first.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Picking the fruit off tree's does not kill the tree. There are some parts of the plant that are designed to be eaten by other animals.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

 

 

 

 

Again, there's nothing wrong with killing animals, but humans are more important.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

:shock: I really can't believe you just said that. That is so narrow minded. Why do we have more right to be here than a spider? Tell me that. Because we're bigger than them? I don't agree that killing any living creature is right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We're more important than animals because God created us with a soul, to be the one creature that can have a relationship with Him. I'll make it clear that I'm against cruelty to animals and the like, but there is no moral implication in killing an animal for food (as long as it's done humanely).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Even if you leave Christianity out of it, it's not practical to not kill animals. We get valuable food and clothing from them. The real question is, why shouldn't we kill animals?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And at Daan, why does it matter at what stage the pregnancy is at? Even if the embryo is aborted before 3 months has elapsed, it still would have developed a brain and every other feature if it had been allowed to live.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You just became pro abortion with that statement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ItÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not practical to not kill animals. We get valuable food and clothing from them. The real question is, why shouldn't we kill animals?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It's not practical to not kill foetuses. We lose valuable resources in creating them. The real question is, why shouldn't we kill foetuses.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The only reason why you are anti abortion is because of your religion. Without it you would have no problems with it. America is the only country with this problem because they have one of the highest percentages of fanatical Christians. Just because you have faith in your God does NOT JUSTIFY as a reason to put your believes on the rest of the world.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lastly:

 

 

 

But the brain and other features BEGIN TO FUNCTION after 3 months. Before the 3 months it is dead. If we grow extra organs on animals are they alive? We can harvest them and still leave the animal intact because that organ is not a part of the network of a LIVING animal. The foetus needs to be alive in order to be a human being.

 

 

 

According to you the dead would be classed as living. They have all the parts to be considered living. DonÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t kill the dead because they could turn alive again!

[Death_By_Pod]

Say what you mean, and you will be misunderstood less often. Which god is your god anyway?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you don't want to appear as a fool, then use good logic, which excluedes ad hominem arguments.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

God has no place in abortion. Abortion is between the mother and the foetus (and the male that helped create the child).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Your usage of God is ad hominem in itself.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

Well, at three months it starts breathing, sucking etc. all things that born human stuff do, it is realy getting something, you arn't realy talking about some eggs or whatever anymore, plus womans have three months time to make up their mind, this combined makes three months a good deadline I think, this way it isn't realy "murder" and woman can still have their own choice.

 

 

 

Are people on respirators, or people who are disabled less human than those who aren't? Ending the life of a human being in cold blood isn't murder?

 

 

 

JohnnySmum wrote:

 

 

 

And at Daan, why does it matter at what stage the pregnancy is at? Even if the embryo is aborted before 3 months has elapsed, it still would have developed a brain and every other feature if it had been allowed to live.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

It matters because if what you just said: "it still would have developed a brain and every other feature if it had been allowed to live" would be correct, then would be correct also saying "people shoudn't be allowed to masburtate or practise safe sex because sperm cell should not be allowed to die because what they could have been".

 

 

 

Sperm, when given the chance does not develop into an unborn baby. An unborn baby, when given the chance becomes a newborn, then a toddler, teenager, and adult.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You have to draw the line somewhere. That somewhere is 3 months, before that it is only a collection of cells. It has no human function therefore it is not alive. If it is not alive then it is dead. If it is dead then it can be removed and buried like the rest of the dead.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are saying Murder is the removal of the "potential" to become an adult.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Dictionary meaning: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Says nothing about the removal of potential; it has already been stated that a foetus becomes human after 3 month's; after these 3 months it becomes alive, before then it is a clump of cells, potential.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are a lot of restrictions placed on people (things cost money, 5th world countries do not have anything) so you are saying any restriction is Murder since it removes the potential for a normal life.

[Siraldragon]

just my 2 cents...

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Abortion is dangerous. It doesn't matter if it is late-term or early-term. Facts show it is medically dangerous.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also, polls among doctors say that most of them (don't remember the excat numbers...too lazy to look it up), as well as most nurses, have nightmares about abortions. So do mothers, and even fathers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do agree with the morning after pill. At that time, it is a viable, safe, alternative to childbirth. I also think that a pill after a rape is an excellent idea.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

However...a unwanted pregnancy after 9 weeks is wrong. At that time, the child has a heartbeat, brainwave patterns and(albeit mostly un-developed) nerves.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I feel strongly on this. Why?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Because I am adopted. My mother could have had an abortion, adn everyone around her would have thought her perfectly justified, but she chose to carry me to full term. Thanks to her, I am healthy, and more importantly, alive.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you do not want the child, at least put it up for adoption.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Me

[meadowmont]

 

Good grief. If alcohol and drugs make you do stupid things that you regret later, then don't drink/do drugs.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You better not eat anything with fat it may cause a heart attack.

 

 

 

You better not breath the air its full of bad chemicals it may give you cancer.

