Other places have actually put some work in and produced far more viable efforts - hence the established USA civilian nuclear industry being twenty years behind South Africa,
On what planet are you on? South Africa had a stupid Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) project that was state funded. This project plodded along while huge amounts of taxpayer money were wasted (to be fair, it is better than the outright stealing that the SA government does).
The government eventually pulled the plug this year on that stupid project. This project is soooo similar to other projects that it is sad (Rooivalk, OptimalEnergy Joule).
In fact, both men were Traitors with a capital T. Lee refused Lincoln's offer to command the Union Army and in fact commanded the Army opposing it.
Wasn't Lee loyal to his state? I always thought that the idea of the USA was that it was a Union of independent states. When Virginia seceded, Lee was no longer bounded by the constitution of the USA.
taken up arms against the consititution he was sworn to defend.
Lincoln at that stage was the president who broke the constitution the most. As an example, consider his suspension of habeas corpus spending money without congressional approval, etc...
I am not American, but will comment on a few things.
One says publishers should “describe the effects of increasing government regulation and taxation on economic development and business planning.”
I fail to see anything wrong with that.
References to Ralph Nader and Ross Perot are proposed to be removed,
Both of these characters (while more recent) have actually had very little political impact (less so than Stonewall Jackson). Ralf Nader is a minor political player and Ross Perot a failed presidential candidate (there are plenty of those around, e.g. Kerry, Al Gore, Dan Quale, etc...)
while Stonewall Jackson, the Confederate general, is to be listed as a role model for effective leadership,
Stonewall Jackson was a very famous (and effective) general in the Civil War. Whether you dislike him or not, the fact remains that he was an honourable man and a great leader. The same could be said for Robert E. Lee.
“Country and western music” has been added to the list of cultural movements to be studied.
Country music is much better than the modern clap-trap that people listen to (e.g. Hip-hop, rap, etc). It also had a significant social impact. I fail to see a problem here (although it would be nice if they also learn classical music).
inaugural address are to be laid side by side with Abraham Lincoln’s speeches.
What amazes me about Americans is that they like leaders who start wars. Every leader is expected to start at least one good war. Quite a few wars have been popular in the USA and led to increased popularity of the president (e.g. Gulf War, Kosovo War, Clinton’s bombing campaigns). The only reason GWB was unpopular was because he didn’t win his wars.
I doubt that Lincoln would be remembered if he used his skills to avoid a disastrous civil war? Probably not. Thanks to that disastrous war he is a national hero.
“To deny the Judeo-Christian values of our founding fathers is just a lie to our kids,” said Ken Mercer, a San Antonio Republican.
There is little doubt that Christianity had a large influence on the American politics. The founding fathers wanted a country where there is freedom of religion – not freedom from religion (as the far left portrays it).
No, it is not education. Promoting a “naturalistic worldview” is often just a guise for people with an agenda to promote their ideology. Here is a good example where it happened:
> The State recognizes no religion, and supports atheistic propaganda in order to implant a scientific materialistic world outlook in people
That quote was from the constitution of Albania. You probably know what happened there? Oppression, torture and execution of religious people.
My point is that everyone must believe and do with their time as they like. As another example, I personally think that lotteries and gambling is stupid and (statistically) naïve – but do not think that it should be banned or the government should promote propaganda (under the guise of education) to stop it.
The other priority should be a campaign to combat superstition and promote naturalistic views of the world.
Uhm... no. The US government should not be in the business of propaganda (for whatever the reason). The idea is good - but many ideas with good intentions (like this) ends up really bad.
PS, there are a lot of other silliness that people should stop. One example of this is 30+ guys dressed up like nancies in kevlar suits chasing an eggy-ball while 50,000 people have nothing better to do than to watch them chase the eggy ball. WTF?
What happens between a man and his TV is their business.
Land is not a thing which results from the fruit of your labour, it's a communal resource... the community allows ownership for convenience's sake,
The idea that you only have rights at the whim of the majority is probably one of the most despicable ideas of the left.
I firmly believe that the fruits of a person’s labour belong to that person (and the government can tax it insofar as to provide services).
