Slashdot Mirror
A High-Res 3D Video of the Embryonic Heartbeat
An anonymous reader writes "Researchers at the University of Houston, TX, adapted an imaging technique called optical coherence tomography to capture 3D video of the mammalian heart as it forms. They used the method to image a mouse embryo just 8.5 days past conception and about a day after it starts to form. In the remarkable video a normal heartbeat is visible. Normally optical coherence tomography is used for clinical imaging of the retina. Having such a high-resolution, non-invasive way to image the developing heart could perhaps help doctors treat congenital heart disorders in human babies."
BOOM?
wanted: one clever sig,apply within
This is a grainy 2D film, not a high res 3D film!
It looks like the technology isn't capable of imaging anything too deeply embedded in tissue which is why it worked on a mouse but is unlikely to work in humans.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
You can get arbitrarily good images of fixed (dead) embryos, but live imaging using any method is damn tough, and live 3D imaging at this resolution is, as far as I know, unprecedented. Motion makes it nearly impossible to do MR or CT 3D imaging. You can gate against the cardiac cycle to image a single animal, but nobody can yet gate against a fetal heartbeat in a mouse. I'm not even sure if that would be enough, because the maternal heartbeat contributes significant motion, too.
One of our doctoral students did a 3D atlas of the embryonic mouse using MR microscopy. These were fixed specimens, but they're isotropic (the same spatial resolution in all three dimensions), and nobody's come close to matching our resolution as far as I know. Part of her work was looking at cardiac septal defects, which you pretty much have to study in embryos, because they aren't compatible with live birth.
One drawback of OCT is that it fails if you have to go through much tissue. Mice are tiny enough to make this work possible, but I don't think there's any way you could do it in humans, short of inserting a source/detector into the uterus, which kind of spoils the whole "non-invasive" feature.
I am a PhD student of Neurobiology and I consider abortion murder. Who cares about a heart beat when the embryo's circulation is directly linked to that of the mother? On the contrary, the nervous system is formed in humans within three days, before any woman would even notice being pregnant. In fact, the ectodermal cells that are the undifferentiated neurons destined to become the nervous system are in place and begin their morphological formation before implantation into the uterine wall. All of this talk of trimesters and trigger points like the first heart beat in development are not reflected by biological development, rather they are simple terms we use for convenience.
I don't even understand why people feel there is a need for abortion. There are condoms and pills, plan B/morning after pill, and many other old fashion ways to not get pregnant. What purpose does abortion serve?
and 3d has nothing to do with it
Feel free to steal my sig. It's apropos.
The "cue the foo posts in 3, 2, 1..." posts will commence with no subsequent foo posts in 3, 2, 1...
I can think of quite a few more problems — such as subjecting the newly-forming tissue to the high amounts of whatever energy is used in this particular kind of tomography. Getting close enough to the heart of a human embryo may also prove more problematic, than in the case of mice.
But hey, nothing like getting an "insightful" moderation for your off-topic frosty piss, is there?
Have you ever seen such language in an ad? Do you really think, no people with clean English think of embryos as humans?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
And yes, for the anti-abortion readers
Oh, the great irony of politics is that Darwin is firmly on the right wing side. In the end, the earth belongs to those who have the most babies, and, all those things you advocate, undermine your own culture as much as they undermine your genes. A quick spin of the globe shows that religious societies are the ones producing the most children - and secular societies the least. You can condemn Islam's male domination, or the quaint traditions of American Christianity, but, the fact is, they are the ones having the babies while secular people are not.
So sure, please, believe it: marriage and having a person stay at home is quaint.... if you get your girlfriend pregnant, its better to get rid of the child than to ruin your lives, believe all of it. If we can then privatize schools and do the other things so that your input to our culture can be blocked, we can exterminate liberalism all the more quickly, simply by out-breeding it. But, at the end of the day, your way of life is doomed, simply because, for better or for worse, our religious culture has been evolved by hundreds of generations of human cultural evolution, and your culture will fall by the wayside as much as your genes will perish forever in the dust.
This is my sig.
You forgot rape... And endangerment of the mother's life. Not every unwanted pregnancy can be prevented nor safely carried to term. I don't think anyone has the moral authority to force a woman to die as a consequence of trying to bring a dangerous pregnancy to term. Nor do I believe that unwanted pregnancies are solely the fault of the mother.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Because with all those options to not get pregnant, accidents still happen. I'm not going to even touch the issue of health reasons, rape, etc.
Gone!
It is funny that your post is modded as insightful. I think you and I both know what this technology will be used for.
This is just a screening process. So foetuses that will have any sign of cardiovascular abnormalities will be aborted. It will become just another in a round of tests that determine if a foetus will be aborted or get to live.
Yet somehow you pre-emptively blame people who are opposed to abortion (because you imagine that it is they who will use this technology).
not what I meant... I meant that rape can cause an unwanted pregnancy through no fault of the mother.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Given that foetuses are already routinely screened for cardiovascular abnormalities, with the intention of repairing them as soon as practical, I'd say that you are either ignorant or paranoid.
They spoke well of the morning after pill. That does a decent job of dealing with rape (though it doesn't give the woman in question a great deal of time to consider the issue).
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
This paper:
...
The most common fetal anomalies encountered in abortion counseling include most **fetal cardiac anomalies**; trisomy 21; open and closed neural tube defects; limb, face, or cleft abnormalities; esophageal
http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/252560-overview
states: Fetal indications for abortion
I'm sorry but how does "3d has nothing to do with it" mean anything. The title of the story is that it is in 3d, so I'd say it's pretty relevant no matter how you cut it.
No. There are some pro-lifers who base their position partly on the idea that an unwanted pregnancy is the result of immoral behavior on the mother's part. It's that level of idiocy that I am opposed to, not the general concept of the pro-life movement.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
... but this is stereo(-2D), not (volumetric) 3D. Despite the layman definition.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
The only real problem(beyond the usual high start up costs of new technology) will be the inevitable co-opting of this imagery for a new round of weepy anti-abortion ads. "Oh Noes!, Lookat the wittle heart..."
Yes. Showing people biological facts with new technology. How terrible pro-lifers must be.
Until Pope Palpatine revised things, 'Baby hell' was "Limbo".
Emergency contraception is only 75-89% effective. That still leaves a lot of unwanted pregnancies.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Statistically, rape is a minority case, so in the vast majority of cases, they are correct. I mean, whether or not the behavior was moral of course can be debated, but the point is it was still the parents' conscious willing decisions.
