In My Memory

Sayonara I wouldnt if it werent for the fact that they carry so much political persuasivness here in the US. Root, There is a popular misconception that scientists call things "theory" because they havent been proven or arent terribly believable - but that isnt what the word theory means in science. The scientific definition of "theory" (a large of collection of organized and related facts to explain and describe natural phenomena) implies, if anything, that the theory is very credible. Evolution is both a theory and factual. Evolution really describes the diversity of life on the planet, not the origins of life. But for the most part, I know a lot of people who believe that the origins of life can be explained in terms of matter and purely natural phenomena, and I've read books that seem to take the same point of view (lots of mud seems to be thrown about, but evolutionists have the intellectual upperhand, and are probably correct). As far as I know, life isnt is so remarkable as to be explicable only by appealing to the supernatural. And I also know that trying to explain things by invoking the supernatural really doesnt explain things at all - especially not by grounding supernatural explanation in terms of scientific ignorance. Ecoli, I am a former Southern-Baptist, so I'm familiar with the bible. I would say the bible makes a far better guide to helping people live much more loving and caring lives than it does at being a guide of science and history. That being said, the bible doesnt include many testable predictions, but of the ones I'm aware of, most of them have been falsified.

Syntax, Yes, I would agree, but I'm not really sure how much can really be accomplished. Because, almost always, like looping two strings of logic together, solutions will likely be judged first by how morally appropriate they are, which reduces itself down to the moral rightness or wrongness of abortion.

You arent wrong. Try these links, by the way: http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_cul4.htm - the first urban myth that pops up is the Darwin Recanting / Lady Hope myth. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp - its also number one in the AiG's (a christian YECist organization) list of arguments creationists should not use. That sounds to me like could be a paraphrasing of Pascal's Wager.

Syntax, Have I come off that way? If I have, that is entirely the opposite of how I feel. I dont think all suffering is equal. I really dont think a good argument can be made to say that a girl pricking herself on a sewing needle suffers in same way or as much as a person dying of a terminal illness. Its difficult to quantify suffering and measure its intensity, but not necessarily impossible. Lots of external cues, such as a limp, protection of an injured part of the body, abnormal vocal sounds, change in respiration, physiological changes, and lots of other indicators are good ways to objectify pain. There are also a few different questionaires (among other tools) in use to help measure the intensity of pain, they appear to quite accurate. (Note: suffering isnt limited to physical pain.) Doctors, physicians, and vets have been studying physical pain and ways to minimize it for a long time. And certain types of psychologists and lawyers would be out of a job if it were impossible to quantify non-physical types of suffering (like emotional distress, anxiety, etc.). Hmmm... I have a hard time trying to figure out how to justify what you say. Unless the person with money were about to fall into the hands of sadistic killer and it were necessary to kill the person before he were to suffer much much more, I dont really imagine what good reason there is to kill him. I dont think my interest in his money outweighs his interest in his own life and money. What have I said that implies I would find it alright to kill people for their money? Why not? If a person finds living in poverty to be so intolerable that they have no more rational* interest in continued existence, shouldnt they have that right to die? (That's a rhetorical question, and probably worthy of a whole new thread all together.) * Additional clarifying information: I say "rational interest" because most people in suicidal state arent rational, and would be very upet about their own death if they were to approach the same thoughts in their rational state. Of course, the way I see it there really isnt a reason that suicide should be an imperative, in fact there are lots of reasons why suicide isnt an imperative. No I dont. Of course, taking responsiblities for your own actions isnt an absolute. If I'm outside in the rain, and either by own will / through carelessness / or bad luck I catch a cold, do you really think it is easy to justify telling me "no, you brought the condition on yourself, so you'll just have to see it through" - No, of course not, that would be unethical in itself. Lots of behavior is risky and leads to consequences that we might not like. This isnt the same thing as saying we dont have to pay for damages of a car accident if we dont want to, just that all things being equal there are certain consequences that arent an imperative to see through. I know, most people think its a little short-shrift to think convenience can possibly justify abortion, but in my humble opinion I think can be justified on a basis of equal consideration of interests. Do you think suffering is morally relevant at all? And if you think there is something wrong with what I say, on what basis do you think rights should be granted? For me, I am very egalitarian. I find suffering to be morally intolerable. All things being equal, I consider it less unethical to kill something that isnt rational, isnt sentient, isnt capable of suffering, and isnt capable of holding any kind of interest than killing something which is rational, sentient, capable of suffering, and has certain interests. How something suffers is usually one of the first tests of whether something is morally right or wrong - this isnt an irrational standard of ethics. In fact it is an incredibly useful standard of ethics - most people would be very hard-pressed to construct a meaningful reason to explain the moral difference between killing germs on food and killing a person that didnt relate directly to whether people can suffer (sometimes, you might hear about "natural rights", but again it just isnt obvious why the rights of humans prevail over the rights of other things without appealing to whether things can suffer). Even when weighing the moral difference between slapping your own mother and having a cats eyes poked out, most people find that having a cats eyes poked out is much more unethical because it will undoubtedly suffer much much more. I dont think species membership guarantees anyone any kind of right (this kind of prejudice is just as inappropriate as guaranteeing rights on a basis of gender, race, or skull size). All interests should be considered equally regardless of the sex, skin color, or species of the interest holder. Note: I dont mean this in a negative way, but I am ignoring the parts of your post that seem to focus more on how we know things are conscious or whether they act instinctually - while I would usually be very happy to talk on and on about those things, to me they are red herring and not immediately relevant to abortion.