You can always just move,
“Just moving” has been the excuse of many dictators and tyrannical regimes. Is forced movement due to taxation any less despicable than forced movement due to a police force? Do you really suggest that a 70 year old person should move (with all of their social connections in one place) because an inefficient government wants to make up for its budget shortfall?
The difference is, if you agree with the atheist he'll go away and stop bothering you, the religious guy wants to hold your hand and have a prayer session.
Not in my experience. I was atheist (but decided that they are a bunch of jerks).
Firstly, my atheist friends were more concerned with *my* personal beliefs than my christian friends. When they realized I was an atheist, every conversation turned into a "how bad/stupid Christians are" or an interrogation about *my* personal beliefs.
Why the fuck are atheists so obsessed with other person’s personal beliefs? A good example, one of my atheist friends saw my bible in my room, and I had to please explain why I have a bible (it was a present on my 7th birthday from my now deceased grandfather, with my name and a message written in calligraphic script). Really? How are my personal beliefs relevant to their life?
It seems that Christian, Buddhist, spiritual people can happily co-exist, but not atheists.
Also, there is a huge difference between Christian/hare Krishna evangelism and atheists. I get approached by Christian evangelicals (usually S. Korean which is funny) and they actually seem to care about you and your life. Atheists just think that they are better/smarter than everyone else.
Older residents (and the kids who inherit their homes) get a free ride, because, while the houses they bought for peanuts are now worth millions, they pay hardly any property tax.
A big problem for many retired people is that their pensions is not high enough. That is because of increased productivity, which means that younger people have a higher income. They can therefore not afford property taxes and will lose their homes.
The idea of taxing capital things (such as houses) repeatedly, even though the money that bought it is already taxed is a despicable idea (IMHO). With this you only encourage consumption of consumer products and discourage saving (since the latter gets taxed over and over).
The new atheist zealotry is a lot scarier for me than christian zealotry. I don’t know what exactly makes 20 y/o atheists so angry (must be something in the drink water). But there ideas are extremely frightening.
(They also have the ability to destroy any social site with their verbal diarrhoea I really don’t need to hear how smart atheists are. )
It seems that my Christian friends STFU 99.99% of the time about their religion. But atheists talk 90% of the time about their religion. They repeat everything and every conversation is a repeat of the previous - It sounds like a long play record that got stuck. They also interrogate you to ensure that you are an atheist (and not an agnostic by mistake).
And since many of these Chinese companies don't care, let's fine China.
USA companies kills a lot more people in foreign countries than Chinese companies. A good example is the Bhopal incident - which was a US company killing Indians.
In many countries some people are not appreciated. This especially happens to minorities in some countries - what usually happens is that they leave.
In many developing countries, the ruling party caters for the lower classes and is completely populist. It absolutely makes sense to leave the country in such circumstances.
already has a semi-developed heart or nervous system is conscious, means that *every* mammal is conscious and should be due the same rights as you would grant a human.
Every mammal is conscious. But being conscious does not mean that it is human (and should have human considerations). There are many other things to consider (such as being self-aware).
Your arguments are biased in the extreme, and you only pull in science or logic when it suits your case...
Yet your argument is completely devoid of science and logic. Your argument that abortion is correct because a foetus isn’t conscious is scientifically wrong (a foetus is conscious, so is all other mammals).
And I'm tired of arguing with someone who is not prepared to even modify their stance based on debate.
Did you modify or change your stance during this debate? You argued that abortion should be legal because a foetus isn’t conscious – in many cases it is (and other mammals are also). You did not come with another argument of why abortion should be allowed.
I know that it is the populist opinion on Slashdot that abortion is a good and moral thing – yet you do not give any justification for it.
I think that at this point in the debate we can only agree to disagree.
Because it is quite viable for a premature born baby to survive after 7 months gestation without any aid.
Again, there are many 7th month old babies that will not survive outside the womb (or without machine assistance). The only reason why young foetuses do not survive is because of lung development. Is someone on a heart and lung machine alive or not?
As far as I know, there is no case of a 3 month old gestated foetus surviving outside the womb, even with the miracles the doctors can perform today.
Again, the abortion limit is not 3 months. There are many cases of babies surviving *before* the US abortion date (24-26 weeks), with some even surviving as young as 21 weeks.
