h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

broelan:

Sorry I missed your last post.

>>nosretep, i would just like to add that poverty is not defined as a family owning just one car.<<

The legal "poverty level" in the US is close to that. You are talking about absolute poverty. That is different. By the way sense [absolute] poverty is death by neglect, the unwanted unborn children are the most impoverished in the world.

Colonel Sellers:

>>The story of Ananias and Sephira sounds an awful lot like a purge to me.<<

The early Christian societies had willful giving. The problem with Ananias and Sephira is not that they didn't give everything, it's that they lied. The purge was of their sin. Also note that it was not man executing them.

>>So you approve of voluntary communism<<

Yes, even though I don't think it can exist today.

>>you *disapprove* of forced communism, but *approve* of forced families<<

My answer is rather long, sorry.

A government must protect its people. I believe that this is the only function of government that is mandatory (of course then you have to ask if government is mandatory. I believe that it is inevitable). However, sense government is made of people, the people can make other functions of the government. For example, most governments today provide roads. This could be seen as bad considering the fact that the government takes your money to do it and sometimes even takes your land. However, we see this as acceptable in our society. Indeed, many (including myself) believe that is now the duty of the government to provide a good infrastructure.

Now I belive that forced communism is bad because it tramples human liberty. If people are willing to give up liberty (and are able to freely give it up), then the government really doesn't destroy liberty at all. The duty of the family is different than the duty of the government. I believe that it is a husband's duty to love his wive and to honor her. The same goes for the wive to her husband. Furthermore, parents have a responsibility to care for their children and children have a responsibility to obey their parents. Parents violate their responsibility when they kill their children. Husbands violate their responsiblity when they beat their wives. I do not see how I approve of anything "forced" beyond than that. A man and a wife choose to be together. They choose to have children. Therefore the members of the family choose to give up liberty similar to the citizens of a country. The only way that anything is forced would be if they have a child they do not want. In that case I would still hold that parents have a responsibility to care for their child. Sometimes care can be better reached through adoption, but I believe the parents need to make that decision.

I see no contradiction.

Yowuzupman:

>>Well, she [the mother] had the right to not have sex in the first place.<<

Except in cases of rape. In the vast majority of cases you are right.

>>She had the right to use the morning after pill.<<

I believe that human life begins at conception. The morning after pill prevents the zygote (or morula to be more technical) from implanting itself in the uterus. This to me is aborting that human life.

>>Your rights end when you start to play God.<<

Considering the context of this statement, AMEN.

Ok, nosretep, you got me, You can put your baby up for adoption. Wait... how much do hospital bills cost for a pregnancy?
wait... they still have to carry their baby to term, right?
Address these, nosretep, if you please, and our conversation progress.

So you believe abortion is more painful than adoption. How many times have you had an abortion, and how many times have you put up your child for adoption?

About this car/poverty level thing. Maybe you're wealthy in the States, but in Canada, you can ask the homeless guy on the corner of Yonge Street in Toronto what he thinks the poverty-level is.

I'll tell you what, Nosretep. You tell me that you'll volunteer your body to carry a foetus to term, give birth to that foetus and then put it up for adoption or whatever, and do this with every mother who wants an abortion, and I'll agree that you're morally right.

See, Nos, society does NOT force a woman to have a teenager she does not want. IF the teenager is of age, she can just kick them out of the house, or if they aren't old enough, she can sign them up for adoption.

Now, I say again. You people do not realize women are NOT baby-machines. They are NOT. The have the right to do whatever the hell they want to as long as it does not infract the rights of others. Because they're people. Then, they have the right to NOT be forced to be a parent, beacuse THEY'RE PEOPLE.
See, you're dealing with this as though those people who are having these babies are not all living, sentient beings themselves. You're dealing with this as though these women and GIRLS are just blank automatons who churn out children, and if they have a 'silly,' whimsical idea about stopping to have, maybe a career, or an education, you cry foul and claim they're committing a crime.
Women are alive, and they are in charge of THEIR OWN LIVES. I find it ceaselessly irritating that people assume to force their beliefs of 'right' and 'wrong' on other people.

I'll tell you what, Nosretep. You agree to have a womb surgically implanted in yourself. Then you agree to carry the child of every person who wants an abortion to term, and give it up for adoption or whatnot. That way, we solve all our problems!

Also, I would just like to add that I find it sickening that you think the poverty level is only owning one car. Come to Toronto. Walk down Yonge Street. Tell the panhandlers that you think they own a car and a house. These people have nothing except their clothes, which were usually foraged out of the garbage. THEY're the impoverished. The women who have to leave their homes because their spouses or fahters beat and abuse them, and are forced to live in a shelter, THEY're impoverished. Maybe you should step outside of your suburbia dwelling and look at the world.

