Will you wear white tomorrow?

Oh, yes, but I question whether or not they are alive before being concieved. A consciousness without sensory experience would be without memory, but it may still exist.

 

I'm against the death penalty in the same way that I'm against abortion. If the criminal's mere existence threatens public safety, then it is a necessary evil. Otherwise, he can be sentenced to a living death in which all he does is live in a dark cell with three square meals a day. All he'll get are a toilet, a bedroll, and a ceiling light to keep him from going completely insane. He will hurt no one, help no one, and affect nothing but food supply. And he'll know it. He'll live in a cell and wait for death because he already feels dead. This seems like a far better punishment than death, don't you think?

Sex is a bodily function made specifically for reproduction and an STD on should not get in the way of that. Therefore, if you are having sex, you are to take the risk of getting an STD and the "risk" of sex serving its primary function. On birth control pills for the purpose of regulating the menstrual cycle, I'm fine with that provided they either stop when they become sexually active or only have sex after waiting for the effects of the pills to wear off. And I'd also like to point out that you do need at least buy a condom and/or birth control pills before having sex. Even though I don't condone using them, I do agree that if you're not mature enough to swallow your embarrassment and buy those things, then you're not mature enough to have sex. I may be pro-life, but I'm not completely evil.
/lamejoke

Same here. That's why I consider abortion wrong. Under the rationale of "treat others how you would be treated," the quote I posted earlier applies very well. You only have the right to kill if you are prepared to be killed. In other words, even if "an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind," you still have to be okay with losing your own eye if you're willing to poke someone else's eye out. And to lighten to mood a bit, an eye for an eye doesn't make the whole world blind. It just makes eyepatch salesmen rich.

Nobody is ever alive before conception in the biological sense. Until conception, it's a sperm cell and an egg cell completely independent of each other. It's like fusion in Dragonball Z, but permanent. However, the person does exist. The way I see it, no human being on earth has a soul. Every human being is a soul, and has a body. It's a mutual relationship. The soul inhabits the body and allows it to live while the body lets the soul use it as a vehicle to communicate with other souls. When the body is too weak for the soul, the soul leaves it and allows it to die in peace. It's a perfect symbiotic relationship.

 

I agree; they are a soul. So, why do you believe that the soul is created at conception? Why could it not be that conception is just how it manifests in the physical world? A soul could exist for every body that is conceived, but there is no evidence to suggest that the soul was not there before the body was created. After all, souls are eternal according to most who believe in them. They would have no ending point and no beginning point if that were the case.

 

I DO believe that it exists before conception. But I also believe that it can't do anything before conception. It's as if the soul doesn't exist because it can't really affect anything without a body. It's the same reason that I believe something can be real without existing. On their own, souls can only perceive.

 

We should probably leave discussion of souls out of deciding legislation, as there's no evidence of their existence. Only evidence should be used to decide a law, as it's something anyone can confirm for themselves, given enough time/research. I'm able to read up on information about foetuses, and see when they begin to feel pain via looking at brainwaves, but I can't check out anything to do with a soul.

 

On the contrary, they cannot percieve, having no senses with which to do so.

Oh, were we discussing law here? I do not believe that law should come into play here. With things that can turn on a dime based on how you view trade among individuals, it should be dealt with on a case by case basis. Meaning, if you believe it is wrong, convince others of this, but force it on no one. Allow me to explain the bit about trade...

Most people would agree that trade is the basis of society. Exchanging words, goods, labor, and other things; this is what makes up the model of human interaction that we call society. Most would also agree that such trade should be kept consensual on all sides at all times. Forcible transfers of wealth, for example, are considered theft by most anyone that you ask. Unless it is taxation, of course, but that is a discussion for another time.