It has been mandated by law that a 7 month shall not be aborted because it is viable outside the womb, and therefore by a scientific definition, it is a life.
This is circular reasoning. Because someone is mandated by law, it is not a scientific definition. A scientific definition would be based on factors such as consciousness, etc It is a “legal” definition that a foetus at that stage isn’t a life.
The viability criterion does not hold up to any other circumstances. There are many cases where babies and adults are dependent on machine assistance for life, yet they are not treated as “non-viable” (i.e. non-human). The same with babies after the “cut-off” date – many of them are not viable, yet they are treated as alive.
Even the Supreme Court judge stated that this date is arbitrary. Here is what he said:
You will observe that I have concluded that the end of the first trimester is critical. This is arbitrary, but perhaps any other selected point, such as quickening or viability, is equally arbitrary
Can't you even acknowledge the difference between a gestation period of something that is 3 months old and something that is 7 months old ?
Yes, just as I can acknowledge the difference between the age of an old person or a child. (In roman times children had less rights than adults can could have been killed by the head of the household).
Fine, if you have such an objection to "the taking of a life", I assume you must also be a vegetarian, and that you have never killed a cockroach or swatted a fly ? Because that is plainly "murder" by your definition.
I have an objection to taking the life of a human being.
At the end of the day, when staying within what is the current "laws" regarding abortion, it is the choice of the mother, not the state, not the church, no one else.
Why can’t a mother then abort a child at 8 months? Why does the evil state prevent her?
It is cool with you that the father doesn’t have any say in his unborn child?
As I again said, the current immoral laws may be laws – but it doesn’t make them any less immoral than the multitude of immoral laws there were in the past. Abortion laws are the ultimate law for the hedonistic and self-centered generation Y.
Since I present the majority, I doubt it:) But there is a saying about thieves...:P Check out this map, nice company [wikipedia.org]
Yes. Slavery was also practiced a few centuries ago by the majority of countries. Yet it is now condemned by the majority of countries.
Similarly, if a fetus does not want or desire anything, it is properly not immoral to kill it. So the question would rather be if a fetus about 12 weeks (still going by local law) desires life. I sincerely doubt that, though I am really no expert.
Any organism does not want to be killed. Whether it vocalises it or not, it is a fact of life. A good example again is a newborn baby. A newborn baby cannot vocalise whether it wants to live or not. It probably doesn’t reason that way – but I am pretty sure that there is an innate desire to life (otherwise they would not eat, etc). Is it moral to kill a newborn baby?
We do not know, as can easily be inferred by the fact that we cannot objectively measure intelligence at all.
Innate intelligence in adult humans can be measured btw, using factor analysis (called the general intelligence factor). All evidence point to the fact that there is a neurobiological basis for intelligence.
I think you screwed up the prose here, at least I cannot make head from tails of it.
You compare a foetus to an animal and say it is okay to kill an animal, therefore okay to kill a foetus. The two comparisons that are used (intelligence and consciousness) is however shaky. A newborn baby has a lower intelligence than many animals and a foetus is conscious. Animals are also conscious (as is babies) – so, what does consciousness have to do with deciding whether it is okay to kill a foetus/baby/animal?
It is one of the cases where I think that the experts should draw the line.
Experts are divided. In the USA a system was thought up by judges (who themselves labelled it arbitrary). The limit in the USA is about 24-28 weeks. This is termed by “viability” – the ability of a foetus to live outside the mother’s womb. Note that there have been premies who survived at 21 weeks. The reason why babies do not survive at such a young age is because the lungs don’t develop surfactants.
It has nothing to do with cognitive development and everything to do with the development of the lungs.
Ah, but we do not. It is always understood as a self-reflective concept; you have to be aware of a "you" to be conscious.
The quote I gave you is the textbook definition of consciousness (Princeton wordnet). The Cambridge dictionary def. is similar. What you are probably referring to is self-awareness. What is interesting about this is that it develops in about the first year of a baby’s life (i.e. a newborn baby is not self-aware in any meaningful sense).
Note that several other primates, dolphins and elephants are also self-aware.
Most people thinks otherwise.
Popular opinion on abortion is (in most countries) equally divided. In most countries abortion laws are not passed through referendum or through legislative actions, but through judicial activism.