Also, the little statement that communism would only work for Christians? Sounds like a statement of superiority to ME. Who else thought they were superior? oh yeah! Nazis!
Ghandi wasn't christian, was he? I'd trust him to run the entire planet any way he wanted.

Nos, in cases of rape, all bets are off.

Clarke
>>The have the right to do whatever the hell they want to as long as it does not infract the rights of others.<<

That is correct, when you abort you infract on the rights of the child, their most basic right, to live!

>>Women are alive, and they are in charge of THEIR OWN LIVES. I find it ceaselessly irritating that people assume to force their beliefs of 'right' and 'wrong' on other people.<<

Hitler was in charge of his own life too. What would have happened if we had followed your method and not impose our beliefs of 'right' and 'wrong'!


'How much does medical treatment cost?'

I ask you this, how much is life worth?

Actually, Yowz, The foetus is not recognized as a human until it is outside of the mother.
And the foetus is not even legally alive until it reaches a certain trimester, I'm not sure which,
and abortions, in Canada at least, are illegal at this trimester. So, really, depriving non-living,
non-(currently) human, non-thinking, almost parasitic entity of thei, 'life' isn't quite what you think it is.

Yowz... Why do you say things that make you sound silly? I did say that they could do anytihng
that didn't infract other people's rights, didn't I? I think I did. Well, that's why we allied against Hitler. He
was depriving millions of their basic rights.

Yowz, don't ask me how much life is worth. To me, life is nothing but chemical reactions. It's the
suffering that I think we should avoid, and take care not to inflict on others. To me,
suffering is worse than death, because death is nothing. It's just an end. Life is an attempt
to avoid suffering, and perpetuate your species, at the most basic, animal instinct. When you suffer,
or others suffer, they ae suffering a fate worse than death, because death is a surcease of everything.
Sensation, thought, everything.

That's why I'm pro-choice, right? if you can end the potential of life for something that has none at this point,
and therefore help a person to avoid pain, anguish, depression, etc, then I believe that's a better than fair trade.

Actually, Yowz, The foetus is not recognized as a human until it is outside of the mother.
And the foetus is not even legally alive until it reaches a certain trimester, I'm not sure which,
and abortions, in Canada at least, are illegal at this trimester. So, really, depriving non-living,
non-(currently) human, non-thinking, almost parasitic entity of thei, 'life' isn't quite what you think it is.

Yowz... Why do you say things that make you sound silly? I did say that they could do anytihng
that didn't infract other people's rights, didn't I? I think I did. Well, that's why we allied against Hitler. He
was depriving millions of their basic rights.

Yowz, don't ask me how much life is worth. To me, life is nothing but chemical reactions. It's the
suffering that I think we should avoid, and take care not to inflict on others. To me,
suffering is worse than death, because death is nothing. It's just an end. Life is an attempt
to avoid suffering, and perpetuate your species, at the most basic, animal instinct. When you suffer,
or others suffer, they ae suffering a fate worse than death, because death is a surcease of everything.
Sensation, thought, everything.

That's why I'm pro-choice, right? if you can end the potential of life for something that has none at this point,
and therefore help a person to avoid pain, anguish, depression, etc, then I believe that's a better than fair trade.

Actually, Yowz, The foetus is not recognized as a human until it is outside of the mother.
And the foetus is not even legally alive until it reaches a certain trimester, I'm not sure which,
and abortions, in Canada at least, are illegal at this trimester. So, really, depriving non-living,
non-(currently) human, non-thinking, almost parasitic entity of thei, 'life' isn't quite what you think it is.

Yowz... Why do you say things that make you sound silly? I did say that they could do anything
that didn't infract other people's rights, didn't I? I think I did. Well, that's why we allied against Hitler. He
was depriving millions of their basic rights.

Yowz, don't ask me how much life is worth. To me, life is nothing but chemical reactions. It's the
suffering that I think we should avoid, and take care not to inflict on others. To me,
suffering is worse than death, because death is nothing. It's just an end. Life is an attempt
to avoid suffering, and perpetuate your species, at the most basic, animal instinct. When you suffer,
or others suffer, they are suffering a fate worse than death, because death is a surcease of everything.
Sensation, thought, everything.

That's why I'm pro-choice, right? if you can end the potential of life for something that has none at this point,
and therefore help a person to avoid pain, anguish, depression, etc, then I believe that's a better than fair trade.

it should, and is, recognized as life as soon as it is concieved! If you kill a pregnant woman it's Double Homicide! Once it is made, it has rights. Killing it deprives it of life.

