Guantanamo Bay

[X`terrania]

Having secret bases & prisons in foreign countries such as in poland (iirc) = bad

 

??

[darkhosis]

i support waterboarding

[SeVeR]

Abortions don't kill anyone. They take away the potential for a life in much the same way not having sex does. So ban the clergy? !@#$%^&*ed hypocrites....

 

Guantanamo Bay was just another example of how fear turned to fascism in America.

 

And of course they gave them wonderful medical facilties. They wanted them healthy for the big show trial and execution.... Saddam anyone? Nazi war criminals anyone?

[NBVegita]

Thats where it is a matter of opinion Sever.

 

Some people believe that the second the sperm fertilizes the egg, you have life. Others believe its when you have brain function. More over some people believe something different still.

 

Who's right and who's wrong? Well I think that is what the entire abortion argument is about.

 

Also choosing to abstain from creating a life ( or sex in general) has no parallel to destroying a fertilized egg/embryo/fetus after already making the choice to partake in an activity where the consequences, even under the most reliable situation, can be thus.

 

With that said I am 110% pro-choice, but that doesn't mean I can't respect the other side of the argument.

[Aceflyer]

Agreed with NBV. The whole abortion argument is really about which point in a pregnancy a sentient life begins at. As NBV has said, some people believe that a sentient life begins the moment you have a fertilized egg. Some believe that said sentient life begins the moment the embryo begins exhibiting some predefined level of neural activity. Some believe that said sentient life begins the moment the embryo becomes capable of survival outside the womb. Others yet believe that said sentient life begins only when the baby is born at the end of the pregnancy. That aside you have a whole other argument, sentient life aside, about whether the mother can do whatever she wants to do with her pregnancy (since "it's her body") until the moment the baby is born. Most people, including most conservatives, believe that at least in some situations (such as in rape or incest, or in cases where the mother's life is in danger from the pregnancy), the mother can do whatever she wants to do.

 

The decision whether to abstain from vaginal intercourse is completely unrelated to the above.

[SeVeR]

I understand what you're saying and have heard it a million times in a million debates. I was over-simplifying, let me elaborate:

 

Life isn't just a combination of cells. When a virus or a cancer combines with your cells or DNA, is this life? Anyone who makes the argument that a sperm+egg combination is the point at which we have a human life is making a different kind of argument. They're arguing about the potential for life. In this case abstaining from creating a life is on equal footing.

 

Terminating a foetus once it has developed brain function is a different matter, as this is the earliest possible point at which it is aware of it's existence. It's no longer a self-replicating machine like a virus.

 

I am pro-choice, but after the point of possible self-awareness, i am pro-life.

[Aceflyer]

I understand what you're saying and have heard it a million times in a million debates. I was over-simplifying, let me elaborate:

 

Life isn't just a combination of cells. When a virus or a cancer combines with your cells or DNA, is this life? Anyone who makes the argument that a sperm+egg combination is the point at which we have a human life is making a different kind of argument. They're arguing about the potential for life. In this case abstaining from creating a life is on equal footing.

 

Terminating a foetus once it has developed brain function is a different matter, as this is the earliest possible point at which it is aware of it's existence. It's no longer a self-replicating machine like a virus.

 

I am pro-choice, but after the point of possible self-awareness, i am pro-life.

 

But how would you define such "possible self-awareness"? It is by no means scientifically clear when a developing fetus becomes aware of its existence.

[SeVeR]

I put in the word "possible" for a reason. Once a foetus is capable of thought, then it's alive. I think we can measure this as electrical impulses, although i don't know if it's measurable for a foetus... and i am far from an expert on the matter. We certainly know if the physical apparatus is there though, and this is a fairly accurate guide i would imagine.

[Aceflyer]

It is certainly possible to determine when neural impulses start to occur in a developing fetus, but it is by no means clear, as far as I am aware, precisely when said neural impulses start representing conscious thought.

 

The presence of neural impulses alone does not imply capability of conscious thought; even the most clearly brain-dead patients typically maintain some level of neural activity.

[Samapico]

No, but neural impulses are necessary to conscious thought. So that's why it would be a good guideline.

[Aceflyer]

My point still stands.

[SeVeR]

The reason i used words like "possible" and "capable" are because i don't think it's necessary to determine "precisely when a foetus starts representing conscious thought" before coming to a decision on abortion. We would have to set a time that is based on the minimum requirements for the possibility of thought, based on the current results of research into the issue. There is a margin for error, and the earliest possible time is what should be used. In the same way we make sure to prove a person is guilty beyond all reasonable doubt in a court of law. The issue is too important to get wrong, we can't take a life, and thus we must take the earliest possible moment for conscious thought, given our current understanding of a developing brain, and use this as opposed to our best estimate of an exact time.

[Aceflyer]

That seems like a reasonable standard to use SeVeR as long as there is an exception for later abortions in the event that such would be necessary to save the mother's life.