A fetus is nothing special. Because a human is nothing special. It is very arrogant to think that we're oh-so-special. We're not. Life in itself is nothing special.
I see human life as special. This may be because I am human and therefore extremely subjective.
I am sure that when an alien race lands on earth they will be a lot more objective than us.
The morality of the parents is irrelevant. Whether the father was a rapist or the mother a whore makes no difference to whether abortion is ok.
Admittedly both sides are guilty of resorting to crude moral rhetoric in justifying their positions.
Not to mention all the adverse side-effects that taking a massive dose of hormones can cause.
it was still the parents' conscious willing decisions.
and of course, either way, not the baby's fault or choice. (my bad, forgot to add that part)
What good is having religious beliefs if you can't force them on other people?
You are welcome on my lawn.
Unless this video comes with some 3D glasses and I missed out on them, this is 2D. The image has height and width, but I can't rotate it around to see the heartbeat from the side or the back or the top or the bottom.
As evidenced by the overwhelming number of five abortion doctors killed since 1993!
Actually, I think, parents (not "we" — only the parents) should have the life-and-death control over their offspring forever — as was the case in the Roman Empire. ("Parental abuse" may remain wrong, but should not be illegal.)
But my point was different from and not even related to the strawman you knocked down — I do not think, the fellow Americans, who view embryos as humans fully deserving of the society's protection, as unable to express their point using well-articulated (even if still wrong) arguments and in clean English.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
Nah, they can use an laparoscope or something similar to place the sensors inside the vaginal womb and image though the placenta more directly. If they can't do it now, that's the next logical approach. Anyways, it will likely be used on artificial inseminated eggs first so there wouldn't be any need for a host carrier outside of removing a few eggs to get the anti abortion images.
People do think of that, and these people are wrong. That was the point of my response...
As evidenced by, what, a whopping five abortion-providers killed since 1993? Although each death is one too many, you are still overly concerned with this particular injustice.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
There are many medical imaging applications which could improve diagnosis without subjecting patients to ionizing radiation, yet very little if any R&D dollars are invested to productize them given that all the major medical imaging vendors are heavily invested in 'big iron' solutions such as CT and digital XRay. As long the current ecosystem is in place these companies will push their multimillion dollar imaging systems while throwing in Ultrasound and laproscopy systems merely to sweeten the deal. This is one area where eastern countries are way ahead of the west in that care providers seek imaging solutions based on utility, not on the reimbursement rates per procedure.
Evangelical atheist or evangelical Christians. Both are known to exist and I would say the first clearly is worse then the later. At least with evangelical Christians, they believe they are doing you good. With evangelical atheist, they are just trying to troll and be an ass.
Since you think abortion is murder because the fetus has a nervous system, you must consider killing anything else with a nervous system -- including worms and insects -- to be morally equivalent to the killing of a human. Is that a stance you're willing to take, or would you like to adjust your criteria?
Maybe you should find a more compelling reason to call something "murder".
A "nervous system" is utterly irrelevent -- we kill millions of living things with nervous systems daily, and whatever else that may be, we do not consider it to be murder. The hamburger you had for lunch came from an animal that had a nervous system, and one quite a bit more advanced than any week-old fetus anyway.
Nervous systems, heartbeats, lungs -- these things do not make one human. There is one, and only one thing that humans have that no other animal has. How can you consider a fetus to be fully human when it lacks the one basic characteristic of humanity?
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
By imposing your view (baby WILL go to heaven), you disrespect is belief. Not everyone think heaven exist.
Provide evidence that indicates that an unborn child is not human.
Does that mean that persons with mental defects are somehow not human?
How about people with alzheimer's and very young born children? Are they inhuman because they lack some of these qualities you speak of? No sir... you are unequivocally wrong. A dog has the mental capacity of a 2 year old child yet you would not say that the line was drawn at that point; the dog is thought of being less than the human despite similar mental capacity. You value human life on a fairly arbitrary scale that favors your opinion but has little to do with reality.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
I'd imagine the conscious willing decision is to have sex. That does not imply that they were consciously willing to get (the girl) pregnant.
Let's say they're even having 'safe sex'. I.e. they make the decision to be on the pill / wear a condom, and thus similarly in the vast majority of cases the decision that they do -not- want to get (the girl) pregnant.
But the effectivity of both combined is still not 100%, so in this hypothetical case the girl does get pregnant.
She had no particular reason to take a morning-after pill, or go to a doc, or etc. so a few weeks later.. 'oops'.
Does this 'oops' somehow constitute a willing decision to get pregnant, despite the above, based merely on the fact that when people decide to have sex with a 100% contraceptive method they 'accept' that tiny percentage chance that they -do- get (the girl) pregnant?
I'm not particularly pro-abortion, nor do I find all abortion to be murder.
I've previously commented that I imagine 'life' to begin when the fruit - whatever stage it's in - is viable outside of the womb. Technology pushes this further and further toward the date of conception.
This is, of course, also a catch-22. The further it gets pushed forward to the date of conception, the more likely it is that eventually the IVF petri dishes/tubes would be viable outside of a womb and inside a technological creation of man as well. That's when we'll have some -really- interesting debates.
Individual rights aren't directly linked to genetics. Otherwise it would be perfectly moral to kill a sapient alien. He's not trying to say fetuses aren't human in a biological sense, but rather that mere human DNA doesn't necessarily confer individual rights.
Again, they're biologically human. But morally, a person who suffers irreversible brain death is no longer sapient, so our laws (correctly) allow families to "pull the plug." This is the most extreme case, of course, and it's common for this position to be used as a strawman position: "Pro-choice means that anyone with an IQ below X should be killed!"
This couldn't be farther from reality. Most people recognize the need for shades of grey. For instance:
People with alzheimers shouldn't be given driver's licenses, nor should they have access to firearms or heavy machinery. Very young children don't have the right to vote or enter contracts. But only a lunatic would say that they have the same rights as a brain-dead vegetable. Shades of grey are necessary.
For a very good reason; dogs don't ever progress past that point. Humans do.
All moral decisions seem arbitrary to me, in the sense that they can't be falsified. But I also arbitrarily think that all sapient beings have the right to life. This includes all humans except for those without the capacity for sapience (e.g. fetuses prior to the development of a "reasonably" complicated brain, and people who have suffered irreversible brain death.) It also includes sapient aliens, genuine artificial intelligences, and possibly cetaceans, cephalapods, and some of the other great apes.