Also note that throughout history, there have been various actions and views that were popular, but morally wrong (e.g. Iraq war, Nazi movement, slavery, etc).
An no, saying "infanticide" is silly conversational trick in itself; Killing a person against its will is what matters, not if it was a child or an adult or whatever.
Or a foetus? Most unborn babies do not want to be killed (as most living things do not want to be killed).
Concerning abortion the breaking point is whether the fetus is more or less a person than say a pig, which we will happily kill for convenience. (Or a dog, or whatever).
This is an extremely bad line of reasoning. Babies have intelligence lower than many animals. Is a mentally handicapped person less of a person? Is it okay to kill a baby (that is one of the reasonings used to justify infanticide btw. The other is that a baby “doesn’t have a personality yet”)
Around here it is 12 weeks. You can debate the exact limit, of course, I am no expert.
In most countries it is around 20 weeks (for the convenience) and as high as 26 weeks.
What matter is whether the fetus is conscious or not, or if such a line cannot be drawn, more conscious than say a dog.
If we define consciousness as “knowing and perceiving; having awareness of surroundings and sensations and thoughts” then foetuses are conscious well before the limit of abortions. I also want to note that consciousness is an extremely bad indicator. Many people are unconscious – yet you still do not have a right to kill them (e.g. patients with serious head trama, etc).
Claiming that slavery and abortion is in any way related was vile, and you know it.
Why? They are both some of the most barbaric things practiced by man.
My second point (possibly badly worded) meant to say that in the cases of rape / incest, there *is* no choice in contraception... therefore it isn't effective to say "using contraception is an alternative to abortion".
In the case of incest there isn’t. In the case of rape there is (if the rape is reported within 36 hours). Victims of rape are usually given anti-retrovirals, strong anti-biotics and medicines that prevent the release of egg cells (after the rape happened).
In general terms, I am saying that the *only* person who is qualified to make the decision whether something is "justified" or not is the person who will spend the next 9 months carrying it,
No, it is not. Firstly, why are abortions in the 7th months illegal? You could use the same line of argumentation (only the person who is qualified to make the decision is the person who will spend the next 2 months carrying it and the next 21 years nurturing it).
You also seem to ignore the fact that a large amount of abortions are coerced (either through the father of the child, the parents of the women or the employer).
Secondly, there are things such as adoption. I find it strange that murder is acceptable to save a person the convenience of carrying a baby for 9 months. I guess that in today’s convenience society we want our McDees and will not tolerate any inconvenience (however minor).
Unwanted children are often unloved and abused, simply perpetuating the cycle of rape, incest etc into the next generations.
There are many orphans who turned out to be highly successful individuals (I grew up in a town with a large orphanage). If there is a problem with the care of orphans in a country, then that is a problem that needs to be addressed.
It was a) me and b) a joke pertaining to the reply I replied to.
Your post wasn’t a joke. If you think it was a joke then you have no taste.
You tried a vile conversational trick, and were called out. I
Really? So you do not see any similarity between abortion and infanticide?
And around here, anti-abortion really is considered old-fashioned fringe thinking.
So? Modern society is surprisingly lacking in moral values. Abortion is something that is probably two millennia old and even the moral justification that people now use (i.e. that a fetus before 26 weeks is not a human) is based on Victorian era religious pseudo-science (the so called “quickening”).
So, I would say that pro-abortion justification is really old fashioned pseudo-science.
Slashdot Mirror
Other places have actually put some work in and produced far more viable efforts - hence the established USA civilian nuclear industry being twenty years behind South Africa,
On what planet are you on? South Africa had a stupid Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) project that was state funded. This project plodded along while huge amounts of taxpayer money were wasted (to be fair, it is better than the outright stealing that the SA government does).
The government eventually pulled the plug this year on that stupid project. This project is soooo similar to other projects that it is sad (Rooivalk, OptimalEnergy Joule).
In fact, both men were Traitors with a capital T. Lee refused Lincoln's offer to command the Union Army and in fact commanded the Army opposing it.
Wasn't Lee loyal to his state? I always thought that the idea of the USA was that it was a Union of independent states. When Virginia seceded, Lee was no longer bounded by the constitution of the USA.
taken up arms against the consititution he was sworn to defend.
