When does life begin?

[Callipygous]

1. Nothing new. Everyone judges others out of context as a bundle of attributes' date=' we have the largest per capita online presence, we are very controversial.

 

2. [b']W[/b]hite Anglo-Saxon Protestant.

 

 

thanks for clearing that up for me.

 

just to set the record straight, "the americans" dont believe a god damn thing. SOME americans may think god is an american WASP, SOME americans may have voted for bush, but a large portion of us do not, and did not.

 

 

(i only bring that second one up because its the bashing i hear most commonly)

[reverse]

It’s relevant because a medical person sticking a knife into you is making a surgical incision, anyone else is just stabbing you.

 

They have the privileges and responsibilities granted to their fraternity.

 

This is the constitution of their fraternity.

[Callipygous]

It’s relevant because a medical person sticking a knife into you is making a surgical incision' date=' anyone else is just stabbing you.

 

They have the privileges and responsibilities granted to their fraternity.

 

This is the constitution of their fraternity.[/quote']

 

 

that is the ANCIENT constitution of their fraternity. most of the modern versions dont contain the part that is relevant to this discussion.

[reverse]

 

just to set the record straight' date=' "the americans" dont believe a god damn thing..

 

 

[/quote']

 

 

 

That’s not what statistics tell me.

 

A deified mortal, Asclepius was not worshipped as a god until the fifth century BC, when he took over the role of the god of healing from his father Apollo. Shrines and temples of healing known as Asclepieia were erected throughout Greece where the sick would come to worship and seek cures. Snakes, symbols of rejuvenation (since the snake changes its skin), were important in his worship, and were kept in the Asclepieia. Asclepius himself was thought to sometimes appear in the form of a snake and patients who saw snakes in their dreams believed that he had come to their aid.

 

The Staff of Asclepius

Asclepius was generally depicted as a bearded man wearing a robe that leaves his chest uncovered. Images of Asclepius are recognisible his prime attribute, the snake, usually coiled around a staff. The staff of Asclepius with coiled serpent is the traditional symbol of medicine. However, in modern times, the caduceus (showing twin snakes around a staff with two wings at the top), has also been used to represent medicine. In Greek (Roman) mythology, the caduceus was the staff of Hermes (Mercury), the god of commerce, eloquence, invention, travel, and theft, and so was a symbol of heralds and commerce, not medicine.

 

 

"not medicine". that says it all really.

 

"commerce, not medicine"

 

kick em out of the brotherhood .

[Callipygous]

That’s not what statistics tell me.

 

Hey' date=' look up what responsibilities those particular Greek gods had,

you may find that they represent a belief you agree with. [/quote']

 

will do.

[reverse]

that is the ANCIENT constitution of their fraternity. most of the modern versions dont contain the part that is relevant to this discussion.

 

and that should immediately worry you.

 

are you suggesting that the nature of humanity has changed that much?

 

How old is that US constitution now?

[Phi for All]

A deified mortal' date=' Asclepius was not worshipped as a god until the fifth century BC, when he took over the role of the god of healing from his father Apollo. Shrines and temples of healing known as Asclepieia were erected throughout Greece where the sick would come to worship and seek cures. Snakes, symbols of rejuvenation (since the snake changes its skin), were important in his worship, and were kept in the Asclepieia. Asclepius himself was thought to sometimes appear in the form of a snake and patients who saw snakes in their dreams believed that he had come to their aid.

 

The Staff of Asclepius

Asclepius was generally depicted as a bearded man wearing a robe that leaves his chest uncovered. Images of Asclepius are recognisible his prime attribute, the snake, usually coiled around a staff. The staff of Asclepius with coiled serpent is the traditional symbol of medicine. However, in modern times, the caduceus (showing twin snakes around a staff with two wings at the top), has also been used to represent medicine. In Greek (Roman) mythology, the caduceus was the staff of Hermes (Mercury), the god of commerce, eloquence, invention, travel, and theft, and so was a symbol of heralds and commerce, not medicine.[/quote']Citing a resource like the Encyclopedia Mythica verbatim without an ackowledgement or a link is PLAGIARISM, and is a cause for suspension. I'm going to assume you didn't know this. You get one warning, unless another mod or admin has warned you before.