I haven't conclusively figured out where to put the boundaries for individual rights. Anyone who thinks these issues are simple is either naive or a genius on a level I'll never be able to reach. Morality in the real world is messy and arbitrary for everyone who hasn't locked himself into a moral system prescribed by an omnipotent, omniscient deity.
So, then... if you hit a person in your car, get slapped with involuntary manslaughter or something of the sort, and the coroner finds a little clump of cells 3 days old.. woop: TWO counts of involuntary manslaughter?
And what if that implantation fails? It happens, you know. Who do we look to blame then?
Did the mom maybe eat something wrong? Should -she- be accused of involuntary manslaughter (or even murder, depending on the scenario)?
I respect your belief that life starts at 3 days, 2 days, heck, at conception - I may disagree, but I respect it. But only with the added note that ending a life is not necessariy murder (or even (in)voluntary manslaughter); see euthanasia for the other end of what that encompasses.
TFA has a Low res grainy 2D video, and the author readily admits: "Though it looks grainy, this and other video of the developing heart made by the Houston group are some of the best ever taken."
I think, and probably, it is very impressive to make a videothe beating hart of a tiny mouse embryo, even if it is grainy and 2D.
BUT WHERE THE HELL is the H.D. 3D video announced in the headline?
don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
I've just pointed out that your position seems to imply that sapient aliens don't have rights. I'm curious, if we ever encounter a sapient alien, would it be immoral to kill it?
Frankly, I'm not expecting a thoughtful response since the rest of your post boils down to "pro-choice people are the same as Nazis!" In fact, it's a perfect example of the strawman I mentioned in my other post.
But, hey. Maybe you'll surprise me and raise my opinion of Christians. Maybe they don't all caricature people who disagree with them as being in league with the devil and/or Hitler?
I can think of quite a few more problems — such as subjecting the newly-forming tissue to the high amounts of whatever energy is used in this particular kind of tomography. Getting close enough to the heart of a human embryo may also prove more problematic, than in the case of mice.
There is some evidence that ultrasound might disturb brain cells. Of course, they left the ultrasound on the pregnant mouse for half an hour, as I understand it a lot longer than a normal ultrasound session, and it wasn't a profound effect, the brain layers were largely undisturbed. No idea though how much of an effect on brain function that would cause.
I guess this technique uses light instead of sound though? Anyone know what the intensity of the light they're shining in would be? The heart initially forms before the retina does, but if they're using this to diagnose later developmental problems in the late term, and -if- this is a lot of light, I'd worry about frying photoreceptors.
I haven't conclusively figured out where to put the boundaries for individual rights. Anyone who thinks these issues are simple is either naive or a genius on a level I'll never be able to reach. Morality in the real world is messy and arbitrary for everyone who hasn't locked himself into a moral system prescribed by an omnipotent, omniscient deity.
Morality hinges on human experience. It is not a mathematical problem, and approaching it as if it were only overcomplicates an otherwise, often simple, problem.
Most of Judeo-Christian morality can be deduced by simply paying attention to the plight of others. What is seemingly arbitrary is often the result of our collective experience.
As an example, I'll use homosexuality. According to Judaism, Islam, and Christianity, it's wrong. But why?
I honestly didn't know the answer. Why would God care if someone found sexual pleasure in a unique way? He wants us to be happy, right?
I didn't find out until after I had married and had a child. I remember an experience, my son and I in the kitchen, eating breakfast. He spontaneously bursts out, "Daddy and me! Daddy and me! Daddy and me!". In that moment I looked at a person who was a part of the same flesh and blood as my wife and I and it filled me with indescribable joy. I had *no idea* being a father could be so rewarding.
But most homosexuals will never experience this joy, let alone know it exists. Sure, I could describe it a million times, but I remember what it was like when I was single. I really couldn't grasp sex as anything more than an intensely physical pleasure, and the sarcastic rejoinder, "yeah, better than sex" made sense to me. Now it just sounds stupid, as if the person saying it is trying to tell the world how immature and petty they really are. But in having children I discovered that God wants us not merely to enjoy sex, but to have the whole package - marriage and children as well!
And yet, you will find people who have never had children despise the notion of having them. They simply cannot understand - as I did not, prior to having children - the joy of having children. In a similar manner, someone afflicted with homosexual desires, often simply can't understand why they would resist temptation. The first time I met a homosexual, it was immediately apparent to me that they were undergoing an epic internal struggle, the least of which concerned their sexuality. Yet, to them, this condition has persisted for so long it felt "normal" And without the ability to defer judgment to another's experience, they saw no reason to change. Without any understanding that things could be better, they thought of my position as merely trying to take away what little happiness they did posses. (As if I woke up in the morning and said, "Who can I hate today!?")
Most objections to Judeo-Christian morality are rooted in two causes:
The first is almost never philosophical. The second is almost invariably philosophical, but dwells on matters in which the philosopher has no actual experience. Having actually seen someone die unexpectedly, it is very clear to me that all human life is valued by God. Until that happened, the abortion issue for me had been largely a philosophical exercise. It wasn't until I witnessed the death of a human being that my mind changed dramatically. But I realize that most reading this have not had that experience.
In fact, most of us will never have all of the experiences which shaped the Torah or the Bible. We simply have to trust that these tenets of morality were written down and copied throughout the ages because enough people recognized the value and truth in them. But how can we as a society trust the experience of others, when we are so arrogant that we think we already know everything?
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
It is funny that your post is modded as insightful. I think you and I both know what this technology will be used for.
This is just a screening process. So foetuses that will have any sign of cardiovascular abnormalities will be aborted. It will become just another in a round of tests that determine if a foetus will be aborted or get to live.
Yes, this is technology that can be used for something some people don't like. That makes it bad.
Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to use this computer and this internet to hack into a bank and steal someone's life savings, then I'll go to a lab and make a killer virus and clone some serial killers. Then probably come back home and use my stolen money to buy some child porn and upload it with the previously used internet. Then I might take a nap... an EVIL nap.
Yes. Showing people biological facts with new technology. How terrible pro-lifers must be.
Anti-abortion ads are pretty short on actual biological facts and long on pathos and shock value. -Some- pro-lifers are terrible because they clearly get off on using facts to make desperate people feel worse about themselves, and feeling self-righteous.
Some, not most. It's easy to get annoyed with a whole movement based on a fringe asshole minority.