Chemical processes only? What exactly do you hold dear?

nosretep: "The problem with Ananias and Sephira is not that they didn't give everything, it's that they lied. The purge was of their sin. Also note that it was not man executing them." - I won't get into the silliness of believing mythology to the letter (the Muse of writers titters over my shoulder as I write that one), but it was not for a lie they were killed. They were killed because they sold something and kept part of the money. They didn't have to give them ANY money, the greedy b******s.

"Now I belive that forced communism is bad because it tramples human liberty." - We agree. Now tell me why rape is not just like a case of "forced communism." Then tell me why a woman who conceives through ignorance or being pressured into sex is not a victim of "forced communism." Then tell me why a man who impregnates a woman through deception (she inverts and inserts his used condom, or deceives him into thinking she has been properly using the pill or the shot, or lies about a medical condition which rendered her infertile) is not a victim of "forced communism."

Colonel Sellers, a political and familial Libertarian.

pro-life advocates believe that life begins at conception. therefore abortion is amoral and should be illegal. for the sake of argument, lets say that i believe that life begins when the heart beats and there is brain function, and that abortion before this stage is perfectly acceptable. who are you to impose your BELIEFS on me?

i notice that hitler comes up in this discussion alot. if nothing else, i would think that the example of hitler would demonstrate that anything taken to an extreme is a bad thing. wouldn't a complete ban of abortion in all circumstances be an extreme? considering all of the different possibilities of circumstances that just might possibly lead to an unwanted pregnancy, to outlaw any recourse across the board sounds rather extreme to me. but those are just my beliefs. i also believe that hitler has no place in this discussion.

nosretep, you stated that parents 'violate their responsibility' when they kill their children. i believe killing a child and aborting a fetus are two different things, i assume that you believe otherwise. that's okay, i won't hold your beliefs against you but i was wondering if you would also consider it a violation of responsibility for a parent to beat their child. to neglect it. to mentally, physically, and emotionally abuse it. is it okay for a parent to hold a child responsible for everything that has gone wrong since the child's birth? is it okay for the parent to let the child know, in no uncertain terms that the parent resents the fact that it was born? nosretep, have you ever read a book called "a child called it"?

adoption is a wonderful concept. it is also not a concept that works with any acceptable rate of success. there are too many children in the system. and not enough potential parents that are willing and affluent enough to adopt them. it works for a small percentage of unwanted children, i'm sure, but by far does not solve the problem.

Yowz, I'll tell you what I hold dear. The happiness of the individual. The right of the individual to live without suffering or unhappiness. The idea that death is a big, horrible, nasty thing hinges on the belief of an afterlife. Death is nothing.

I believe the conversation topic here was abortion, and why some people believe it's acceptable, and why some people do not. I believe it's acceptable because the mother would have to suffer herself because of mistake that results in a not-yet living thing. Any woman has a right to decide whether or not they're going to accept something that will alter their life to such a degree that it will never be the same again. I think that if the pro-lifers would look beyond their beliefs and their precepts of existenec they may be more likely to accept things like abortion, and suicide. Maybe not, but it's not really appropriate to form an opinion based solely on dogma fed to you from birth.

Yowz, I'll tell you what I hold dear. The happiness of the individual. The right of the individual to live without suffering or unhappiness. The idea that death is a big, horrible, nasty thing hinges on the belief of an afterlife. Death is nothing.

I believe the conversation topic here was abortion, and why some people believe it's acceptable, and why some people do not. I believe it's acceptable because the mother would have to suffer herself because of mistake that results in a not-yet living thing. Any woman has a right to decide whether or not they're going to accept something that will alter their life to such a degree that it will never be the same again. I think that if the pro-lifers would look beyond their beliefs and their precepts of existenec they may be more likely to accept things like abortion, and suicide. Maybe not, but it's not really appropriate to form an opinion based solely on dogma fed to you from birth.

Death is nothing. Hmmm intresting point. Let me think about this, termination of existance is nothing. Still not getting your point, maybe I should look at it differently. Loss of the ability to have fun is nothing....Nope. Perhaps losing your ability to think and interact with the world is nothing?

Perhaps to get this thing moving we should define the word "life".
Lets define it by asking ourselves questions...
Is a single cell that can reproduce, life? Yes
What is breathing? The process by which oxygen gets to the cells.
But what exactly is life? .........There is no generally accepted definition of life as of yet..........perhaps we should make one!

Yowuzupman,

>>What is breathing? The process by which oxygen gets to the cells.<<

Actually as was pointed out to me earlier, you just defined resperation, not breathing. I don't necessarily agree, but it is a minor detail. All life that I know needs oxygen to survive (if I remember correctly plants need oxygen as well, they just need a lot more CO2).