[reverse]

Didn’t know that applied here.

 

Thought it was obvious by it’s construction that it was a quote rather than my own words.

 

Was trying to save people the trouble of clicking on a link.

 

how in depth does the credit have to be?

 

http://www-structmed.cimr.cam.ac.uk/Asclepius.html

 

thats the link... but cant find out exactly who to quote?

(I think only the picture is from Mythica).

 

 

no transgression intended.

[Phi for All]

Didn’t know that applied here.

 

Thought it was obvious by it’s construction that it was a quote rather than my own words.

 

Was trying to save people the trouble of clicking on a link.

 

how in depth does the credit have to be?

 

http://www-structmed.cimr.cam.ac.uk/Asclepius.html

 

thats the link... but cant find out what exactly who to quote?

 

no transgression intended.

It very much applies here. Something as simple as "From the Encyclopedia Mythica:" is usually enough to let others know you are not claiming authorship.

[Callipygous]

and that should immediately worry you.

 

are you suggesting that the nature of humanity has changed that much?

 

How old is that US constitution now?

 

 

oh dont worry, were probly updating soon by stopping all those devilish homosexuals from marrying. that should bring it back up to date with the latest and greatest prejudices instead of back in the dark ages of hating the colored folk.

 

but in all seriousness, thats what amendments are for. and yes, the nature of humanity has changed that much, at least where i live. while government is still based on religion at least its no longer run by it in much of the world (which is where such things as anti abortion laws are based, btw)

[reverse]

It very much applies here. Something as simple as "From the Encyclopedia Mythica:" is usually enough to let others know you are not claiming authorship.

 

Seems strange to me.

 

Poor annotation becomes intentional deception and then is stretched to a possible repeat offence with the hidden motive of personal gain?

 

That makes no sense….what’s to be gained?

…an “A” on my term paper?

 

Oh well, when in Rome…*

 

*No idea when I heard that phrase.

[reverse]

oh dont worry' date=' were probly updating soon by stopping all those devilish homosexuals from marrying. that should bring it back up to date with the latest and greatest prejudices instead of back in the dark ages of hating the colored folk.

 

but in all seriousness, thats what amendments are for. and yes, the nature of humanity has changed that much, at least where i live. while government is still based on religion at least its no longer run by it in much of the world (which is where such things as anti abortion laws are based, btw)[/quote']

 

The gadgets have changed.

we have not.

But we like to use that excuse to get our own way.

 

There are some clauses that can be amended in a constitution as long as they do not go against the main thrust of the document.

 

The use of clever logic, re definition and omission are simple tricks.

 

Why do you think the founding father of the medical sciences bothered to put this specific clause in there.

 

They weren’t just a bunch of dumb guys running around in sheets.

(Although I wonder about Socrates some times).

[Callipygous]

The gadgets have changed.

we have not.

But we like to use that excuse to get our own way.

 

There are some clauses that can be amended in a constitution as long as they do not go against the main thrust of the document.

 

The use of clever logic' date=' re definition and omission are simple tricks.

 

Why do you think the founding father of the medical sciences bothered to put this specific clause in there.

 

They weren’t just a bunch of dumb guys running around in sheets.

(Although I wonder about Socrates some times).[/quote']

 

because it was a different time.

 

for example, just off the top of my head, it might be because back then a very large portion of children died either at an early age or even at or before birth, so killing any child was a serious issue because the human race wasnt already overpopulating the planet. losing children intentionally would seem highly criminal(not quite the word im going for, but i cant seem to put my finger on the right one). also, we didnt know much about stages of developement in fetuses (feti? ) so it would be even more difficult to determine at what point it might be acceptable.