Who cares about a heart beat when the embryo's circulation is directly linked to that of the mother? On the contrary, the nervous system is formed in humans within three days, before any woman would even notice being pregnant. In fact, the ectodermal cells that are the undifferentiated neurons destined to become the nervous system are in place and begin their morphological formation before implantation into the uterine wall.
Fetal and maternal circulation are independent and separated by the chorion. The ectoderm also gives rise to the epidermis, and nobody thinks that's special. Neurulation begins around day 19 with the formation of the neural plate. It takes months for this to develop into a distinctively human nervous system.
On the contrary, the nervous system is formed in humans within three days, before any woman would even notice being pregnant. In fact, the ectodermal cells that are the undifferentiated neurons destined to become the nervous system are in place and begin their morphological formation before implantation into the uterine wall.
Formed within three days? Are you sure? Can you point to the nervous system on this 3 day old human embryo?
You appear to have meant three -weeks-. And not -formed- but -specified-. The neural ectoderm is specified and begins to form the neural tube that will make the brain and spinal cord. It doesn't do it instantly either. There is still brain development after birth in humans. It has definitely not "formed" in three days.
Unless your PhD is about abortions and their motivations then your attempt at argument from authority is at least unwarranted for. On the other hand, if you find it reasonable to simply claim that all abortion is somehow murder, while ignoring all reasons that lead to it, particularly the life-threatening ones, then as easily as you try to impress everyone with your PhD claims I also put in question not only the truthfulness of that statement but also if you really have an education with a scientific background, let alone biology.
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
You forgot rape... And endangerment of the mother's life. Not every unwanted pregnancy can be prevented nor safely carried to term. I don't think anyone has the moral authority to force a woman to die as a consequence of trying to bring a dangerous pregnancy to term. Nor do I believe that unwanted pregnancies are solely the fault of the mother.
I totally agree with you - however, if you look into the numbers, only a very small percentage of rape victims get pregnant (due to the trauma of the event) and out of those who do, more than half decide to have the baby so that something good can come from it. Also, the number of abortions due to the mother's life being in danger are rather low too. So yes, while I agree that they should have the option of abortion in those cases, using it as a reason for anyone to have an abortion at anytime for any reason is faulty logic.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Does this 'oops' somehow constitute a willing decision to get pregnant, despite the above, based merely on the fact that when people decide to have sex with a 100% contraceptive method they 'accept' that tiny percentage chance that they -do- get (the girl) pregnant?
As you pointed out, no contraceptive is 100%, therefore any time you are having sex (with or without contraceptives) you are risking getting pregnant. If you're not ready to deal with the potential negative outcomes of having sex, you shouldn't be having it. So yes, it IS a willing decision - a willing decision to have sex. An abortion because of "oops" is a matter of not wanting to deal with the consequences of their actions.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
have respect for the other side
He has no responsibility to show any respect for people who spend their lives chasing fairy tales.
All human babies (including fetuses)
Can you vouch for every sect of your faith? What about original sin? What ever happened to heathens? You cannot make such all-encompassing claims when there have been literally millions killed throughout history just for not having a "chance to know the truth."
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
Nervous systems, heartbeats, lungs -- these things do not make one human.
Absolutely right. However, they do mean that the creature is alive, so the "it's not alive" people lose all ground there. It doesn't matter whether it's a bug, a dog, a fish, or a person, if something has a heartbeat and you cause it to stop, you killed it.
How can you consider a fetus to be fully human when it lacks the one basic characteristic of humanity?
So you follow the view that the doctor has a magic wand that turns a fetus into a human baby? Dogs reproduce as dogs, trees reproduce as trees, humans reproduce as humans. To claim that a baby isn't human just because it hurts your argument that "it's not really a baby" to avoid acknowledging what's really being done is laughable.
I have no problem with killing, don't get me wrong (though I do find killing someone who can't fight back to be cowardly and despicable - regardless of if they're a baby, old, handicapped, sick, etc). Just admit that you are killing and I'll at least respect you for it (I'm using the general "you" here, not attacking you personally). It's quite common for people (such as racists) to claim that those they kill "aren't really human" to try to pretend that they have some justification throughout history. Just look up the justifications made for genocide throughout history.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
He's right, though. The attribution of value to human life is completely arbitrary. Just because it makes you uncomfortable doesn't mean it isn't true. It would foolish not to admit that.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
I've always thought it was a great way to cut down on crime.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
"The attribution of value to human life is completely arbitrary. "
It's not arbitrary, it's an consequence of the fact that we're human, and the simple that fact that humans that don't value human life either kill themselves or are psychopaths on which a functioning society cannot be based.
Attributing value to human life is probably the LEAST arbitrary thing in human civilization.
You didn't really tell me why it isn't arbitrary. In fact, by saying (let me paraphrase) "We value human life because we're human" you are basically agreeing that we arbitrarily attribute value to human life because we just happen to be humans.
Let me provide an example. Does a rock consider human life valuable? Well, this is obviously a silly question, because a rock cannot think. And yet, a rock is still subject to all the laws of physics. Because the laws of physics are not arbitrary.
It is a credible argument that the laws of a society may not be considered arbitrary because they are intended to protect said society. But as the necessity to protect that society is the basis of those laws, and that desire was arbitrarily defined, all of the laws based on that axiom are subsequently arbitrary.
I'm not saying that we should go rape and pillage just for fun, that wouldn't work out so well. I think we should follow the laws. I arbitrarily agree that human life has value. It's still an arbitrary determination.
Basically, if a rock is not subject to the same rules as you, then those rules are arbitrary.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
The first part of your statement means nothing. No one cares if you're a student or a janitor. The second part is a moral belief of yours. Not all share _your_ morals beliefs. End of story.
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
Generally speaking, even those with learning difficulties are far more intelligent than animals we kill. Especially given that most Western countries do not allow the killing of the great apes.
I hear this abortion this is pretty immoral, but for some cases where the child will grow up SEVERELY disadvantaged, body messed up, mental ability low, possibly a lot of pain, even just the emotional pain of knowing you're basically lesser than the others, I find it pretty immoral that people would willingly allow this child to get to the stage it's born and truly starts to active/become self aware/reach a stage of consciousness.
It's humane to put down dog's etc with debilitating illness, yet we're still at a point where people think that bringing some messed up child into the world is some miracle, it truly makes me sick.