Sayonara, Are you a behaviorist by any chance? Aardvark, I'm not an animal expert, you'll have to ask someone who is to get a more technical answer than I could give. But from what I know, insects act like little automatons, they behave in pre-programmed ways. I've heard about insects having conscious experiences before - although I havent researched those claims to a great extent, from what I already know about insect behavior and how they operate I am a little skeptical. Rabbits and higher mammals seem to have many of the same brain structures in common (they are almost physiologically identical), so I dont think its a stretch to assume they might have a conscious experience of the world. A lot of people seem to have a misconception that humans and human experiences are "special" (whatever that means), but the truth is that many other animals have much more acutely-tuned senses than humans, so I dont see an obvious reason to assume consciousness is unique to humans. I'm not a neurology expert, so its difficult for me to be able to explain in my own words what grounds to detect consciousness. Off the top of my head, I imagine something is conscious if at minimum it can have mental experiences and understand its experiences (I hope that isnt circular logic). I remember asking a friend who is much smarter than I am in topics about the brain and consciousness, and I was pointed to this article called Inner speech and conscious experience. It correlates the experience of human consciousness to a region in the pre-frontal cortex that is responsible for internal monologue (this is important because it allows you to say to yourself "I look nice today, my dress fits very well, I am me"). Its very difficult to develop a sense of self if you cant talk to yourself. Again, I'm not an animal expert, but if rabbit brains are as similar to human and other mammalian brains, then they can probably talk to themselves. Checking for activity that appears organized passing through the internal-monologue regions of the brain is a possible indication of a sense of self. Most abortions take place in the first 12 weeks, and almost none take place after 24. The earliest a brain can experience sensations of pain is about 30 weeks in gestation, before that time it is probably inappropriate to interpret some of the reflexes and movements of a fetus as genuine expressions of pain. I think most of the very late-term abortions (after 20 weeks) take place if the fetus has died the womb, has a condition that it will never gain consciousness, or will severely disable the mother. In the first two cases cases, fetal pain doesnt become an issue, and in the last case fetal-anesthetic is admistered. In actuality, I think some states like California require by law a special type of fetal-anestetic is administered before performing any kind of late-term abortion. Of course! The aforementioned examples arent meant to be an exhaustive account, just a general approach to considering what kind of practical limits there are to the sanctity of life (most people I notice find the examples unreasonable not because they are wrong, but because they are so wildly unbelievable).