That is where the law comes in. It enforces the notion that all trade should be consensual. It puts a stop to forced trade, and allows the victimized party to go free as well as recover losses. This is the basis of law in any society, and so most will share the same kinds of laws from the start. The problem here is first in deciding whether or not becoming pregnant is a transaction at all, and second in deciding whether or not it is a consensual contract. While there is some chance that you will lose all of your money and go into debt while gambling, when you start out, you choose all of the stakes, and you know precisely who you are dealing with in such a trade, or it is considered fraud. In pregnancy, you do not know the third party that then intervenes, and it is not under your control who this person is, nor is it under your partner's control. This consensual trade of pleasure between two people then either becomes a consensual trade between three, where the third could be anyone of any gender, or it is a forced trade between the child and the mother, in which the child is interacting with the mother while uninvited. While one may argue that she knew the risks when she got involved, that is essentially the same as arguing that someone knew the risks when they moved into a bad neighborhood. In both instances, knowing the risks does not mean that you have to deal with them as they are. Bringing a gun to a knife fight eliminates the risks, as does aborting a child. The main problem that I have overall is with the child being completely unknown to the mother before it is born. In that case, the mother is being forced into a trade that she not only did not agree to, if that is the case, but one in which she cannot contact and has not been allowed to meet with the other party to discuss terms. It could be said that the child is holding the mother hostage if the law says that she has to trade with it this way. This is clearly not a trade between equals, then. Therein lies the problem from the start, and so I would most certainly say that the mother is justified in abortion if she has good reason to fear for her overall health as a result of the trade. If she does not, then it is a bit much to give a death penalty, but there is definitely still some unfair trade going on. Were they two adults, this would be dealt with as any other kind of forced leeching, though probably a bit more severe in the punishment because it is takes a physical toll on the bearer.

I prefer to ignore scientific studies such as you are talking about, mainly because, as I said before, memory cannot be traced to the brain directly. So, I have yet to see any evidence suggesting that a person is not alive as a mind as soon as they have cells of their own, if not before that. Arguing a soul may be a bit far, but the bit about memory is quite important in my book. Until such a thing can be decided upon with evidence, as you suggest, it would be foolish to decide legislation at all. Assuming physicalism makes little sense in my eyes, particularly when both sides can agree that a life may hang in the balance. So, as it is, I hold that no law should govern the practice until a verdict can be reached on memory. This only for certain motivations, however... If a mother is concerned only about the financial and chronal toll, then she is simply making a very stupid error is judgment. She could just as easily neglect the child, or give it up to someone else, such as an adoption agency. But, then again, motives are very hard to pin down with such things. A lot goes into a murder, depending on the person. When I was a Christian, I was fond of saying that a child is saved and the parent is condemned when an abortion happens, and I still hold that position in a way. But there are such things as mercy killings, and so the parent may not be condemned at all, even by Christian standards. Say that the father is very abusive, or that the mother lives a disreputable lifestyle, and that the child will not live a happy or long life if it is not aborted. Legislation would be quite bothersome with such things, and so I am against it all around. The most that I can hope for is for people to care enough to think about it from every angle, as I would do, since they are the ones who would commit the act anyway.

 

I was under the impression we were discussing the law's role in abortion, due to the main post's focus on the Roe v. Wade. decision.

The law has an important part in this discussion, because it regulates whether abortions are allowed to be performed on a mass scale. Ideally, each case would be dealt with individually, but that's not practical, and even if it were, we'd still need a basic set of rules to go to. This is where the law comes in.

I'd argue that the mother initiated the trade, not the child. The child had no choice in the matter. You can liken it to a bad neighbourhood, but that's ignoring the fact that the mother's actions directly caused the situation she ended up in. In fact, unlike the bad neighbourhood, the child is completely innocent. It didn't take action to put itself in that state; the mother did.

To use another analogy, it's like raising a child in a marriage. One cannot simply run off and end the transaction. Each person has a duty to continue. You could even argue that the transaction of a child is like no other, and is actually a different thing altogether.

Memories before the age of three-four don't exist. Memory only develops later. If you're basing your argument upon memory, then fully-born children can also be killed.

I covered mercy killings earlier. I think it's a poor justification, for reasons previously stated.

 

I would rather it not be a matter of the law, though... Neither legalize nor ban it. Ignore it. Let each person choose for themselves. Perhaps make it so that they must be informed on all sides before getting one, but that would be all. I say this from a Eugenics-based point of view, though, so that may not be the best approach for ethical reasons.

Well played... I had not thought of it like that. But, I am also against marriage itself. As I said before, neglecting a child is not a crime in my eyes. I feel that the only obligation that you have to your creations is that which you give of your own will. Loyalty should not be forced onto you. But, again, you did not create it of your own will. It would have been impossible to control what your creation turned out to be.