 

 

(also, i would argue that the main thrust of the constitution of the US is against discrimination (what with all that "all men created equal" stuff) yet now we are seriously discussing writing in a clause that does nothing but discriminate)

[reverse]

because it was a different time.

 

 

Yet it doesn't seem odd to you that the topic of abortion was of similar concern to them as it is to us. Both parties separated by thousands of years..

[Callipygous]

Yet it doesn't seem odd to you that the topic of abortion was of similar concern to them as it is to us. Both parties separated by thousands of years..

 

im sorry, but im really missing the point. why would it seem odd to me that two groups of humans in two different times have similar moral dilemas?

 

the difference in time is the decision we reach on those dilemas.

[reverse]

Lets cut to the chase here.

 

I believe that people take positions on topics to support some form of self gain.

 

I take the pro life stance because to me children are the most wonderful expressions of life and humanity, and there is plenty of room for more of them in the developed nations.

 

If you could dig up your self interest in taking a contrary position the we could lock horns on that level and you might find it interesting…or not?

[Callipygous]

Lets cut to the chase here.

 

I believe that people take positions on topics to support some form of self gain.

 

I take the pro life stance because to me children are the most wonderful expressions of life and humanity' date=' and there is plenty of room for more of them in the developed nations.

 

If you could dig up your self interest in taking a contrary position the we could lock horns on that level and you might find it interesting…or not?[/quote']

 

 

im pro choice because forcing a woman to give birth seems similar to raping her for 9 months straight. you are forcing her to do something, with her body, that she does not want to do. it should be her choice whether or not to have a child, not only because of what your doing with her body but because of the emotional, financial, and mental effects it will have on her life. however, i believe that after a certain point it becomes murder to kill the fetus. i think killing someone is even worse than what your doing to the mother. so at a point (3rd trimester, because before that i have trouble associating with it as a person) so after that i think she should have to deal with the fact that she didnt get it done in the first 6 months.

[reverse]

So for me the benefit of pro life is more of what I value (other little human beings who are endlessly entertaining with their dumb questions and stupid games)

 

and for you the benefit of pro choice is freedom of ..movement…body shape?…financial planning?.

Help me here, I’m struggling to understand.

[reverse]

Do you suppose the whole debate pivots around control?

 

And if you believe that life is like that Forrest Gump feather analogy then you accept limited control and deal with what comes your way as it comes.

The other way to look at life is as if you have great power to steer your life in a particular direction to get everything you desire?

[Guest Lucifer]

Well, at least most of us value it higher. The Chinese eat baby girls in the rural areas of the country.

have you been to the country of China?

shit~!

[Kraft]

Ok, I'll try to give my views. It's going to be in deontological pluralistic ethics, which deals with balancing the duties/rights of people. I will refer to Canadian standards as that is where I'm located. Also I can find references if people require them. Social issues such as the right to have children have been ignored in this argument, but competing rights of society are applicable.

 

The main issue with abortion is the personhood of the foetus. A person is a biological entity that has present capacity for sentient thought and volition (constructed persons don't enter this debate). If the foetus is a person then the foetus has rights and its right to life becomes a major issue (equality and justice). At conceptions the foetus is a 'potential person', potential people have potential rights. A non-person can no be murdered, only killed. Thus ethically and legally, a non-person can be killed (think of all the micro organisms you kill daily).

 

Now, how would one determine if the child is a person or not? Well, the structure for sentient thought and volition would need to be in place (i.e. central nervous system development). Through dissections of developing foetuses, the time frame when the CNS is developed adequately is ~18-22 weeks. This is why the CMA has a guideline prohibiting abortions after 20 weeks, and physicians are told they are dealing with 2 patients after that point. Ethically this is a gradational approach, and this makes abortion in the time period before structural development acceptable. Strictly speaking in Canada a foetus does not become a person until it 'proceeds alive from the body of its mother', so there is actually no legal limit on timeframe, only a guideline.