 

 

 

And so forth and so forth.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There is always a small risk in EVERYTHING you do. It is just nature that brings about this unpredictability. You can not say dont do x because of y; because the is always a y with anything. Cause and effect, they only way to stop it is to die.

 

 

 

Yes there is risk all around us in society, but if youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re not smart enough to differentiate between high-risk situations and low-risk situations, then I pity you.

 

 

 

If youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re willing to risk getting heart disease then eat fatty food. If youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re willing to risk breathing in pollution, then breathe the air. If youÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re willing to risk doing stupid things that you regret later, then do drugs and alcohol.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Also lets look at your examples:

 

 

 

1. According to americanheart.org 502,189 people in the United Sates died in 2001 from coronary heart disease. There is no simple cure for coronary heart disease. Some of these people chose lifestyles that cause heart disease. Society tried to save these people.

 

 

 

2. According to earth-policy.org 70,000 people die annually in the United States from air pollution. Most of these people were guilty in helping create air pollution. Society tried to save these people once their health started deteriorating.

 

 

 

Lets now look at abortion:

 

 

 

According to http://womensissues.about.com/cs/aborti ... nstats.htm 1,310,000 children were killed (or as they put it ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åabortions occurredÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Death_By_Pod]

Sorry I havenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t responded earlier as IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve just finished up some exams and the computer has been in heavy use.

 

 

 

Each spaced paragraph will represent a rebuttal to each of your points (albeit some are 1 sentence but I will address them in some way).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rebuttal:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think a pregnancy as a result of having unsafe sex while drinking is a relatively low risk situation.

 

 

 

A lot more people die from other causes of death, you just listed statistics from two causes of death from the millions of other causes.

 

 

 

If you relate that to abortions well, you will have worse odds winning roulette then from dying as a foetus.

 

 

 

But your abortion statistics do not take in to account the number of abortions due to an unwanted pregnancy as a result of having unsafe sex drunk, without proper judgement.

 

 

 

Now take that number and form it as a percent to the number of occasions people drink and you will reach a percent that will have many 0's before a significant number appears.

 

 

 

The death of these foetuses are a result of people who do not want to undergo the physical and financial burden of what having a child is all about. This is a general statistic and just because you get pregnant unwillingly doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t make you irresponsible. You are also referring to the foetus as a child, which is untrue. The Foetus is a foetus and nothing more, the same way a dead person is dead and not an adult.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you are saying a domesticated animal (or any other animal for that matter) is somewhat different to a human? They share the same chemical makeup and means of reproduction. They undergo the same process of a new animal. We are one in the same, bonded by the DNA we carry. Animals just have a different sequence of DNA to differentiate between us and them; much the same way we have a different sequence of DNA to show differences in Skin colour, height, sex, hair density and thousands upon thousands of subtle differences.

 

 

 

Where do you draw the line to what you call human? White people (which is of course racism within a species); Homo sapiens (But there are many other species in our Genus many with different characteristics and some that are quite similar. Homo neanderthalensis lived with us 10000 year ago and are pretty similar to us, almost identical. Another such example is the 'Hobbit', Homo floresiensis. They were basically Halflings, they are quite different to us yet lived with us 13000 years ago http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.html. How about other early species that look more ape then human?).

 

 

 

If you start going further back you Get to The Subfamily and this group contains Gorilla's and Chimpanzees. If you go up 1 step to the Family (Hominidae) you introduce The Subfamily Ponginae (which is mainly Orang-utans). The Hominidae Family Share 97% of our DNA, that are some good odds here (a lot better then getting pregnant while drunk I might add) of these things being pretty much identical to us yet they are not human? I would consider 97% DNA sharing a much better mean of measuring humannessÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ then a foetus that does not have any senses, only shape forming and a technically useless heart starting to beat (which can be reproduced with our modern technology).

 

 

 

I say most Mammalia would be more related to us then an underdeveloped foetus and probably share similar features to Chordata (which include the rest of the vertebrates and some invertebrates).

 

 

 

Your view of what human actually ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅisÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Zealot]

Sorry I havenÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t responded earlier as IÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ve just finished up some exams and the computer has been in heavy use.

 

 

 

Each spaced paragraph will represent a rebuttal to each of your points (albeit some are 1 sentence but I will address them in some way).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Rebuttal:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think a pregnancy as a result of having unsafe sex while drinking is a relatively low risk situation.

 

 

 

A lot more people die from other causes of death, you just listed statistics from two causes of death from the millions of other causes.

 

 

 

If you relate that to abortions well, you will have worse odds winning roulette then from dying as a foetus.

 

 

 

But your abortion statistics do not take in to account the number of abortions due to an unwanted pregnancy as a result of having unsafe sex drunk, without proper judgement.

 

 

 

Now take that number and form it as a percent to the number of occasions people drink and you will reach a percent that will have many 0's before a significant number appears.