Lincoln at that stage was the president who broke the constitution the most. As an example, consider his suspension of habeas corpus spending money without congressional approval, etc...
I am not American, but will comment on a few things.
One says publishers should “describe the effects of increasing government regulation and taxation on economic development and business planning.”
I fail to see anything wrong with that.
References to Ralph Nader and Ross Perot are proposed to be removed,
Both of these characters (while more recent) have actually had very little political impact (less so than Stonewall Jackson). Ralf Nader is a minor political player and Ross Perot a failed presidential candidate (there are plenty of those around, e.g. Kerry, Al Gore, Dan Quale, etc...)
while Stonewall Jackson, the Confederate general, is to be listed as a role model for effective leadership,
Stonewall Jackson was a very famous (and effective) general in the Civil War. Whether you dislike him or not, the fact remains that he was an honourable man and a great leader. The same could be said for Robert E. Lee.
“Country and western music” has been added to the list of cultural movements to be studied.
Country music is much better than the modern clap-trap that people listen to (e.g. Hip-hop, rap, etc). It also had a significant social impact. I fail to see a problem here (although it would be nice if they also learn classical music). inaugural address are to be laid side by side with Abraham Lincoln’s speeches.
What amazes me about Americans is that they like leaders who start wars. Every leader is expected to start at least one good war. Quite a few wars have been popular in the USA and led to increased popularity of the president (e.g. Gulf War, Kosovo War, Clinton’s bombing campaigns). The only reason GWB was unpopular was because he didn’t win his wars.
I doubt that Lincoln would be remembered if he used his skills to avoid a disastrous civil war? Probably not. Thanks to that disastrous war he is a national hero.
“To deny the Judeo-Christian values of our founding fathers is just a lie to our kids,” said Ken Mercer, a San Antonio Republican.
There is little doubt that Christianity had a large influence on the American politics. The founding fathers wanted a country where there is freedom of religion – not freedom from religion (as the far left portrays it).
No, it is not education. Promoting a “naturalistic worldview” is often just a guise for people with an agenda to promote their ideology. Here is a good example where it happened:
> The State recognizes no religion, and supports atheistic propaganda in order to implant a scientific materialistic world outlook in people
That quote was from the constitution of Albania. You probably know what happened there? Oppression, torture and execution of religious people.
My point is that everyone must believe and do with their time as they like. As another example, I personally think that lotteries and gambling is stupid and (statistically) naïve – but do not think that it should be banned or the government should promote propaganda (under the guise of education) to stop it.
The other priority should be a campaign to combat superstition and promote naturalistic views of the world.
Uhm... no. The US government should not be in the business of propaganda (for whatever the reason). The idea is good - but many ideas with good intentions (like this) ends up really bad.
PS, there are a lot of other silliness that people should stop. One example of this is 30+ guys dressed up like nancies in kevlar suits chasing an eggy-ball while 50,000 people have nothing better to do than to watch them chase the eggy ball. WTF?
What happens between a man and his TV is their business.
Land is not a thing which results from the fruit of your labour, it's a communal resource ... the community allows ownership for convenience's sake,
The idea that you only have rights at the whim of the majority is probably one of the most despicable ideas of the left.
I firmly believe that the fruits of a person’s labour belong to that person (and the government can tax it insofar as to provide services).
You can always just move,
“Just moving” has been the excuse of many dictators and tyrannical regimes. Is forced movement due to taxation any less despicable than forced movement due to a police force? Do you really suggest that a 70 year old person should move (with all of their social connections in one place) because an inefficient government wants to make up for its budget shortfall?
The difference is, if you agree with the atheist he'll go away and stop bothering you, the religious guy wants to hold your hand and have a prayer session.
Not in my experience. I was atheist (but decided that they are a bunch of jerks).
Firstly, my atheist friends were more concerned with *my* personal beliefs than my christian friends. When they realized I was an atheist, every conversation turned into a "how bad/stupid Christians are" or an interrogation about *my* personal beliefs.
Why the fuck are atheists so obsessed with other person’s personal beliefs? A good example, one of my atheist friends saw my bible in my room, and I had to please explain why I have a bible (it was a present on my 7th birthday from my now deceased grandfather, with my name and a message written in calligraphic script). Really? How are my personal beliefs relevant to their life?
