Now available beyond Tuesday in Texas.
https://news.yahoo.com/fed-judge-texas-abortion-limits-unconstitutional-190525066.html
Discuss.
https://news.yahoo.com/fed-judge-texas-abortion-limits-unconstitutional-190525066.html
Discuss.
Abortions.
- Thread starter Harambe
- Start date
HighlandHomie
Well-Known Member
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fK6SNNE7Cmw
fishonjazz
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2018 Award Winner
2019 Award Winner
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
Good
I personally do not like abortion and would advise family members against it. However others do not feel the same and I can accept that. So as a policy I support it. With the exception of late term and partial birth abortions. At this points I see it as murder and should be outlawed.
Joe Bagadonuts
Well-Known Member
In other words you're on all sides of this fence?
Nope. It should be legal. Just not a full uncontrolled legal.
I'm all for abortions up to about the 6-7 month mark. Huge pro choice here.. I figure if a woman has to make a complete lifestyle change to have a child safely, they should be able to choose whether or not to go through with it.
The only reason I say up to the 6-7 month mark is because of the good chance of make a choice based on anxiety instead of logical thinking. It's the same thing we go through in IT with a change, we don't wait until the last moment, we give it a week or two before go live to have a go/no go meeting.
I'll stir the pot.. I'm of the opinion a human doesn't exist until it is self aware. Before that, it's just living off of instinct, no more than a pet. Probably the same thinking that keeps me from having kids myself.
The only reason I say up to the 6-7 month mark is because of the good chance of make a choice based on anxiety instead of logical thinking. It's the same thing we go through in IT with a change, we don't wait until the last moment, we give it a week or two before go live to have a go/no go meeting.
I'll stir the pot.. I'm of the opinion a human doesn't exist until it is self aware. Before that, it's just living off of instinct, no more than a pet. Probably the same thinking that keeps me from having kids myself.
New born infants are not self aware. In fact self awareness happens somewhere between 1 and 3 years (look it up if you don't believe me). Are you saying that since an infant is not self aware it is no more a human then a pet? That I can put it to sleep if I want?
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
How do they know it isn't self-aware? Can't read its mind, can't see its thoughts, can't talk to it. Maybe it is fully self-aware and we have no way of knowing that.
And I disagree with making the audience you are trying to convince look up the evidence YOU should provide to prove your case.
Fair enough. It's just a hassle on a phone.
https://m.psychologytoday.com/blog/great-kids-great-parents/201211/self-awareness
1-3 years
https://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2013/04/baby-consciousness/
Glimmers of self awareness start at 5 months. So even going by this it is still after birth
Boy you really take that far road every possible time, don't you.
The short answer: Yes.
The long answer: If you've gone as far as to have a kid(9 months of life change + the "unimaginable" pain of child birth) you should probably give it up for adoption instead of putting it to sleep, just as any responsible pet owner should do. Children seem to be in a little higher demand than pets, particularly newborns.
I am sorry but you are way out in left field on this one. I can see an arguement being made for 6-7 month abortions but anything past birth is murder by law. Rightfully so.
As for that far road. I want your full, detailed position before I truly get into it. Both to know how to respond and to know what I do and do not agree with. Welcome to debate.
You are more than welcome to criticize my beliefs. But remember they are just that - Mine. I'm not forcing anyone into them, or trying to dictate law based on them.
Would I kill babies? No. Do I see them as people? No. They're crawling, slobbering, crap creators that require your full attention. Should I have one of my own my opinion may change, but as a responsible adult I'm not going to create life before I'm ready to provide for it.
If you are incapable of care, or just do not want that responsibility, you should take that child somewhere responsible (Child services, adoption service, LDS family services). You should not be randomly killing babies, and we should not be "putting them to sleep".
But there you were, more than happy to take the furthest, worst road possible and you were ready to pounce on me being a despicable human being because I don't see children as people until they are self aware. Your actions and quick to judge as soon as possible attitude lay credence to the idea that you never do anything to "see what others think", you only ever do something so you can criticize what others think.
You turned a simple statement into a one sided cold war.
At one point or another you'll have to address whether there's a grain of truth there or not.
I'm sure if enough people say it, you'll consider it.
Until then keep on trollin. If nothing else, it keeps most entertained.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kt6rRNANSgI
Mod initiation?
LogGrad98
Well-Known Member
Contributor
2020-21 Award Winner
2022 Award Winner
2023 Award Winner
2024 Award Winner
So I read the article in psychology today. The crux of their argument is that they don't see "evidence" of self-awareness until 1-3 years. And everything they mention as evidence has to do with communication.