>>There is no generally accepted definition of life as of yet..........perhaps we should make one!<<

Good luck. We also need to define what makes life distinct. Is a cell in our body alive? It reproduces and respires. It is also a part of a larger whole. Is the larger whole a distinct life form, or are the individual parts of the whole distinct life forms? You see this logic runs around awhile and gives more questions than answers.

Yowz, please, don't intentionally misunderstand me simply because you wish to debate. What I said is, life culminates in death. Death is nothingness. When you are dead, you cease to have any sensory input or thoughts whatsoever.

Besides that, the loss of the ability to have "fun" and to interact with your environment is also nothing, as, when you die, you lose the ability to miss these things. You don't have regrets, because you're dead. And when you simply interrupt the growth of a thing that is not even techinically alive at the moment anyway, you are doing less than inducing this total blank. You're just prolonging it indefinately in favour of safeguarding the happiness of a currently alive individual.

Life is the cascading chemical reactions that go on in a body in an attempt to prolong themselves.

actually, Nosretep, I know this is aside, but plants do not need oxygen at all. It is a waste product they exhale after they use the CO2.

Clarke - plants do need oxygen - they respire just like any other living organism. They do release oxygen also as a by-product of photosynthesis. But that;s completely off the point.

Sorry if this has already been raised, but why is it that the foetus is automatically deemed to have superior rights to the mother? Yes, the foetus cannot speak for itself, but then again the foetus is actually a non-entity. Unlike its mother, it has no experience of literally anything. Whilst I certainly don't want to go down the path of justifying the worth of one life against another, I am basically arguing that the foetus has not lived. It is merely the potential for life - it has not actually begun to live. Because a woman has a fall and this results in miscarriage, has she 'murdered' the foetus? Please bear in mind that 1 in 4 pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion - ie. miscarriage. A foetus is quite literally a parasite - it depends on its mother for survival, diverting her body's own resources to nourish itself. Frankly, the idea that life begins at conception doesn't really hold with me - a person who brain-stem dead but on a life support machine is sustained only by the machine, ie. they are incapable of living independently. Likewise the foetus - until 22 weeks the foetus in incapable of independent survival.

Ok, as to the plant, uh, thing, I stand corrected.

I agree wholeheartedly with what you said, because it reflects what 've been saying all along.

Clarke:

>>Life is the cascading chemical reactions that go on in a body in an attempt to prolong themselves.<<

Ok, although I won't personally use this definition, it seems scientifically sound to me. However, under this definition a fertilized egg has life. Also note that a child in its mother's womb could be said to have more "fun" than a new-born child. After all it does back flips

St Emily:

>>why is it that the foetus is automatically deemed to have superior rights to the mother?<<

What do you mean by superior? I believe that a fetus has similar rights as a newborn child. Does the newborn child have "superior" rights over its mother?

>>Unlike its mother, it has no experience of literally anything.<<

I don't remember anything until I was about 3 years old. Did I have no experience before then? A child in the womb in the third trimester (and earlier) can experience many sensations and even reacts to stimuli.

>>It is merely the potential for life - it has not actually begun to live.<<

Please explain.

>>Because a woman has a fall and this results in miscarriage, has she 'murdered' the foetus?<<

The law recognises how fragile the life of a fetus is. Note that if a driver in several states of the US hits a pregnant woman and kills her fetus, he or she can be tried for vehicular manslaughter. In many cases of miscarraige, the woman does nothing wrong. It is when she intentionally kills her child or kills it through neglect that the term murder may apply.

>>Please bear in mind that 1 in 4 pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion - ie. miscarriage.<<

These statistics are skewed because most end in the first few weeks. Note also that this is decreasing with modern medicine just like the number of deaths in child birth and the number of children that die before reaching adulthood.

>>A foetus is quite literally a parasite - it depends on its mother for survival, diverting her body's own resources to nourish itself.<<

This has been covered. The mother's body prepares itself to carry the child and helps it along. It is incorrect to say that the fetus forces the mother to give it what it wants. This would display abilities that I am surprised you would ascribe to it.

>>Frankly, the idea that life begins at conception doesn't really hold with me - a person who brain-stem dead but
on a life support machine is sustained only by the machine, ie. they are incapable of
living independently.<<

Note that the zygote/morula is not implanted in the mother's womb and can live outside her body in a laboratory environment. The mother then provides nourishment and a regulated environment. She does not control breathing, regulate heart beat or brain function. We are in similar straits with our planet. Not to sound too much like an environmentalist, but the earth gives us nourisment and a regulated environment (although we can take more change than a fetus).

>>Likewise the foetus - until 22 weeks the foetus in incapable of independent survival.<<

Again, without our environment we too would not survive. Note also that this is in the second trimester.

so, nosretep, are you saying that an abortion in the first trimester is acceptable?