It seems that Christian, Buddhist, spiritual people can happily co-exist, but not atheists.
Also, there is a huge difference between Christian/hare Krishna evangelism and atheists. I get approached by Christian evangelicals (usually S. Korean which is funny) and they actually seem to care about you and your life. Atheists just think that they are better/smarter than everyone else.
Older residents (and the kids who inherit their homes) get a free ride, because, while the houses they bought for peanuts are now worth millions, they pay hardly any property tax.
A big problem for many retired people is that their pensions is not high enough. That is because of increased productivity, which means that younger people have a higher income. They can therefore not afford property taxes and will lose their homes.
The idea of taxing capital things (such as houses) repeatedly, even though the money that bought it is already taxed is a despicable idea (IMHO). With this you only encourage consumption of consumer products and discourage saving (since the latter gets taxed over and over).
The new atheist zealotry is a lot scarier for me than christian zealotry. I don’t know what exactly makes 20 y/o atheists so angry (must be something in the drink water). But there ideas are extremely frightening.
(They also have the ability to destroy any social site with their verbal diarrhoea I really don’t need to hear how smart atheists are. )
It seems that my Christian friends STFU 99.99% of the time about their religion. But atheists talk 90% of the time about their religion. They repeat everything and every conversation is a repeat of the previous - It sounds like a long play record that got stuck. They also interrogate you to ensure that you are an atheist (and not an agnostic by mistake).
\rant
OR Saddam hired a quack who was assassinated before he was revealed to be a complete phoney.
The guy who was hired helped developed the G-5 and G-6 howitzers, which are the howitzers with the furthest range (thanks to base bleed ammunition).
Sorry you don't like cheaper safer power.
Solar panels are neither cheap nor safe.
Hum, so tritium leaks are what kind of dream?
Well, it sure beats the dumping of toxic Silicon tetrachloride.
That means more opportunity to produce the power where it is used I guess.
Solar power isn't where it is needed when it is needed. I guess you want all metalurgy to be exported to countries with sensible energy policies.
Unfortunately solar power is just an eco-wetdream. Exciting, but still a fantasy.
I don't know if you are joking or if you are serious...
A simple back of the envelope calculation shows that you would need more than 2300 hectares of solar panels to replace just one nuclear power plant.
And since many of these Chinese companies don't care, let's fine China.
USA companies kills a lot more people in foreign countries than Chinese companies. A good example is the Bhopal incident - which was a US company killing Indians.
In many countries some people are not appreciated. This especially happens to minorities in some countries - what usually happens is that they leave.
In many developing countries, the ruling party caters for the lower classes and is completely populist. It absolutely makes sense to leave the country in such circumstances.
Why do you insist on bashing religion even if the subject clearly doesn't have any religious connotation? Has Slashdot turned into Reddit?
Is the idea behind this to harass religious people so much that they quit Slashdot? Is the immaturity on your part really necessary?
Sulfur causes acid rain. Yes, a lot of sulfur is emitted by volcano - but this is usually quite a bit away from population centers.
There is no shortage of metals - most of the earth is metal. The problem is that it is difficult to dig deep enough.
already has a semi-developed heart or nervous system is conscious, means that *every* mammal is conscious and should be due the same rights as you would grant a human.
...
Every mammal is conscious. But being conscious does not mean that it is human (and should have human considerations). There are many other things to consider (such as being self-aware).
Your arguments are biased in the extreme, and you only pull in science or logic when it suits your case
Yet your argument is completely devoid of science and logic. Your argument that abortion is correct because a foetus isn’t conscious is scientifically wrong (a foetus is conscious, so is all other mammals).
And I'm tired of arguing with someone who is not prepared to even modify their stance based on debate.
Did you modify or change your stance during this debate? You argued that abortion should be legal because a foetus isn’t conscious – in many cases it is (and other mammals are also). You did not come with another argument of why abortion should be allowed.
I know that it is the populist opinion on Slashdot that abortion is a good and moral thing – yet you do not give any justification for it.
I think that at this point in the debate we can only agree to disagree.
Because it is quite viable for a premature born baby to survive after 7 months gestation without any aid.