We're in a society where it's soon going to be the time where we can reasonably expect sex to be a conception free event (Hopefully the work on the male pill proves to be the 100% they are stating), it'd solve a lot of this debate, at least for those who are smart enough to use it.
I am pro choice, not all abortions are done because of defects/rape, but abortions will ALWAYS HAPPEN whether legal or not, the great thing when it's legal is that it tends to be done in nice clean sterile safe( well as much as possible) environments, and I am hoping that the fetus brain is destroyed/disabled at the highest speed possible in order to limit any pain if it exists for them at that point. I can only guess that it would be like sleeping, no real consciousness of our pain etc so no pain would be felt, simply a quick painless death/end. If this isn't the case feel free to show me the evidence, I just haven't seen any decent info relating to any pain felt at abortion.
As for the purpose? To save people the "hassle", to be humane and not allow a child to suffer needlessly, to avoid having to give birth, raise or adopt out a child, maybe from rape? maybe because the mother really isn't ready to be a mother, doesn't want the child to be born and truly become "alive". It's usually heartbreaking to abort, but adopting out can also be heartbreaking, as well as trying to raise a kid when your means are low.
People mess up, abortion is an option that can help avoid more possible mistakes/troubles/etc for the person, I really doubt the fetus would even know they existed at that point, and earlier the better.
I think pro life should really be looking at ways to truly be prolife, protect the children by giving indepth contraception + sexual health education, hell even care for every human that is ALIVE. Millions are hungry, they are alive, conscious, feeling pain and suffering, the fetus hasn't gotten to this point.
These comments are based upon the fetus being unconscious/not self aware/for all intents and purposes just something growing before blossoming.
If your neighbours roof is flying past your window, you know it's cyclone season.
He has no responsibility to show any respect for people who spend their lives chasing fairy tales.
You're not helping your case for being open-minded, or even right, with statements like that. Neither "side" of this argument has been able to prove their belief beyond a shadow of a doubt, or there wouldn't be billions on each side. Bashing isn't going to do you any good.
10 FILL MUG WITH COFFEE
20 DRINK COFFEE
30 GOTO 10
Some things won't go away just by making them illegal. Some women will decide (perhaps against all advice of their family and church) to terminate... and when they do, they need access to safe medical care, not preaching, social damnation, and horrible injuries. If self-inflicted or unlawful medical procedures are all that's available, then that's what these women will use.
[
Limbo isn't a place of suffering in Catholic dogma. In fact, it's a place of peace and contentment. It's just not as good as being in Heaven with God. It's Purgatory that's "Hell Lite" (for lack of a better term). In Purgatory, you work off your sin through suffering, in order to get to Heaven. The concept of Purgatory lead to the concept of indulgences, which lead to Martin Luther's 95 Theses, and thus to the Protestant Reformation. So all in all, Purgatory solved a problem for the Church (insofar as it allowed soldiers to engage in brutal combat but still get a shot at salvation if they died), but caused a much larger problem in that it was ripe for abuse.
But how many unsuccessful attempts have there been?
(No, seriously, I have no idea and am curious.)
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
I never understood the "pro-life" (actually more like anti-health) movement. A fetus is nothing special. Because a human is nothing special. It is very arrogant to think that we're oh-so-special. We're not. Life in itself is nothing special. It's just a state of the machine of the class "lifeform". You can make a new fetus in what? Weeks? And this time a healthy one. One that is more likely to create healthy offspring. Or even offspring at all.
The numbers of people who have a very hard time making children grows like crazy. With the current trend, in 3 generations, there will be no human left in the western world, who can reproduce without advanced medical help. A few generations later we're done. At least if we continue to go that way.
There are at least two problems with this line of thinking:
1) It reduces human beings to the level of disposable widgets. While it's true that there's nothing special about the human species on a biological level, actually behaving that way leads to some very dark places.
2) I can't speak for everyone, but I consider my life pretty damn special, and I would take particular, violent exception to anyone who intended to treat it as trivially expendable.
If you want to talk about it on an evolutionary level, the way you get biological diversity is to not kill off your offspring. Sure, badly deformed offspring probably wouldn't live to reproduce anyway, but the current abortion climate goes well beyond that, into eliminating healthy offspring. (Last time I checked, being poor or underprivileged was not a congenital birth defect. And I should know, since I have such a birth defect.)
If the issue is really babies being born to drug-addicted mothers, or being born into abusive homes, how about treating drug addiction and improving child welfare services? Wouldn't that work out just a tad better than allowing the hellish conditions to persist and just endeavoring to make sure that children were never born into them? After all, you can't force an unfit mother to have an abortion any more than you can force someone to be a good parent.
As to the article itself: I think the technology will be used for both treatment and abortions. Some couples will go in one direction, some will go in the other. It's the same with most pre-natal screening. The technology, broadly speaking, allows the couple to make an informed decision about what they want to do. Their actual decision could go either way.
To clarify, I am not suggesting that children, or mentally retarded people, etc, are not human. I am pointing out that there is a somewhat clear line that can be drawn in fetal development -- the neurons linking. Before that occurs, the necessary physical architecture of the human brain simply does not exist.
Obviously I am not saying that once that happens, the brain is suddenly filled with knowledge and experience and wisdom. But the physical foundation, and the capacity to learn those things later, is there.
"It's alive" is obviously a silly argument as we kill many things without calling it murder, and "it has a nervous system / heartbeat / lungs" is no better, for the same reason. "Souls" canot be proven and there are many philosophers and theologians who have argued that animals do have souls of a sort anyway, so that argument carries no weight.
But our brains are uniquely human, and we know enough about fetal development to be able to say "It has occured" or "It has not yet occured." I think that arguing about whether it's "murder" before it has anything like a functional human brain is rather silly.
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
This is a game of definitions. I believe you are misusing the word "arbitrary": I think you are using it where you should more properly be using the word "subjective".
The laws of physics are objective.
The value of human life is subjective.
The definition of the meter is arbitrary.
Society's desire to protect itself is not "arbitrary" - it's a necessity for a long-lasting society, and therefore not arbitrary, based on the the basic human desire for survival (which again is not arbitrary, but a fundamental part of our genetic makeup).
Something is arbitrary only if the same people having the same concerns could reach a completely different solution. (e.g. should we use the symbol "+" or "-" to signify addition? That's arbitrary)
If however the conclusions are inexorably bound to the concerns (in order to protect human society we must value human life), then they're not arbitary. They may be *subjective*.