It is, rather, the throwing around of doubt. My argument is not that they do not have memories yet, so much as that because we cannot pinpoint where memory is stored, or even prove that it is physical at all, we may be out of line in thinking that the physical body is all that there is of people. The thing about children from birth to when they have memories is that they percieve things during that time. Who cares about what they remember later, if they are experiencing things now?

On those reasons, I would have to go and read them, but I can imagine what you might have said. And it would be valid enough... Who are you to decide that it is a mercy for them not to have lived? A fair question. I will have to take the stance that many do, in that case, which is that it would only be fully justified if the mother's life was in danger as a result of the pregnancy, or if the abortion could save her. No one should be made to substitute their own life for that of another that they have never met. As for rape victims and that kind of thing, no amount of emotional pain could fully justify killing someone else. And so would come my policy on the matter... As someone who deals primarily in policies, it is strange that I didn't come out with this first. I guess that my habit of playing the Devil's Advocate really did come out, then...

 

Neither legalise nor ban it? There's no middle ground for a yes/no question. Either killing a foetus will be considered illegal, or it won't. If it isn't illegal, then it's legal.

How is this Eugenics-based?

Interesting. So under your system, along with humanely killing the foetus before it is born, you'd allow people to leave the baby exposed on the street (not the footpath though. ;)) until it dies? It's not harming another individual, it's just not providing for them. It's the stance the ancient Romans took, and one that most people nowadays would consider barbaric.

Ah. So you're making the argument "We are unable to track memories to the brain, therefore it is possible they are in the soul." However this doesn't prove experiences.We can see what the foetus can feel via scans of the brain and the like. Also, experts have stated that they don't develop the necessary receptors to feel pain until later.

So you retract the idea of mercy killing, or killing for the child's sake? I have no argument against killing for one's own sake.

 

I am saying that it should not so much as be mentioned in law specifically. A thing may be legalized by writing down that it may happen, particularly where it may be illegal otherwise. They could charge you with murder for it, for example, based on arguments that would validate it as such. If they legalized it, then you could not. If they made it illegal, then you would be charged with abortion, and not murder. This act should not be set aside in law. If you do not legalize it in this way, then it will be treated as any other murder would. If the mother's life were in danger, then it could be said to be self defense, and so on. It works out rather well with my policy in that way.

Those who would kill their children will have ended their line, and so we will not have children raised by people who would do so, or will not have the genes that brought their parents to that mentality. It would root out the mentality a bit more effectively than simple persuasion. Let those who would do it die off, and you will kill the practice.

That is correct. Or, more to the point, leaving it in the hospital room. Putting it on the street would be doing something to it. If you are going to do something to it, do not be half-hearted about it like that.

That is correct. I was mentioning it because people might say that abortion is not the murder of a mind that exists, though that does not seem to be a popular notion here. Sorry.

They are one and the same in my eyes. Without being able to determine the child's value system, neither can be decided on before birth.

 

Correction. Conscious memories do not exist. If ALL memory before then did not exist before 3-4, even the most remedial language skills wouldn't develop until then. I'm pretty sure that you've been able to talk with meaning since you were at least 2, right?

 

Wow this is all very interesting. And I didn't know much about this case myself. I will stay at a neutral point with this topic though. But it was good that someone brought this up. Otherwise I would have never known...

 

Ah, okay. I thought we were referring strictly to conscious memories, as opposed to skill-based.

What are we defining as a 'memory' then? Is breathing memory-based?

 

Breathing is not memory based at all because the brain does it automatically. It's the same thing as many of the background procedures on your computer. You brain's operating system comes with it preinstalled and executes it as soon as the umbilical cord is unplugged. If I remember correctly, baby's heart begins beating within less than a week, long before any sort of memory centers are formed. Besides that, skill memory doesn't encompass all unconscious memory. For example, many babies learn to recognize "mommy's" voice while still in the womb. Other things that are considered unconscious memories are things like, "Mommy and daddy love me," "I sleep at nighttime," and "I can't see with my eyes covered," albeit in not so many words. All of these things are stored as long term memory in hippocampus. Because all of these things are more or less engraved upon us from the beginning of our lives, the bonds between the neurons that encode these become permanent and as a result become self evident very quickly early in our lives.

 

What were you referring to, specifically?

Interesting... I had not thought on that much. Thank you for that.