 

 

 

The death of these foetuses are a result of people who do not want to undergo the physical and financial burden of what having a child is all about. This is a general statistic and just because you get pregnant unwillingly doesnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t make you irresponsible.Though I see your point, I do not believe that it justifies an abortion. There are other options like adoption... In fact, I would argue that abortion is a coward's way out. You don't want to risk your life being inconvenienced, so you kill a child? L... O... L... :roll: You are also referring to the foetus as a child, which is untrue. The Foetus is a foetus and nothing more, the same way a dead person is dead and not an adult.Here's where I have trouble with this argument: a fetus has the potential to become a living human being intrinsically, in and of itself. A dead person doesn't have the ability to spontaneously become a living human in and of itself. (In fact, short of the supernatural it may as well be impossible...)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So you are saying a domesticated animal (or any other animal for that matter) is somewhat different to a human? If the Bible is true, then this is true... If there's any type of god, then that is true. But, if in fact there is no God, and random chance is the sole reason why we are here, then you are entirely correct... We are no more then glorified animals... and may as well do whatever we please regardless of who it hurts. They share the same chemical makeup and means of reproduction. They undergo the same process of a new animal. We are one in the same, bonded by the DNA we carry. Animals just have a different sequence of DNA to differentiate between us and them; much the same way we have a different sequence of DNA to show differences in Skin colour, height, sex, hair density and thousands upon thousands of subtle differences.

 

 

 

Where do you draw the line to what you call human? White people (which is of course racism within a species); Homo sapiens (But there are many other species in our Genus many with different characteristics and some that are quite similar. Homo neanderthalensis lived with us 10000 year ago and are pretty similar to us, almost identical. actually, a lot of anthropologists and genetecists no longer recognize homo neanderthalis as a different species, saying instead that it's genetically the same as homo sapien sapien. Another such example is the 'Hobbit', Homo floresiensis. They were basically Halflings, they are quite different to us yet lived with us 13000 years ago That's a fascinating story (I read it a few days ago actually.) but there really hasn't been enough research yet to make any judgements on it... My own wager is that in the end it'll be determined to be much the same as homo sapien sapien again... Though it really doesn't much matter to me... After all, even if it is a different species, it's a moot point because they no longer live. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/10/1027_041027_homo_floresiensis.html. How about other early species that look more ape then human?).

 

 

 

If you start going further back you Get to The Subfamily and this group contains Gorilla's and Chimpanzees. If you go up 1 step to the Family (Hominidae) you introduce The Subfamily Ponginae (which is mainly Orang-utans). The Hominidae Family Share 97% of our DNA, that are some good odds here (a lot better then getting pregnant while drunk I might add) of these things being pretty much identical to us yet they are not human? Being human isn't about genetics. It isn't about intelligence. It's about sentience. If you can reasonably establish that orangatangs are sentient beings, capable of abstract as well as rational thought, then I will call them human. If not, then that 3% is more then enough difference to dismiss that notion as far as I'm concerned... Genetically we're almost identical to a Banana too, but does that make it human? I think not. I would consider 97% DNA sharing a much better mean of measuring humannessÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ then a foetus that does not have any senses, only shape forming and a technically useless heart starting to beat (which can be reproduced with our modern technology).

 

 

 

I say most Mammalia would be more related to us then an underdeveloped foetus and probably share similar features to Chordata (which include the rest of the vertebrates and some invertebrates).

 

 

 

Your view of what human actually ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅisÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Death_By_Pod]

Ok this is going to be long and hard; you have given me a lot of philosophy rather then cold hard facts. Originally I wasnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t going to say much because in essence you are a Christian Extremist and if thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s what you want to be I respect that but that wont help me try to show you a 3rd person opinion of abortion. The longer I read this the more I can talk about; so let me say this is going to be long and will not follow your rebuttal but rather done on an idea basis. Ohh to heck with it I'm going through with it paragraph at a time. A new line will represent a new rebuttal to your's. I always love a good debate against extremists.

 

 

 

---

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cowÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââard

 

 

 

n.

 

 

 

One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.

 

 

 

igÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâânoÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââble

 

 

 

adj.

 

 

 

Not noble in quality, character, or purpose; base or mean.

 

 

 

Not of the nobility; common.

 

 

 

What is wrong with being a coward by having an abortion? To who, you? The mother is taking her best interests in having an abortion; this is not an easy decision to take.

 

 

 

You refer to the foetus as if it were a child; please remember that it is much less then that it only has an extremely small percent of function that a child maintains. If it was not for the parent's reproduction in the first place then the foetus would not exist, thus the abortion of a child a moot point as you say? The foetus has no choice in the creation of its existence, that comes down to the parents so why should the right to end what was begun, be taken away from them? Ill keep pushing this point that the foetus is parasitic and relies solely on the mother and is incapable to make any choice in its early stages of growth (first 3 months for arguments sakes).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So in this paragraph you accept a foetuses ability to go from brain dead to brain living but you can not accept that one day we may be able to do that for the dead? If nature can do it surely we can reproduce this to grant ourselves immortality.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not going to speculate if there is or isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t a god but coming from an agnostic point of view (you see I accept that if a god can be proven to exist then he exists and visa versa) moral is not created by religion. Therefore I do not require the need for a creationism point of view; we can spontaneously evolve from chance. I will leave this point with a short review of a book which deals with this and the review conveys quite well my idea.