Since there aren't that many rapes, and the odds of getting pregnant aren't that high, it's unclear that a 25% failure rate would lead to "a lot" of pregnancies. The failure of women to receive emergency contraception for whatever reason probably will produce more children.
Would you prefer that I said he had no responsibility to show respect to anyone? That would be a less confrontational way to say it. To be honest, though, I really wasn't trying to be open minded.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
The numbers of people who have a very hard time making children grows like crazy. With the current trend, in 3 generations, there will be no human left in the western world, who can reproduce without advanced medical help. A few generations later we're done. At least if we continue to go that way.
The problem in the West is not that women can't have babies, it's that they choose not to.
Obviously, in countries where women are unlucky enough not to have that choice, babies appear with more frequency.
I like it.
Any definition of value associated with human life is entirely subjective based on people arbitrarily choosing to follow their instinct of self-preservation?
Of course, this hinges on people having the free will to make that choice. Without that, subjective value judgments become a matter of chemistry, and the point is moot.
Yes. It is better to use more exact language. Thank you =].
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
"Arbitrary" may have been a poor word choice. As Aris Katsaris has pointed out, "subjective" might be a better term to use.
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
What purpose does abortion serve?
Averting pregnancy when "condoms and pills, plan B/morning after pill, and many other old fashion ways to not get pregnant" either weren't or couldn't be used.
As you pointed out, no contraceptive is 100%, therefore any time you are having sex (with or without contraceptives) you are risking getting pregnant. If you're not ready to deal with the potential negative outcomes of having sex, you shouldn't be having it. So yes, it IS a willing decision - a willing decision to have sex. An abortion because of "oops" is a matter of not wanting to deal with the consequences of their actions.
No, it's exactly the same situation as any other form of birth control, it just happens post-contraception instead of pre-. Having abortion because of "oops" is most definitely "dealing with the consequences of their actions" and taking steps to prevent that situation from worsening.
Your argument is simply a roundabout way of sex for reasons other than reproduction is wrong.
I can't speak for everyone, so I'll just speak for myself. I'm a Christian. I'm pro-life. My religious beliefs give me guidance as to how I am supposed to live my own life. Because of my religious beliefs, I take my vacation days and volunteer to help feed homeless people in poorer areas where I live. I personally have walked around public areas and helped pick up trash. I lend my listening ear to my friends who are going through difficult times. I encourage my female friends to respect themselves and not buy into our culture of skin deep beauty. I donate money to charities like Love146 who work to end child sex trafficking in other areas of the world. I'm not trying to brag about all the wonderful things I've done in my life (indeed, I've got a laundry list of things that I'm not proud of, either), but you asked what good religious beliefs are. Mine emplore me to provide assistance toward others to who require it.
Do I tell people about my beliefs? yes, I do. I do tell them about sin and heaven and hell and salvation and the sacrifice that Christ made. But it's not conditional. I don't make people say "the sinner's prayer" in order to get a cup of soup or bottle of water. I do my very best to not be condescending or confrontational to someone I am speaking with. My purpose isn't to force my beliefs on others, but I would be remiss to not inform. If, after me speaking with someone, they choose to reject it, then that's their choice and I will not force them otherwise. To do so would be inconsistent with the principles Jesus taught.
Many people inevitably bring up things like the manipulative practices of the church during the middle ages, they hypocrisy of churchgoers, money-grabbing televangelists, the nagging people on the sidewalk with the bullhorns, and yes, the people who kill abortion doctors. I cannot answer for any of them. All I can say is that Jesus never separated loving God from loving other people. To force one's beliefs on another person is unloving to that person, and therefore does not express love toward God, and that if I have ever come across as unloving or uncaring toward another person, that I am truly sorry.
You'll get no argument from me that if there's anything that Christians are good at, that it's shooting ourselves in the foot. Mahatma Gandhi once stated, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.", and he was embarrassingly correct. Here's to hoping that somehow I manage to provide an exception.
Agreed, but *if a fetus is considered a life*, then performing an abortion would essentially amount to the fetus getting the death penalty for the crime of its father.
It's not arbitrary, it's an consequence of the fact that we're human, and the simple that fact that humans that don't value human life either kill themselves or are psychopaths on which a functioning society cannot be based.
Is the measure of "valuing human life" such that anyone who has an abortion is, by definition, either suicidal or a psychopath ?
Try stating your arguments without appeals to unprovable entities such as "God" or the "soul" if you want to be taken seriously by the kinds of people who operate based on logic instead of faith. If you're going to appeal to faith in "God" or the "soul", why even bother constructing an argument in the first place? You either believe or you don't.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
Based on your message, you are a very good person.
All I can say is that Jesus never separated loving God from loving other people.
Now all you need to do is separate your love of other people from your love of God, and you'll attain an even higher level of self-actualization.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
No, I'm saying that actions have consequences. If you're not prepared to deal with the consequences, then you have no business doing it. It doesn't matter if it's sex, playing the stock market, gambling, racing, skydiving, etc.
Your argument is nothing more than saying that people should not be held responsible for their actions, which is the main reason that the world is such a shitty place today - people like you making excuses for those who do bad / stupid things instead of holding them accountable for their choices.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
No, I'm saying that actions have consequences. If you're not prepared to deal with the consequences, then you have no business doing it. It doesn't matter if it's sex, playing the stock market, gambling, racing, skydiving, etc.
Except your "consequences" are wholly artificial because they only exist if a simple medical procedure is actively denied for the sole reason of them 'learning their lesson'.
There is no reason why, in today's world, sex must ever result in an unwanted birth unless people like you intervene to try and tell others how they should behave.
Your argument is nothing more than saying that people should not be held responsible for their actions, which is the main reason that the world is such a shitty place today - people like you making excuses for those who do bad / stupid things instead of holding them accountable for their choices.
Not in the slightest. My argument is that babies are only a "consequence" of accidental pregnancy if you impose your beliefs on other people.
If you truly are interested, then do your own research. The point being made by abortion-opponents (a majority in this country, BTW), is that they are being unfairly vilified. Whereas terrorist acts by fanatics of other religion(s) (and they too have plenty of little-reported failures) are immediately followed by calls to not consider all adherents of the religion terrorists, the anti-abortion Christians are never defended in this manner. Worse — as this very thread has shown — they are being openly accused of sharing each terrorist's views and thus their guilt.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
I'm pretty sure that most people who had abortions valued their own human lives -- and as such valued human life in general (if not always in the specific case of a foetus).