Again, there are many 7th month old babies that will not survive outside the womb (or without machine assistance). The only reason why young foetuses do not survive is because of lung development. Is someone on a heart and lung machine alive or not?
As far as I know, there is no case of a 3 month old gestated foetus surviving outside the womb, even with the miracles the doctors can perform today.
Again, the abortion limit is not 3 months. There are many cases of babies surviving *before* the US abortion date (24-26 weeks), with some even surviving as young as 21 weeks.
It has been mandated by law that a 7 month shall not be aborted because it is viable outside the womb, and therefore by a scientific definition, it is a life.
This is circular reasoning. Because someone is mandated by law, it is not a scientific definition. A scientific definition would be based on factors such as consciousness, etc It is a “legal” definition that a foetus at that stage isn’t a life.
The viability criterion does not hold up to any other circumstances. There are many cases where babies and adults are dependent on machine assistance for life, yet they are not treated as “non-viable” (i.e. non-human). The same with babies after the “cut-off” date – many of them are not viable, yet they are treated as alive.
Even the Supreme Court judge stated that this date is arbitrary. Here is what he said:
You will observe that I have concluded that the end of the first trimester is critical. This is arbitrary, but perhaps any other selected point, such as quickening or viability, is equally arbitrary
Can't you even acknowledge the difference between a gestation period of something that is 3 months old and something that is 7 months old ?
Yes, just as I can acknowledge the difference between the age of an old person or a child. (In roman times children had less rights than adults can could have been killed by the head of the household).
Fine, if you have such an objection to "the taking of a life", I assume you must also be a vegetarian, and that you have never killed a cockroach or swatted a fly ? Because that is plainly "murder" by your definition.
I have an objection to taking the life of a human being.
At the end of the day, when staying within what is the current "laws" regarding abortion, it is the choice of the mother, not the state, not the church, no one else.
Why can’t a mother then abort a child at 8 months? Why does the evil state prevent her?
It is cool with you that the father doesn’t have any say in his unborn child?
As I again said, the current immoral laws may be laws – but it doesn’t make them any less immoral than the multitude of immoral laws there were in the past. Abortion laws are the ultimate law for the hedonistic and self-centered generation Y.
Since I present the majority, I doubt it :) But there is a saying about thieves... :P Check out this map, nice company [wikipedia.org]
Yes. Slavery was also practiced a few centuries ago by the majority of countries. Yet it is now condemned by the majority of countries.
Similarly, if a fetus does not want or desire anything, it is properly not immoral to kill it. So the question would rather be if a fetus about 12 weeks (still going by local law) desires life. I sincerely doubt that, though I am really no expert.
Any organism does not want to be killed. Whether it vocalises it or not, it is a fact of life. A good example again is a newborn baby. A newborn baby cannot vocalise whether it wants to live or not. It probably doesn’t reason that way – but I am pretty sure that there is an innate desire to life (otherwise they would not eat, etc). Is it moral to kill a newborn baby?
We do not know, as can easily be inferred by the fact that we cannot objectively measure intelligence at all.
Innate intelligence in adult humans can be measured btw, using factor analysis (called the general intelligence factor). All evidence point to the fact that there is a neurobiological basis for intelligence.
I think you screwed up the prose here, at least I cannot make head from tails of it.
You compare a foetus to an animal and say it is okay to kill an animal, therefore okay to kill a foetus. The two comparisons that are used (intelligence and consciousness) is however shaky. A newborn baby has a lower intelligence than many animals and a foetus is conscious. Animals are also conscious (as is babies) – so, what does consciousness have to do with deciding whether it is okay to kill a foetus/baby/animal?
It is one of the cases where I think that the experts should draw the line.
Experts are divided. In the USA a system was thought up by judges (who themselves labelled it arbitrary). The limit in the USA is about 24-28 weeks. This is termed by “viability” – the ability of a foetus to live outside the mother’s womb. Note that there have been premies who survived at 21 weeks. The reason why babies do not survive at such a young age is because the lungs don’t develop surfactants.
It has nothing to do with cognitive development and everything to do with the development of the lungs.
Ah, but we do not. It is always understood as a self-reflective concept; you have to be aware of a "you" to be conscious.