 

 

 

"Drawing on evolutionary psychology, Skeptic publisher and Scientific American contributor Shermer (Why People Believe Weird Things) argues that the sources of moral behavior can be traced scientifically to humanity's evolutionary origins. He contends that human morality evolved as first an individual and then a species-wide mechanism for survival. As society evolved, humans needed rules governing behavior-e.g., altruism, sympathy, reciprocity and community concern-in order to ensure survival. Shermer says that some form of the Golden Rule-"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you"-provides the foundation of morality in human societies. Out of this, he develops the principles of what he calls a "provisional ethics" that "is neither absolute nor relative," that applies to most people most of the time, while allowing for "tolerance and diversity." According to the "ask-first" principle, for instance, the performer of an act simply asks its intended receiver whether the act is right or wrong. Other principles include the "happiness" principle ("always seek happiness with someone else's happiness in mind"), the liberty principle ("always seek liberty with someone else's liberty in mind") and the moderation principle ("when innocent people die, extremism in the defense of anything is no virtue, and moderation in the protection of everything is no vice")."

 

 

 

So basically if we hurt people then obviously we are not going to have a good chance with meeting the right mate for your children, which all boils back down to evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know where you get your information from but the encyclopaedia still says they exist along with 6 other past species. I canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t show you any offline resources but I will provide you with a link to an online source which is constantly updated and is probably one of the largest online sources of information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_(genus)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You should mind that there are other species living or dead. The greater variety of species shows how increasingly valid evolutionism is. But this topic has evolved far from the origins of abortion.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are right and for that I present you Koko;

 

 

 

http://www.koko.org/friends/index.koko.html

 

 

 

Much like my last post we can communicate with animals because they have brains and thus some form of intelligence but we do not spend enough time teaching/learning each others language. Surely this Gorilla will compel you enough but I'm sure you will respond with some conspiracy theory much like how god changed the carbon-content in bones to make scientists think things were older than 6,000 years?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My view of what human ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅisÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[Zealot]

Ok this is going to be long and hard; you have given me a lot of philosophy rather then cold hard facts. Philosophy is simply looking at the facts in a slightly different light in this case... I need not give you the facts, because you already have them. So I instead give you my interpretation of them. Is there anything wrong with that? Originally I wasnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t going to say much because in essence you are a Christian Extremist and if thatÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s what you want to be I respect that but that wont help me try to show you a 3rd person opinion of abortion. What you don't realize is that before I became a follower of Jesus, I was involved heavily in the occult and Satanism. Before that, the New Age Movement... and before that, Atheism. Whilst I was involved in all of those, I held a pro-choice view of abortion, because in essence, I interpreted the facts in the same way you do. However, because my world-view has shifted from a self-centered view to a God centered view, I can no longer hold that position... It simply can not make sence if humanity is not the reason for existance. The longer I read this the more I can talk about; so let me say this is going to be long and will not follow your rebuttal but rather done on an idea basis. Ohh to heck with it I'm going through with it paragraph at a time. A new line will represent a new rebuttal to your's. I always love a good debate against extremists.

 

 

 

--- And I enjoy a good discussion with somebody who not only knows what they're talking about, but is willing to listen to what I'm talking about. :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

cowÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââard

 

 

 

n.

 

 

 

One who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain.

 

 

 

igÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâânoÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãââble

 

 

 

adj.

 

 

 

Not noble in quality, character, or purpose; base or mean.

 

 

 

Not of the nobility; common.

 

 

 

What is wrong with being a coward by having an abortion? What is wrong with cowardice? It saps the person's strength, and makes them a slave to their fears. Cowardice has lost many of history's great battles. Cowardice has lead to unspeakable horrors being committed. Cowardice has toppled nations, and ruined cities. To who, you? The mother is taking her best interests in having an abortion; this is not an easy decision to take. The mother is being selfish. An abortion is not the only option. She could put the child up for adoption for instance. There are many good people who would love to raise that child. It simply makes no sence to me to kill a potential person because they're an inconvenience to you.