 

Taking this gradational approach to personhood, after the ~20 weeks, there are 2 persons. It does not logically matter that the foetus is inside the mother, or that it is dependant on her; personhood is independant of location, and dependance does not invalidate personhood. One must balance their competing rights. The mother definitely has the right to self determination, but does that overrule the rights of the foetus?

 

If the argument of the mother is her quality of life, against the foetus' right to life, right to life would hold greater force and take precedence. However, in cases where the life of the mother is endangered by pregnancy, the competing rights to life enter the picture. The principle of impossibility enters the picture if, unless aborted the mother will die. If in this case both foetus and mother will die if pregnancy continues, abortion would be appropriate. In case of competing rights to life, my personal view on this is in favour of the mother, but is could be balanced and argued differently.

 

At the current time advances in artificial uteruses may make it possible that the foetus can be aborted from the mother, but continue development inside the artificial unit. When this procedure has been more fully realized, the competing right to life of the foetus may not need be balanced as transfer would be an option (this would be impossible in many less developed nations, I know).

 

So, there you have it. Abortion should be allowed and available up to a certain stage in development, after which one must balance the rights of the foetus against the rights of the mother.

[Callipygous]

So for me the benefit of pro life is more of what I value (other little human beings who are endlessly entertaining with their dumb questions and stupid games)

 

and for you the benefit of pro choice is freedom of ..movement…body shape?…financial planning?.

Help me here' date=' I’m struggling to understand.[/quote']

 

thats like saying the benefit of rape laws is not being poked a few times.

 

you think the shape her body takes on the the most important change a woman would experience as a result of being pregnant?

 

the benefit of prochoice is not telling someone else what to do with their body. i think i made that pretty clear.

[reverse]

Please be patient with me.

I really want to understand your point of view.

But my mind is not your mind and I can only see things in my way.

I know what transformations a woman’s body goes through throughout life and agree totally that the burdens of childbirths are great upon the lifestyle and physical structure.

But also that women live longer and have other endurance features added to assist the process.

 

Can I throw this in while it’s fresh in my mind.

 

The other motivation in my pro-life stance is a deep respect for the process of life.

 

A similar example would be like watching a friend paint a beautiful picture in oils of your favourite place.

 

I would never be able to deface that painting.

I would be held back by my wonder at the artistic ability and thoughts of all the diligent effort of the artist as well as the sadness that there was one less beautiful thing in the world.

 

When I think of all the evolutionary trial and effort, plants that die so you can eat, suns that burn to throw light on the plants, I couldn’t deface any creation of that process.

[reverse]

Ok' date=' I'll try to give my views.

 

The main issue with abortion is the personhood of the foetus.

 

If the argument of the mother is her quality of life.

 

 

So, there you have it. Abortion should be allowed and available up to a certain stage in development, after which one must balance the rights of the foetus against the rights of the mother.

 

[/quote'] (reduced to core concepts).

 

Wow.

 

That says it all…

 

and yet says nothing.

 

The law recognises potential, or things yet to be.

 

That’s why you can get options to buy in stock or compensation for loss of potential earnings.

 

Physics recognises potential…

 

Newton even names a particular energy after it.

 

Criminals are kept in jail according to Potential.

 

Potential to re offend.

 

All the surface gobbledygook is just a cloth thrown over the real personal issue, and I really want to understand that core motivation.

[reverse]

have you been to the country of China?

shit~!

 

Chill out Lucifer,

 

no one believes that.

 

and even if there are isolated incidents, then you will find them in every country.

 

But hang on a second.

 

according to your log in name (as the Mythological fallen angel and lord of lies) aren’t you supposed to be winding up the conflict rather than adding sense to it?

 

See here .

 

http://www.answers.com/topic/lucifer