I really don't care if low lifes kill their kids (because it means eventually you'll snuff yourselves out and then we can get on with making the world a better place once all the excuse-making collectivists are gone).
A world full of absolutist, judgemental, misogynist arseholes. What an awesome idea !
However, trying to claim that killing babies is a rational alternative to using your brain before spreading your legs is pathetic.
Not nearly as pathetic as trying to oppress people because they're having a good time.
Just remember the bumper sticker - "the people who are for abortion are only alive because their mother was against it".
Ah, yes. Like most bumper stickers - short, simple and laughably incorrect.
If, OTOH, we argue that a person is a human because they are constructed of and by human DNA, we have no problem at all with the above questions.
You know what else is constructed of and by human DNA?
A teratoma.
A malignant tumor.
Fingernail clippings.
Cultured human tissue grown outside the body.
Which of these are you prepared to accord "personhood"?
Since there aren't that many rapes, and the odds of getting pregnant aren't that high, it's unclear that a 25% failure rate would lead to "a lot" of pregnancies.
There were around 94,000 forcible rapes reported to law enforcement in 2005. Let's suppose that two-thirds of those women wouldn't have gotten pregnant anyway. With a 25% failure rate, even if they all take emergency contraception, that still leaves over 7800 pregnancies from rape annually.
Now consider that rape is notoriously under-reported, and that those statistics only include forcible rape -- not drunken mistakes, coercion other than the threat of force, or incest -- and we're probably looking at a lot more.
The failure of women to receive emergency contraception for whatever reason probably will produce more children.
Of course! I'm not saying people shouldn't use ECP; they definitely should. I'm saying it isn't effective enough to make abortion obsolete.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
A world full of absolutist, judgemental, misogynist arseholes. What an awesome idea !
So promoting personal responsibility and thinking before you act is being an asshole? Wow, you just announced yourself as one of the dumbest people on the planet. Good job!
Not nearly as pathetic as trying to oppress people because they're having a good time.
I'm all for having a good time - you want to do drugs? Go for it. Want to get drunk off your ass? Sweet! Want to bang 100 girls? Aweosome! -- HOWEVER, if you're not ready to accept any possible negative consequences, don't do it. And if you try to be a little bitch and avoid having to suffer the consequences of your actions, I will give you massive amounts of shit for it. Hell, I've probably had sex with more girls than anyone else on slashdot - however, if one of them would get pregnant, I wouldn't tell them to kill the kid just so that I wouldn't have to accept the consequences of my actions. Do I want kids? Hell no. But if that would happen, I'm prepared to accept it.
Ah, yes. Like most bumper stickers - short, simple and laughably incorrect.
Really? So your mother had an abortion and you came back from the dead? That can't be true because our Lord and Savior Obama is the only Messiah.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
I did not forget rape. That's what the morning after pill is for.
I also need to modify my above statement. Ectodermal cell differentiation occurs at day 16 in humans, after implantation, but still before most women would suspect a pregnancy.
pro-choice people are the same as Nazis...
What a way to light up a straw man. And then accuse me of it yourself! Actually, the Nazis stopped at 12 million, so we can't consider them the same. Right now, pro-choicers are up in Stalin territory, who reputedly killed about 55 million. But I didn't write this post (or its parent) to bash pro-choice people.
But trollish rhetoric aside, there are some points I'd like to clarify:
The sapient alien question is hardly compelling because a moral evil does not require damaging a human being. In Islam, it is morally wrong to mistreat an animal. If the sapient alien would qualify as an animal, we could safely say killing one would be morally wrong, without ever addressing the issue of whether they possessed a soul, were sentient, intelligent, loving, caring, etc...
What the whole thing comes down to, is that we as a society must have a way of knowing what is human and what is not; what constitutes a person and what does not; otherwise, we'll commit the same atrocities as the generations before us.
One last quip. If I were pro-choice, I'd be as mad at the Left as I am with the Republicans for not doing anything about abortion. (Let's face reality: in 20 years of Republican Presidents, the closest we've come to outlawing abortion is a President who refused to sign a bill because it didn't have exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother. His son, also a Republican, claimed the country was not ready. Well, with Republicans like these, who needs a Democrat? But I digress...) The simple fact is that the Left could end the debate, once and for all, if they would just commit to providing a definition of what it means to be human and sticking with that. But they rightly suspect that any debate on the issue will expose the fact that they have no clue what it means to be human. So instead, they simply avoid the debate, and their proponents are left in a rather untenable position of being able to do nothing more than assert, without reason, the supposed correctness of their cause.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Okay, I realize this drifting a little OT, but I'm curious as to what you have to say to this. So I'll start with your challenge of proving that humans have a soul.
I'm going to start with a rather crude characterization, because this definition is sufficient for the argument at hand: A soul is a conscious, supernatural entity. That is, it does not exist within the confines of matter; you can't see it on an oscilloscope, or measure it with an instrument.
I'll start with some basic tenets:
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Yes... I mentioned the Nazis. Right.
Yes, maybe I have other reasons for holding a pro-choice view other than being in league with the devil. Love the ambiguity there, as though I didn't just explain my reasons for being pro-choice in my other post.
In my other post I argued that it hinges on which beings qualify for individual rights, and I decided that all sapient beings deserve the right to life. I explicitly extended this right far beyond the human race. Not based on superstitious, unfalsifiable claims like the presence or absence of a "soul" but the quality of sapience that can (at least in principle) be detected.
Seems like you're saying sapient aliens would be on the same moral level as cows. Mistreating one would be morally wrong, but "humanely" slaughtering it for food is presumably okay. I strenuously disagree.
Like when some people assert that homosexuality is immoral because a straight father really loves his son? Or how some people assert that abortion should be illegal because they watched a person die unexpectedly? I agree, both of those instances seem like enormous leaps of logic that are very good examples of assertions not backed up by reason.
So... because you've changed your mind in the past, there has to be a supernatural force affecting the physics that govern your neurons? Wow.
I've previously said that free will seems like a nearly insurmountable philosophical problem. Supernatural effects don't seem to fix this problem any more than classical nondeterminism through exponential dependence on initial conditions or quantum nondeterminism. These "quick-fixes" either turn a deterministic, predictable system into a deterministic but unpredictable system, or a genuinely nondeterministic system that obeys statistical laws. Supernatural effects seem similar except they wouldn't necessarily have to obey statistical laws.