Now I feel like one-of-a-kind, I have very dark brown hair and bright green eyes. I get comments about it all the time

Rabbits show lots of signs of their own self-awareness - especially if you are a rabbit owner. They show affection to their owners, they recognize familiar people, they bond with other pets in the house like cats, and if you've had more than one rabbit they definitely have their own personalities - they behave in many unnatural and non-instinctual ways. Foxes are also very intelligent animals, I've never met a fox but they engage in some rather complicated decision making processes and communicate with other foxes - something they couldnt do without a sense of self or some level of conscious thought. The difference between a rabbit's sense of self-preservation and an insect's self-preservation is that rabbits have a conscious interest in their preservation, and a conscious interest in maintaining their continuunious existence. I dont think you are understanding me. I value a sense of self-awareness in my particular ethical system because things with self-awareness have interests and the ability to suffer (suffering isnt limited to physical pain). Having self-awareness and the ability to suffer is a prerequisite to having any interests at all, and therefore deserving of rights to be respected (this is why I dont feel a sense of dread by killing bacteria living on the food I eat or killing a bug which, in my opinion, suffer far less than a cat or a person). Causing things to suffer is morally intolerable - lots of people already feel that way, its just that people like Seditious and I are a peculiar type who apply our sense of ethics equally across the animal kingdom and dont give preferencial treatment to certain beings based on their species membership (that is no more rational than preferencial treatment based on race, gender, or nationality). I only mention irrepairable brain damage because I figured I could save myself a post by clarifying specific scenarios now rather than later - I'm usually very aware of what I write, and how people will interpret it, so sometimes I try to include as much clarifying information as possible so I dont have to go back and forth with another person asking me very pedant questions (in fact, it wouldnt be unusual for someone to notice when I say I might kill insects, then ask me whether I consider insects in my day to day activities as much as other animals - I do, by the way). If you think that makes me one of the most compulsive people ever, you're probably right Since you asked, people in comas with irreparable brain damage dont have fewer rights for the sake that they are unconscious, only because they have no ability to suffer and have no capacity to hold interests. These types of situations are rare, but they do happen - if the situtation comes up when it becomes necessary to weigh the interests of the patient against the interests of those who care for him, then ultimately what happens will favor the interests of the caretakers (without interests of the patient, there is really nothing else to take into account - I apologize if that comes off cold-heartedly). I feel like the topic is beginning to derail a little, so I'll explain why this is relevant to abortion at all: I dont want to minimize the rights of the fetus. I want to see everything treated equally, which is to say I want equal consideration of the interests of all things. However, a fetus doesnt have these interests, so it isnt obvious to me why a non-rational, non-sentient, being incapable of suffering should be granted more rights than a mother who is definitely rational, sentient, and very capable of suffering. Why not just limit the ethical implications of awareness to the capacity to suffer and hold interests?

© the brain structures of the fetus are too underdeveloped to facilitate self-awareness.

The situation is almost identical to the books written by Princeton professor of Bioethics, Peter Singer, on the ethics of killing human beings. Singer's views are very non-traditional, but he backs up what he has to say fairly well (even if what he says contradicts all manner of intuition). Here is a short excerpt Singer's book Taking Human Lives specifically on the topic of infant euthanasia: Singer is the first and only person I've ever known to make a serious case on the ethics of taking the lives of diabled infants. However, it is far too easy to take what Singer has to say out of context and make it seem like he wants to kill all disabled babies, I *strongly* urge anyone to read what Singer has to say for himself before criticizing him. In the technical sense, I think euthanasia is the more direct and succinct choice of words. It is specifically distinguished from other types of killing because A brings about the death of B, for the sake of B.

I've been wearing glasses for a very long time. I wear them all the time, much too nearsighted to see or read anything without them. So, I only take them when I need to, or when I have my picture taken - I must have been wearing glasses for longer than than thought after the most unique experience when my own parents didnt recognize me in the pictures I sent them *sigh*

Although it is probably inappropriate for governments to legislate morality, I think any kind of debate on whether certain actions amount to rights violations inevitably makes it very hard to seperate law from morality. On abortion, because the situation involves conflicting types of self-determination between mother and unborn child, I dont find it inappropriate to make abortion illegal because it is percieved as unethical. I have a tendency to swing back and forth on how I feel about abortion. For now, I would be interested to hear what others think is the basis to consider abortion unethical? Hmmm... In America, our president has pushed forward a bill called the "Unborn Victims of Violence Act" (bills like this have been around for a while). There is a great deal of concern about prosecuting women for what would otherwise be non-crimes. I came across this quote from House Rep Conyers who debated the 1999 version of this bill:

Hello! I am very nerdy, and I like science (especially the kinds that I cant quite wrap my mind around). Although I have to admit my passions are really in religion and philosophy. I live in the US, people know me for having one of those very eccentric personalities, and I really admire the work of people who debunk quack medicine and other kinds of pseudoscience. All the best