 

 

 

You refer to the foetus as if it were a child; please remember that it is much less then that it only has an extremely small percent of function that a child maintains. I understand and agree so far as that is concerned... But because if it is permitted to develope, it will become a living, independant being, I see abortion as essentially the same as murder, as I said earlier. If it was not for the parent's reproduction in the first place then the foetus would not exist, thus the abortion of a child a moot point as you say? I'm not sure what you're driving at here, could you please expound a bit? The foetus has no choice in the creation of its existence, that comes down to the parents so why should the right to end what was begun, be taken away from them? Here's a question: premarital sex, good idea or bad idea? I believe that it's a bad idea... It increases the risk of contracting an STD, in some cases it can cause psychological scarring on one or both participants, it leads to children being born into less then favorable conditions. So the solution here is, in my mind, show people that their actions will have consiquences, and discourage premarital sex. Would this not accomplish the same end? Ill keep pushing this point that the foetus is parasitic and relies solely on the mother and is incapable to make any choice in its early stages of growth (first 3 months for arguments sakes). It did take a concious choice on the mother's part to make the fetus, why should society approve of her running from the consiquences of that decision?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So in this paragraph you accept a foetuses ability to go from brain dead to brain living but you can not accept that one day we may be able to do that for the dead? Because, at the moment that isn't a possibility, I will assume that it will remain impossible until I'm proven wrong... It isn't to say that it can not happen, but I suspect that it will not happen in my lifetime. If nature can do it surely we can reproduce this to grant ourselves immortality. Hmmm, let me think about that: I seriously doubt it though. For one thing, as I said, the brain does not adaquetly explain conciousness. So not only do we have to understand it far more completely, but we have to figure out where it is that free will comes from, and find some way to tap that... Not only that, but we have to figure out some way to repair damage to the body on the sub-cellular level... especially to the genetic material that runs cells... Not only that, but because the universe is losing usable energy, all of this wouldn in the end, not grant immortality... Because eventually there simply will not be enough usable energy to sustain life. Everything conspires against it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm not going to speculate if there is or isnÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t a god but coming from an agnostic point of view (you see I accept that if a god can be proven to exist then he exists and visa versa) moral is not created by religion. So where does morality come from? Why is it that the vast majority of rational human beings say that Adalf Hittler was bad, and Mother Therisa was good? Where do we get that idea from? Society? I think not, because then, we can not call Hittler bad, because he was acting with the sanction of the people. So where does it come from? If there is no God, then why do we believe that some actions are inherently good, while others are inherently evil? Therefore I do not require the need for a creationism point of view; we can spontaneously evolve from chance. I can not accept atheistic evolution, because it does not adaquetly explain so many facts. On the other hand, I do not accept Devine Fiat Creationism, because it fails to address a totally sepperate group of facts. However, because this is not the discussion at hand, I won't go into greater detail then that. I will leave this point with a short review of a book which deals with this and the review conveys quite well my idea.

 

 

 

"Drawing on evolutionary psychology, Skeptic publisher and Scientific American contributor Shermer (Why People Believe Weird Things) argues that the sources of moral behavior can be traced scientifically to humanity's evolutionary origins. He contends that human morality evolved as first an individual and then a species-wide mechanism for survival. As society evolved, humans needed rules governing behavior-e.g., altruism, sympathy, reciprocity and community concern-in order to ensure survival. Shermer says that some form of the Golden Rule-"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you"-provides the foundation of morality in human societies. Out of this, he develops the principles of what he calls a "provisional ethics" that "is neither absolute nor relative," that applies to most people most of the time, while allowing for "tolerance and diversity." According to the "ask-first" principle, for instance, the performer of an act simply asks its intended receiver whether the act is right or wrong. Other principles include the "happiness" principle ("always seek happiness with someone else's happiness in mind"), the liberty principle ("always seek liberty with someone else's liberty in mind") and the moderation principle ("when innocent people die, extremism in the defense of anything is no virtue, and moderation in the protection of everything is no vice")." Evolution does not adaquetly explain morality, because many times choosing to do what is right rather then what is easy will get a person killed, taking those genes out of the pool, or at least making them less dominant. Also, why is it that rape is considered wrong? It spreads the individual's genes further, so logically if it's genetic, it should become a fairly common trait. There are other problems with this view, but I really don't think it's worth bothering with going into incredible depth over.

 

 

 

So basically if we hurt people then obviously we are not going to have a good chance with meeting the right mate for your children, which all boils back down to evolution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I donÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t know where you get your information from but the encyclopaedia still says they exist along with 6 other past species. I canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t show you any offline resources but I will provide you with a link to an online source which is constantly updated and is probably one of the largest online sources of information. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_(genus) Among other sources is my uncle, and anthropologist (and an atheist I would add) He occasionally talks with me about what his collegues are researching. He is where I got most of my information, so I can't properly attribute who it is originally from sadly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You should mind that there are other species living or dead. The greater variety of species shows how increasingly valid evolutionism is. But this topic has evolved far from the origins of abortion. I agree... but I would point out that, in all times past, biodiversity has been higher then it currently is... With the greatest biodiversity happening litterally within 20 million years of the first known multicellular organisms. This really doesn't mesh with Darwin's idea of a "tree of life" with species branching out gradually from more and more distant common ancestors. As I said, I am not a Creationist, so I'm not trying to debunk evolution... I'm just a bit sceptical of it as it currently stands.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You are right and for that I present you Koko;

 

 

 

http://www.koko.org/friends/index.koko.html

 

 

 

Much like my last post we can communicate with animals because they have brains and thus some form of intelligence but we do not spend enough time teaching/learning each others language. Surely this Gorilla will compel you enough but I'm sure you will respond with some conspiracy theory much like how god changed the carbon-content in bones to make scientists think things were older than 6,000 years? All that Koko was able to ever convey was rational thought. Abstract reasoning was beyond her. Therefor I can not call her "human" by my deffinition. I will agree though that she was incredibly intelligent (far more so then people could have thought before hand) but she could not think abstractly.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

My view of what human ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬ÅisÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

[24SE7EN]

I believe abortion is wrong, and there is no righteous excuse to have an abortion.