But just like quantum nondeterminism doesn't adequately explain free-will, supernatural effects don't seem to explain the subjective impression we have of free-will. How would supernatural violations of (say) conservation of energy or momentum result in my subjective impression that I make my own decisions?
Appealing to magic to find a quick answer to a hard problem is tempting. Especially when that answer also implies that death is just a transition to see our departed loved ones, that evil people will be punished in this life or the next, and that we're not insignificant mayflies in an oppressively vast universe.
In contrast, saying "I don't know" isn't nearly as satisfying an answer. But sometimes that's all we can say.
So promoting personal responsibility and thinking before you act is being an asshole?
You're not "promoting personal responsibility". You're trying to make people conform to the way you think they should behave by removing some of their options to be responsible.
I'm all for having a good time - you want to do drugs? Go for it. Want to get drunk off your ass? Sweet! Want to bang 100 girls? Aweosome! -- HOWEVER, if you're not ready to accept any possible negative consequences, don't do it.
Thanks to modern medicine, childbirth is not inherently a "negative consequence" of pregnancy. Your argument is broken.
I have to wonder though, are you so gung-ho about withholding cancer treatment from people who smoke ? An adrenaline shot from someone who overdosed ? Painkillers from people who injure themselves performing risky stunts ? A lung transplant for someone who spent thirty years working in a mine ?
And if you try to be a little bitch and avoid having to suffer the consequences of your actions, I will give you massive amounts of shit for it. Hell, I've probably had sex with more girls than anyone else on slashdot - however, if one of them would get pregnant, I wouldn't tell them to kill the kid just so that I wouldn't have to accept the consequences of my actions. Do I want kids? Hell no. But if that would happen, I'm prepared to accept it.
Feel free to martyr yourself. When you insist others must do the same thing, you cross the line into oppressor.
Oh, incidentally, what are you going to do if it's the girl who wants an abortion ? Tie her to the bed until the baby is born, telling her over and over she must accept the consequences of her actions ?
Oops. Replace "any more than classical nondeterminism through exponential dependence on initial conditions" with "any more than classical 'nondeterminism' through exponential sensitivity to initial conditions"
You're trying to make people conform to the way you think they should behave by removing some of their options to be responsible.
Killing a baby is never being responsible. But you're such a tough guy that you can only fight someone who can't fight back. I have no problems with killing what so ever, but I'm not a coward and would never kill someone who can't fight back. If you knew anything about me, you'd know that I'm constantly pushing people NOT to conform. However, just because you don't conform doesn't mean you don't have to suffer the consequences of your actions.
Thanks to modern medicine, childbirth is not inherently a "negative consequence" of pregnancy. Your argument is broken.
Actually, people killed babies since the dawn of time. It's only that now people like you somehow think it's acceptable to kill them just because they'd be inconvenient. But you know what, I'll shut up about it if we make it fair - make a law so that instead of just being able to kill a baby that's inconvenient to you, you can kill anyone who inconveniences you. We'll call it a "retroactive abortion". If someone's being a dumbass and wasting my time in the line at the bank / store, jab a needle in their head and suck out their brain - *bam* retroactive abortion. Deal? (Something tells me that you'll be against that).
Feel free to martyr yourself. When you insist others must do the same thing, you cross the line into oppressor.
Society has (up until people like you came about in the last couple of decades) always insisted that people accept responsibility for their actions. That's why we have a legal system - to make people accept the negative consequences of their actions.
People like you who think people can do whatever they want without any consequences are why those of us who do think rationally and realize that actions have consequences (sometimes good, sometimes bad) have little hope for the future.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
Killing a baby is never being responsible.
Indeed. An abortion, on the other hand, certainly can be. An embryo isn't a baby in any meaningful sense of the word - indeed, biologically, it's just a parasite.
Or are you one of these idiots who thinks most abortions are in the third trimester of viable foetuses ? I suppose you think all those feminists are out there deliberately getting pregnant just to have abortions, as well ?
I have no problems with killing what so ever, but I'm not a coward and would never kill someone who can't fight back.
You "have no problems with killing", but you're wound up about abortion ? Sounds like you have no problems with hypocrisy either. What about when the pregnancy would endanger or kill the mother ?
If you knew anything about me, you'd know that I'm constantly pushing people NOT to conform. However, just because you don't conform doesn't mean you don't have to suffer the consequences of your actions.
A baby is no longer a consequence of conception. It's a choice.
Actually, people killed babies since the dawn of time. It's only that now people like you somehow think it's acceptable to kill them just because they'd be inconvenient.
Hate to break it to you, tiger, but abortions have been going on for a lot longer than the last few decades. The main difference is that now it's a simple, safe and reliable procedure rather than a complicated, dangerous and risky one.
But you know what, I'll shut up about it if we make it fair - make a law so that instead of just being able to kill a baby that's inconvenient to you, you can kill anyone who inconveniences you. We'll call it a "retroactive abortion". If someone's being a dumbass and wasting my time in the line at the bank / store, jab a needle in their head and suck out their brain - *bam* retroactive abortion. Deal? (Something tells me that you'll be against that).
This is what's called a slippery slope fallacy. You'll need to do better.
Society has (up until people like you came about in the last couple of decades) always insisted that people accept responsibility for their actions.
Ah. So the world was perfect before the 60s then ? It's ok, I'm not on your lawn.
That's why we have a legal system - to make people accept the negative consequences of their actions.
Funny, I thought we had a legal system to resolve disputes and isolate dangerous people from others they might hurt.
People like you who think people can do whatever they want without any consequences are why those of us who do think rationally and realize that actions have consequences (sometimes good, sometimes bad) have little hope for the future.
So I'm guessing that you *do* support the idea of not giving smokers with lung cancer treatment, painkillers for people who injured themselves doing risky things, surgery the victims of industrial accidents, or medicine for people with STDs ? After all, those people are just suffering the consequences of their actions.
It's pretty awesome how you're trying to justify your oppressive tendencies by calling it "taking responsibility" though. I don't think I've heard that one before.
Actually, I need to change "Seems like you're saying sapient aliens would be on the same moral level as cows" to "Seems like you're saying sapient aliens would be on the same moral level as chickens" because Hindus are forbidden from killing cows, and that's not what I mean to say. I *think* chickens are considered acceptable to kill to eat in most major religions, but if I've missed a religion please let me know.
Also, genuine "strong" artificial intelligences probably wouldn't qualify as animals. But I'm strongly opposed to using AI's as slaves, or deleting (killing) them.