The quote I gave you is the textbook definition of consciousness (Princeton wordnet). The Cambridge dictionary def. is similar. What you are probably referring to is self-awareness. What is interesting about this is that it develops in about the first year of a baby’s life (i.e. a newborn baby is not self-aware in any meaningful sense).
Note that several other primates, dolphins and elephants are also self-aware.
Most people thinks otherwise.
Popular opinion on abortion is (in most countries) equally divided. In most countries abortion laws are not passed through referendum or through legislative actions, but through judicial activism.
Also note that throughout history, there have been various actions and views that were popular, but morally wrong (e.g. Iraq war, Nazi movement, slavery, etc).
lol. Or maybe you have no humor? ;)
Or you are a psychopath?
An no, saying "infanticide" is silly conversational trick in itself; Killing a person against its will is what matters, not if it was a child or an adult or whatever.
Or a foetus? Most unborn babies do not want to be killed (as most living things do not want to be killed).
Concerning abortion the breaking point is whether the fetus is more or less a person than say a pig, which we will happily kill for convenience. (Or a dog, or whatever).
This is an extremely bad line of reasoning. Babies have intelligence lower than many animals. Is a mentally handicapped person less of a person? Is it okay to kill a baby (that is one of the reasonings used to justify infanticide btw. The other is that a baby “doesn’t have a personality yet”)
Around here it is 12 weeks. You can debate the exact limit, of course, I am no expert.
In most countries it is around 20 weeks (for the convenience) and as high as 26 weeks.
What matter is whether the fetus is conscious or not, or if such a line cannot be drawn, more conscious than say a dog.
If we define consciousness as “knowing and perceiving; having awareness of surroundings and sensations and thoughts” then foetuses are conscious well before the limit of abortions. I also want to note that consciousness is an extremely bad indicator. Many people are unconscious – yet you still do not have a right to kill them (e.g. patients with serious head trama, etc).
Claiming that slavery and abortion is in any way related was vile, and you know it.
Why? They are both some of the most barbaric things practiced by man.
My second point (possibly badly worded) meant to say that in the cases of rape / incest, there *is* no choice in contraception ... therefore it isn't effective to say "using contraception is an alternative to abortion".
In the case of incest there isn’t. In the case of rape there is (if the rape is reported within 36 hours). Victims of rape are usually given anti-retrovirals, strong anti-biotics and medicines that prevent the release of egg cells (after the rape happened).
In general terms, I am saying that the *only* person who is qualified to make the decision whether something is "justified" or not is the person who will spend the next 9 months carrying it,
No, it is not. Firstly, why are abortions in the 7th months illegal? You could use the same line of argumentation (only the person who is qualified to make the decision is the person who will spend the next 2 months carrying it and the next 21 years nurturing it).
You also seem to ignore the fact that a large amount of abortions are coerced (either through the father of the child, the parents of the women or the employer).
Secondly, there are things such as adoption. I find it strange that murder is acceptable to save a person the convenience of carrying a baby for 9 months. I guess that in today’s convenience society we want our McDees and will not tolerate any inconvenience (however minor).
Unwanted children are often unloved and abused, simply perpetuating the cycle of rape, incest etc into the next generations.
There are many orphans who turned out to be highly successful individuals (I grew up in a town with a large orphanage). If there is a problem with the care of orphans in a country, then that is a problem that needs to be addressed.
It was a) me and b) a joke pertaining to the reply I replied to.
Your post wasn’t a joke. If you think it was a joke then you have no taste.
You tried a vile conversational trick, and were called out. I
Really? So you do not see any similarity between abortion and infanticide?
And around here, anti-abortion really is considered old-fashioned fringe thinking.
So? Modern society is surprisingly lacking in moral values. Abortion is something that is probably two millennia old and even the moral justification that people now use (i.e. that a fetus before 26 weeks is not a human) is based on Victorian era religious pseudo-science (the so called “quickening”).
So, I would say that pro-abortion justification is really old fashioned pseudo-science.
So what you are saying is we should issue all rapists with condoms, and the problem is solved yeah ?
Rape and incest account for less than 1% of abortions. This is unfortunately used to justify lifestyle abortions.
Contraception is only effective *if* you choose to use it.
So, according to you, somebody is justified to have multiple abortions because they are too lazy to use contraception?