[HugATree]

Since you do not know me, you can not fully understand this change, but I hope and pray that you would look into it. Because if there is a God, then you are missing out on so much more then just a clearer understanding of life, so much more then just an intellectual joy ride...

 

 

 

How does the existing of a God make your understanding any clearer?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

At the moment, you are in a lose-lose position, because if there is a God, He doesn't like your unbelief, and if there isn't a god, then your hope that there may be one is a hinderance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If there is a God why would he like your belief anymore?

[Blipo]

its murder in my opinion

 

 

 

a baby may not be born yet but its still alive - its still a living thing - its murder to kill it

 

 

 

it shouldnt be allowed unless im allowed to kill people

[Toad]

i think abortion is the same as murdering someone but if it was a rape or something its ok but on the otherside that child coulda grown up to invent something so amazing to save global warming or could find the cure for cancer

[Death_By_Pod]

To Zealot with regards to the potential stuff (since quite a lot of stuff is mostly off topic and potential is the bulk of the argument at hand):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok letÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s say that you are right and we should keep the foetus because of its potential. Would it not be a loss of potential if we did not use every ovum that a female has? One of those ova must develop into a child that cures cancer or the next countries ruler (as someone will have to eventually fill these shoes; it just takes time) and if this wonderful person depended on the outcome of wether safe sex is practiced or not (have a chance or greatly remove the chance of conceiving); would it not be murder if the couple decided to abstain? What would have been if they did decided to take the chance, an important figure yet this type of "abortion" is not recognised.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another way at looking about foetal abortion is if the parents did plan to abstain permanently then the issue would never arise therefore the argument of potential would never exist yet the moment they remove abstinence the issue of potential suddenly arises (because the chance of having a child is always above 0).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How could we value a child before we even decide if we want to abstain or not? So if it is a foetus it is more valuable then the ova (the rarer sex cell) that are used to create the foetus?

 

 

 

There were probably a couple of other points I wanted to make however they left my mind while working on the above ahh well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay I canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t help answer a few more of the other more off topic replies :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In response to the unlikelihood of resurrecting the dead: Many people long ago thought that child birth was an act of god. They did not know anything about DNA and how that is used to form a child. It would sound like a sin to meddle with God's work yet we now know how to engineer a child's birth and in turn help people who normally could not have children as well as to help discover defects in the birthing process. The same could also be said for the human anatomy; it was unlawful to study the human body but since that law has changed we have a great understanding on how a lot of things work and this helps us live a longer and healthier life. You can see where this is going; if we can resurrect people that would mean we are one step closer to total immortality giving us the ultimate in a long life, we might not know much but I would expect in a few hundred years we will be able to solve this problem.

 

 

 

I know in my lifetime; [projected] life expectancy will grow by a rate of more then 1 year per year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Morality: morality (good or bad actions) could be explained as a trait, people who are viewed as good by others will more likely to pass their trait along to their siblings. People call Hitler bad because he condoned the murder of others and this is in conflict of good moral traits and anyone with these traits would think he is bad and people with bad traits would think he was right (please note this is an extremely simple explanation). Rape is a fairly dominant trait however it is superseded by the trait that views rape as bad.

 

 

 

The gun law you said itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not evil to own a gun yet it is solely used as a tool for harm and in the eyeÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s of just about everyone this is an evil thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Biodiversity: The tree of life idea is misinterpreted (like how people think that evolution means we come from apes, which is incorrect). Natural selection would naturally produce 1 species for the top of the food chain in each environment. Naturally when life was simplistic there would be little competitive advantage over similar species but the more advantage one species slowly gets over another, the faster the other species will get wiped out leaving the better species to increasing their skills making them even more powerful. Any new species are based on the old species except they have changed some of their features to better cope with the environment. Like the saying there is always room for improvement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Koko (and others): I believe animalÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s carry Abstract thinking (nowhere near close to our level). It would take some form of abstract thinking to find the best way to find and eat food, build homes/nests for shelter, for mice (and other animals) to find their way out of mazeÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s and other such problems.