Absence of evidence (as in a 1 month old that cannot communicate) does not mean absence of self-awareness. It just means we can't see it or identify it in any way we can confirm. Doesn't mean it isn't there, just that we have no way to prove it. Just because we cannot prove it doesn't mean it cannot exist. Human are notoriously fallable. Another quote.
Just because they do not seem to recognize it doesn't mean they are not self-aware. If you had never seen your reflection before, or only rarely, then the first time you ever did you would not be inclined to first respond "hey that's me" since you would have no idea what that image was to begin with. You would have to learn that. Just because they haven't learned that yet doesn't mean they are not self-aware. Even their summary is a nod to the possibility that self-awareness is still there, just perhaps not fully developed.
And in the second article it is far from definitive. It again relies on seeing the evidence in the same way we would expect from an adult. But they do acknowledge there is still a ways to go in this.
So the best these say is that the earliest we can DETECT something similar to consciousness or self-awareness (not necessarily the same thing) is at maybe 5 months. Just because we cannot detect does not mean it definitively does not exist.
Here is an article with somewhat similar, yet contrasting, viewpoint.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-does-consciousness-arise
Who is to say that true self-awareness doesn't start when the physical constructs are in place, yet the motor abilities and cognitive abilities to manifest it to our observation and understanding are simply not yet in place.
But I guess in context of this thread, the argument is that it isn't a "person" or a "human" until it is shown to be self-aware. In that context we could justify all kinds of things. Someone who is incapable of showing their self-awareness could then be determined to no longer be a "human", instead simply an animal, and therefore there would be no moral qualms about terminating that life (someone who is catatonic due to injury perhaps, or severely mentally handicapped, for example). Seems to be a slippery slope. If the organism is going to become a human being, then it is such at conception, for all intents and purposes.
But that is the age-old debate in this particular issue, one that I suspect will never be resolved. When is the baby "alive", when is it a "person" when is it ok to kill and then suddenly after it crosses some (largely) arbitrary finish line NOT ok to kill it?
I personally have no idea what the truth is to this. I doubt anyone does.
My opinion is that if it has the capability to become a human being left to its own devices and with reasonable care (as in, unaborted, or unabused by drug intake by the mother or similar) then it is, in essence, human from the get-go, and should be treated as such.
Absence of evidence (as in a 1 month old that cannot communicate) does not mean absence of self-awareness. It just means we can't see it or identify it in any way we can confirm. Doesn't mean it isn't there, just that we have no way to prove it. Just because we cannot prove it doesn't mean it cannot exist. Human are notoriously fallable. Another quote.
Just because they do not seem to recognize it doesn't mean they are not self-aware. If you had never seen your reflection before, or only rarely, then the first time you ever did you would not be inclined to first respond "hey that's me" since you would have no idea what that image was to begin with. You would have to learn that. Just because they haven't learned that yet doesn't mean they are not self-aware. Even their summary is a nod to the possibility that self-awareness is still there, just perhaps not fully developed.
And in the second article it is far from definitive. It again relies on seeing the evidence in the same way we would expect from an adult. But they do acknowledge there is still a ways to go in this.
So the best these say is that the earliest we can DETECT something similar to consciousness or self-awareness (not necessarily the same thing) is at maybe 5 months. Just because we cannot detect does not mean it definitively does not exist.
Here is an article with somewhat similar, yet contrasting, viewpoint.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-does-consciousness-arise
Who is to say that true self-awareness doesn't start when the physical constructs are in place, yet the motor abilities and cognitive abilities to manifest it to our observation and understanding are simply not yet in place.
But I guess in context of this thread, the argument is that it isn't a "person" or a "human" until it is shown to be self-aware. In that context we could justify all kinds of things. Someone who is incapable of showing their self-awareness could then be determined to no longer be a "human", instead simply an animal, and therefore there would be no moral qualms about terminating that life (someone who is catatonic due to injury perhaps, or severely mentally handicapped, for example). Seems to be a slippery slope. If the organism is going to become a human being, then it is such at conception, for all intents and purposes.
But that is the age-old debate in this particular issue, one that I suspect will never be resolved. When is the baby "alive", when is it a "person" when is it ok to kill and then suddenly after it crosses some (largely) arbitrary finish line NOT ok to kill it?
I personally have no idea what the truth is to this. I doubt anyone does.
My opinion is that if it has the capability to become a human being left to its own devices and with reasonable care (as in, unaborted, or unabused by drug intake by the mother or similar) then it is, in essence, human from the get-go, and should be treated as such.