[Zealot]

To Zealot with regards to the potential stuff (since quite a lot of stuff is mostly off topic and potential is the bulk of the argument at hand):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ok letÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s say that you are right and we should keep the foetus because of its potential. Would it not be a loss of potential if we did not use every ovum that a female has? I'm not sure how to make myself more clear on why I draw the line at conception, but I'll try one more time... Before the moment of conception, neither the sperm, nor the egg have the potential to become a living human being in and of themselves. They each only have half the DNA neccicary to make a functioning human body after all. But at the moment of conception, that potential for a human life is sparked. That is why I dismiss this argument as pointless. One of those ova must develop into a child that cures cancer or the next countries ruler (as someone will have to eventually fill these shoes; it just takes time) and if this wonderful person depended on the outcome of wether safe sex is practiced or not (have a chance or greatly remove the chance of conceiving); would it not be murder if the couple decided to abstain? No, because in and of themselves, neither partner is capable of generating a baby naturally. What would have been if they did decided to take the chance, an important figure yet this type of "abortion" is not recognised. I was going to say something, but decided against it because it was rude for no sake but being rude... Sufficing to say, abstanance and abortion are not one in the same. :wink:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Another way at looking about foetal abortion is if the parents did plan to abstain permanently then the issue would never arise therefore the argument of potential would never exist yet the moment they remove abstinence the issue of potential suddenly arises (because the chance of having a child is always above 0). Hence I agree with the Bible's assesment that sex belongs only in the context of marrage... But that's another topic altogether... And I really don't see how this argument relates to abortion, so please either expound, or drop it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

How could we value a child before we even decide if we want to abstain or not? So if it is a foetus it is more valuable then the ova (the rarer sex cell) that are used to create the foetus? The ova (egg cell) does not have the potential to become a living human being until it is fertilized... I've already tried several times to say this clearly and concisely. I'm beginning to wonder if I'm just wasting my breath (or fingers as the case happens to be...)

 

 

 

There were probably a couple of other points I wanted to make however they left my mind while working on the above ahh well.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Okay I canÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢t help answer a few more of the other more off topic replies :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In response to the unlikelihood of resurrecting the dead: Many people long ago thought that child birth was an act of god. They did not know anything about DNA and how that is used to form a child. As I said, DNA does not fully explain most of what happens in an animal of any type above the cellular level. I'll try and find a link for you tomorrow... The info's about 5 years old, but hasn't been refuted yet... And the guy doing this research (a professor at ISU) is still at it. But basically what he did was make a bunch of clones of salamanders, and messed with them at various stages of developement. He was able to cause them to not develope back legs, or develope extra legs, and a whole host of other anatomical changes not by changing the DNA, but instead by simply moving one or two cells durring early stages of its developement... My anatomy and physiology teacher from when I was in eleventh grade did simmilar research on chicken embrios for her master's thesis. I'm no expert, but having sat through a year of that class (embriology being her favorite subject) I learned a thing or two. It would sound like a sin to meddle with God's work yet we now know how to engineer a child's birth and in turn help people who normally could not have children as well as to help discover defects in the birthing process. Why would it be a sin to do good? The same could also be said for the human anatomy; it was unlawful to study the human body but since that law has changed we have a great understanding on how a lot of things work and this helps us live a longer and healthier life. You can see where this is going; if we can resurrect people that would mean we are one step closer to total immortality giving us the ultimate in a long life, we might not know much but I would expect in a few hundred years we will be able to solve this problem. I doubt it. Do you know just how much damage the body does to itself within a few minutes of death? Your muscles and nerves cell membranes (which are specially designed to be capable of carying an electric pulse along them) begin to deteriorate within a few minutes of their supply of chemical energy (ATP) being cut off. Within a few hours of death, all the muscles in the body begin to compulsively contract as their chemical energy runs out, causing the state known as rigormortis. Within 24 hours, the protines that enable muscles to contract have deteriorated substantially. Within a week, The only cells in the body that still retain any level of functionality are fat cells, and the various unicellular organisms that call the intestines home... That all in a single week... Or alternately, lets say the body is frozen cryogenically within a few hours of death setting in... There's already massive damage to the CNS, PNS, (neural systems) and every muscle in the body... There's already beginning to be damage too other cells (I forgot to mention that when it isn't flowing through the circulatory system, blood begins to clot quite quickly, but that's beginning to happen also) and then you go and replace all the water in the body with other liquids and freeze them... The crystalization of these liquids causes massive damage to all sub-cellular structures... And the thawing out process is even worse. So now, Not only is the body in bad shape because of natural processes, but it's actually worse off because of this process intended to preserve it. Dillemahs that are faced when thinking about reviving a cryogenically frozen body are: repairing all the damage to all the cells on the sub-cellular level... Desolving blood clots throughout the circulatory system... Repairing whatever was the cause of death... and even if all this is one day possible, it's to no avail because our memories are stored on the membrains of neurons in the brain... And that information is lost to us because of both natural and artificial processes. I could go into greater depth, but really don't think that such is all that neccicary... Reviving the dead really does seem to me to be more inachievable then teleportation.

 

 

 

I know in my lifetime; [projected] life expectancy will grow by a rate of more then 1 year per year. I would point out that this is a projection based on past trends, and assuming that these trends will continue. It isn't neccicarilly a bad projection, but because of just how little is understood about the human body, it isn't neccicarilly an accurate projection either. I wouldn't mind it being accurate, but then again, I think I'd rather be in heaven tomorrow then live for 100 more years here on earth. :wink:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Morality: morality (good or bad actions) could be explained as a trait, people who are viewed as good by others will more likely to pass their trait along to their siblings. People call Hitler bad because he condoned the murder of others and this is in conflict of good moral traits and anyone with these traits would think he is bad and people with bad traits would think he was right (please note this is an extremely simple explanation). Rape is a fairly dominant trait however it is superseded by the trait that views rape as bad.

 

 

 

The gun law you said itÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s not evil to own a gun yet it is solely used as a tool for harm and in the eyeÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s of just about everyone this is an evil thing.

 

 

 

A gun can be used to harm, or it can be used as a deterant to harm... It also has use in collecting food. It isn't up to the gun what it will be used for, it's up to the owner. Therefor the solution isn't to try and take guns out of everybody's hands, it's to try and make sure that it only falls into the hands of those who would use it legitimately.

 

 

 

Biodiversity: The tree of life idea is misinterpreted (like how people think that evolution means we come from apes, which is incorrect). I agree that many people missunderstand it... But you are missing what I'm saying. The Cambrian explosion (where life went from near 0 diversity to significantly higher diversity then we find today in between 10 and 20 million years) doesn't make sence from an evolutionary state of mind. There simply isn't the time to allow for so much change and growth in biodiversity. Natural selection would naturally produce 1 species for the top of the food chain in each environment. Naturally when life was simplistic there would be little competitive advantage over similar species but the more advantage one species slowly gets over another, the faster the other species will get wiped out leaving the better species to increasing their skills making them even more powerful. Any new species are based on the old species except they have changed some of their features to better cope with the environment. Like the saying there is always room for improvement. In theory, this makes sence, but as I said, we're talking the blink of an eye geologically speaking. This problem really baffles several of my professors because so many species appear so quickly, then remain unchanged for 50+ma (mega anum, or million years)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Koko (and others): I believe animalÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s carry Abstract thinking (nowhere near close to our level). It would take some form of abstract thinking to find the best way to find and eat food, build homes/nests for shelter, for mice (and other animals) to find their way out of mazeÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s and other such problems. Abstract thinking is not neccicary for these problems. Rational thought is though. The mouse will have trouble the first time, but eventually get out. It then remembers the way through the maze the next time... But put it in a simmilar maze with even a small change, and watch it get lost again... and eventually find its way out by trial and error. Yeah it's kinda fancy to see an ape use a twig to fish for termites... but such behaviors and tool use have been around pretty much as long as there have been apes. In fact, one of our ancestors is fameous because it is the first known hominod to use tools... But in this species' entire existance on earth, there was absolutely no change in the design of their "axe." It also really doesn't take abstract thinking to build a nest. It's a learned behavior... I have to agree that they sure can look like they're thinking in an abstract manner when animals act in such amazing ways, but methinks that the line for true abstract thought is a little further over... Learned behaviors can not really show anything but rational thought paterns. After all, all they deal with is a tangible, already existant behavior. Abstract though would be dealing with something that isn't tangible like "tomorrow," (interestingly enough, as I recall, Koko never could grasp the concept of tomorrow) or "what if?" You know, the one thing that set homo neanderthalis apart from homo sapien sapien (according to a program that Discover Channel ran last summer on human evolution) is imagination. The Neanderthal couldn't comprehend these abstract concepts, and so it was less capable of coping with a world of constant change... Even though I'm rather sceptical that there really is any difference between homo neanderthalis and homo sapien sapien, they have a good point: imagination (the ability to think abstractly) is a quality that only homo sapien sapien posesses of all the animal kingdom. And that is the one thing that sets us apart as "sentient" beings.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Oh wow how far our discussion has migrated from abortion... Lol. Oh well, hopefully nobody minds too terrebly much. This has been a fun discussion for me, and has helped me to more clearly articulate why I believe what I believe. :D And for that you have my thanks :) I look forward to your response, and hope that you are enjoying this discussion as much as I am :)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

HugATree, If there is a God, then in and of Himself, all the really difficult questions of life are answered... Who am I? I am a masterpiece, hand crafted by the Great Artisian. Why am I here? He wanted to make me. Where am I going? Either to be with HIM forever, or to be sepperated from HIM forever. Note, there are still a lot of little problems left to solve, but with these major ones out of the way (and with them to refer to) it's much easier to persue the littler ones. It's also less daunting to see a mountian that needs to be moved if you're looking at it from above then if you're looking at it from its base. :wink:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And in response to your second quary: if there is a God, then He created us. If He created us, then we have a purpose. If we have a purpose, then it's somehow related to Him. So it only makes sence that we need to know Him to know that purpose. And interestingly enough, this knowing Him is, in and of itself, a purpose. (in fact, I believe the primary purpose of life) Hope that helps you understand more where I'm coming from :wink: Though as I said, because this is entirely off topic, I would suggest either pming me or bumping up the "do you believe in God" topic... Though I suppose I could have done so myself and didn't... :oops: