|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
posted June 27, 2008 01:53 PM |
|
|
Ok I'll try to reduce the quote wars and respond only to the main points.
@mvass:
Quote:
Forcefully? And it may have been conceived with her permission (or, rather, she was willing to have sex), but she may not wish it to be there any more.
So we come again to the example: I drag you to my home, then I decide to kick you out... and that's ok? 
As for all the quotes about religion and society, here's my response:Quote:
Yes. We all live in society, don't we?
What you don't understand is that I am part of the society as well, and many other people, and we disagree with your model of society. You see, we can as well use religious statements to imply what's wrong and what's right -- in fact, why should your model of society be any better? Don't get me wrong, I understand both are somewhat subjective (even though I also gave biological + soul (even though you don't believe in it) arguments), but you seem to imply as if what you say are facts.
We all live in society, but the society model is questionable -- not everyone agrees with it and in fact, it can change just as people/government want(s). The society model can take any shape, but you take it your view about it for granted -- and remember that not all countries are the same (not all allow abortion for example), which is a proof that it is subjective and depends on the people.
What I meant with the religion above is not that society is a 'religion', but the fact that the society can have a model that is similar to the religion -- if people want that.
Isn't that the point of this discussion? I mean, to talk about our preferences regarding the society model? If you keep using that arguments as if they were facts, we'll get nowhere, and they are not only subjective as in 'your' opinion about the model of society, but also due to the fact that each country/state is different.
Quote:
Because what I suggest would be a socially useful approach. What good do souls do?
So basically you're saying that as long as some humans are useless, it's ok to kill them? That's your model of society? One in which we're a big corporation and we have the goal of getting 'profit' and humans are only classified by usefulness...
no honor, no dignity, no love, no compassion, no integrity... just for profit
it fits an evil 'fantasy' race, you know 
Quote:
The seven criteria of life, from Wikipedia:
1. Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, sweating to reduce temperature. (Is a fetus able to maintain homeostasis by itself? No.)
Exactly why the mother especially at this stage needs to 'take care' of him. She brought him into existence, it's her responsibility to help him survive at least until a point she can do otherwise.
Oh and just because that wikipedia article says how a fetus is made of, it does not explain the 'why' -- why is it not a human and why you can use abortion?
Quote:
Yes. But none of those devices are humans, are they?
So let me get this right. You say that a fetus, which is in itself just some cells, before it develops a brain (for example), is not a human (and thus is ok to kill it). But now, you say that the mother's womb (which has no 'brain' or the other 'important' organs that you say define a human) is 'human' unlike a device? You are either contradicting yourself or simply use subjective convenience. You either agree on a specific definition that applies to ALL or none at all.
Quote:
But what about those who still do?
What about criminals that still commit crime when the law says it's illegal? 
@del_diablo:Quote:
*cough*
1. The fetus is non-gender in termology. Unless it is proven to be a girl or a boy using like ultra-sound, a fetus is nongender.
So gender = human?
Quote:
2. Stop assuming and abuse words like "he" "she". It is easy to speak using a non-gender form. You could use: "The pregnant", "the baby", "the fetus", etc.
Or i could use it but I still don't get what does this have to do? I mean, it's like saying "stop calling God a 'he'" in absolutely any kind of topics, even though the topic different. Or are we supposed to pick on typos now and continue our discussion on that level?
Quote:
However we are talking about what leads to abortions: Accidents and rape.
...
If the pegnancy was by accident, then abortion is legal in my eyes. Accident = the few % the pill do not work, etc.
Sorry to say, but if you are an adult, you need to take responsibility for your actions, be they accidents or not. You know there's a chance, you take responsibility if it happens -- yes, it's your fault, no one forces you. You know the implications, you embrace them like an adult.
If you hit the car someone and call it an accident, it's your responsibility to take him to the hospital or call 911 or whatever. It's also your responsibility to pay for his injuries/treatment, because you did it and because you are an adult. So analogously, it's your responsibility to treat the baby if it's an accident, not wash away your sense of maturity. Who are you going to blame for the accident? Your parents like you do when you are 10 years old? Face the consequences of your actions when you know already the implications.
Accident =/= rape in any way
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 01:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
So gender = human?
No, but humans have a gender, and thus the fetus is not human
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 01:58 PM |
|
|
|
A fetus has a gender too, otherwise it wouldn't develop into a specific gender. Just because we can't see it doesn't mean it isn't there (DNA, or soul, whatever).
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 04:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
However we are talking about what leads to abortions: Accidents and rape.
...
If the pegnancy was by accident, then abortion is legal in my eyes. Accident = the few % the pill do not work, etc.
Sorry to say, but if you are an adult, you need to take responsibility for your actions, be they accidents or not. You know there's a chance, you take responsibility if it happens -- yes, it's your fault, no one forces you. You know the implications, you embrace them like an adult.
Quote:
Accident =/= rape in any way
Oh stop screwing around, rape is one of the worst crimes that can be commited. Rape is A attacking B for sex, attacking and possible even doing physical harm along with the mental scar it causes just for the sake of self pleasure. It is........... the WORST!!!!!!
Accident = someting that happens that is not suppose to happen.
Do me a favor and read the entire thingy!
Quote:
And what? I DO consider using pills to be safe sex, some people simply favours it over condoms. If the pregnant person wanted to be pregnant, the abortion would not happen unless it is because of medical reasons.
However we are talking about what leads to abortions: Accidents and rape.
Since we all agree on rape = allows abortion. Not more to discuss.
And using the above logic: Sex is only for getting pregnant unless condoms are involved.And that is WRONG. Simply there are more methods than condoms, but the condom is the safest in all terms.
If the pegnancy was by accident, then abortion is legal in my eyes. Accident = the few % the pill do not work, etc.
Read it and please quote the entire thing next time.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 05:20 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Accident = someting that happens that is not suppose to happen.
Are you an adult or what? When you make a car accident for example, what are you going to do, blame God for it? Blame your parents? It happens, and when it does, you take responsibility -- that means, you call 911, if you injured someone, or you take him/her to the hospital. If you hit another car, then you get money and repair that. Accidents are not 'supposed' to happen, but when you know there's a chance, and when it comes, you face the consequences like an adult.
Someone comes to you and says: "You know, there's a 10% chance that you WILL hit my car"
You: "I'm an adult, in case it happens, I'll take care of your car, pay the reparations, whatever blabla".
You don't just forget it happened. You involved someone else and you knew there was a chance -- you take responsibility in case it happens, and you do so by taking care of that someone else (be it a car, his health, etc). You may not like to lose your money/job, but tell me something, why should that other guy suffer/lose his car/whatever because of you? You are the offense, you pay the debt.
I'd like to know however, since in this post I repeated myself, why didn't you comment on whatever I said except that last phrase "accidents =/= rape".
The accident may not be what you wanted, but if you knew there was that chance, you face up the consequences in case it happens.
Accidents happen, especially when you know there's a chance they will. And when they do, you treat the one involved in it, which was innocently brought by you because of your 'mistake'.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 05:32 PM |
|
|
The mother does not drag the fetus home, because that implies that the fetus was somewhere else before the pregnancy. That is not so; before the pregnancy, the fetus as such didn't exist.
Instead of saying, "Lalalala, your model of society sucks!", could you actually tell me what's wrong with it
All humans have the right to live. But no human has the right to be provided with anything. That is, I can't kill a beggar, but I have no obligation to give him money or food. That's why pregnant women should have the ability to deprive their fetus of hormones, because they have no obligation to give it hormones. That is, maybe "right to live" should be rephrased as "right to not be killed".
Quote:
no honor, no dignity, no love, no compassion, no integrity... just for profit
As I have explained previously, emotional benefit is still a benefit. And we can well derive an emotional benefit from honor, dignity, love, compasssion, and integrity.
Quote:
you say that the mother's womb (which has no 'brain' or the other 'important' organs that you say define a human) is 'human' unlike a device?
I'm not talking about the mother's womb in isolation - that is, what good is the womb without the rest of the mother? Thus the mother as a whole should be seen as the device, not just the womb.
Quote:
What about criminals that still commit crime when the law says it's illegal?
Yes, but you're not going to be impacted by abortions the way you're going to be impacted by things that are crimes now.
But a car accident is different from what you're suggesting mothers do about unwanted pregnancies. You run into someone, you pay for the damages, the car is fixed and the guy healed of whatever injuries he got, and it's like the accident never happened in the first place (except from the point of view of the insurance company). That is, that accident was reversed. An abortion would do the same thing for a pregnancy. Keeping the baby because of "consequences" makes as much sense as fining you for the accident regularly, and not letting the money go to fixing the car or healing the guy. That is, you seem to be obessed with the idea that people should "live with their mistakes". They should, but only if it is impossible to fix the mistake.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 05:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Instead of saying, "Lalalala, your model of society sucks!", could you actually tell me what's wrong with it
Ok, let's see:
1) Does your model allow compassion for humans? Not if they're not worth anything
2) Is your model discriminatory? As long as the humans are 'born', nope -- but you see, some time ago, the model was also not discriminatory as long as people were white.
Now let me get this straight. Your model draws a line, very subjective one (neither supported by biology nor soul). The problem here is that it is similar to lines drawn by 'racism' or whatever -- in fact this is drawn in a stage of life. Your model also thinks that the only thing that makes humans 'worthy' are their usefulness. The problem with this line is that it's not backed up by anything except 'convenience'. Must I remind you however, that accidents are not convenient -- and yes, if you lose your job because of your pregnancy, it's a fair trial for me. You destroy someone's car, you need to pay it. Even if that means you'll have to lose your 'life'. You made the accident, you are responsible. Why should an innocent suffer instead?
Quote:
All humans have the right to live. But no human has the right to be provided with anything. That is, I can't kill a beggar, but I have no obligation to give him money or food. That's why pregnant women should have the ability to deprive their fetus of hormones, because they have no obligation to give it hormones. That is, maybe "right to live" should be rephrased as "right to not be killed".
Not necessarily, you see, because you gave him life, and that means you are responsible for his life. Just like a parent is responsible for his baby -- or are you telling me that she can do whatever she wants to her baby?
When you involve someone else, you are automatically responsible for him/her/it. As for the analogy of 'dragging' the baby, you see it's quite solid. Just because you give it life (forcefully) doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it.
You give it life -- you take care of it. If you gave the beggar life and he can't (for obvious reasons, not out of lazyness) live by himself, you are obligated to give him food/clothes/whatever. People take these things too lightly you know.
And besides, saying that the woman does not 'want' the baby (even though she knowingly does something which she knows might have a chance), but she does the action that brings it, it's like saying: "I want to put my hand in fire, because it's cool, but I don't want to burn myself". Or "I want to shoot that guy in the head, but I don't want him to die!". Action contradicts what you want. And action was done consciously. Thus, it was in your will.
I'm sorry but the fetus, as you see, is there with the woman's will -- her actions implicitly implied that.
You can't make an action consciously and seriously not expect it's consequences and then claim "I did not want that"... to me it sounds like a kid's excuse in front of his parents (say, 5-6 years old).
Quote:
As I have explained previously, emotional benefit is still a benefit. And we can well derive an emotional benefit from honor, dignity, love, compasssion, and integrity.
Ok so I'll play your game. Then, soul is also 'emotionally' benefit. There, done.
Quote:
I'm not talking about the mother's womb in isolation - that is, what good is the womb without the rest of the mother? Thus the mother as a whole should be seen as the device, not just the womb.
So what you're saying is that when a device is connected to the Power Plant, we should take the plant into account (the device will 'die' without energy, so to speak)?
The device itself is not a human, even though it is a part of a human. Are you saying that my hand is 'human'? Or am I, per total, a human?
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 05:54 PM |
|
|
@mvass
Quote:
Quote:
Consider: a fetus is a fetus up until the moment of birth.
I said not-yet-viable fetus.
Could you please define in a non-arbitrary fashion when, exactly, a fetus crosses the line of "not yet viable" to "viable"?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 05:55 PM |
|
|
Quote:
If you gave the beggar life and he can't (for obvious reasons, not out of lazyness) live by himself, you are obligated to give him food/clothes/whatever.
No, you are not obligated to give him anything. He should be grateful that you gave him life in the first place (because, YOU said earlier "Who doesn't want to live?" so I guess if you give him life it is already a big favor)
And the fetus isn't alive!
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted June 27, 2008 05:58 PM |
|
|
@Asheera
Quote:
And the fetus isn't alive!
I'll ask you the same thing I asked mvass. Can you please define, in a non-arbitrary fashion, what exactly is the meaning of "alive"?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 06:01 PM |
|
|
When the fetus gains a brain and a nervous system, then it becomes alive as it can think for itself.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 06:05 PM |
|
|
TheDeath:
Quote:
1) Does your model allow compassion for humans?
Yes.
Quote:
2) Is your model discriminatory? As long as the humans are 'born', nope -- but you see, some time ago, the model was also not discriminatory as long as people were white.
It's not as long as they're born - it's as long as they're viable. And the difference between viable and non-viable is far greater than between black and white. That is, if one is not viable, then one can't live.
Quote:
Your model also thinks that the only thing that makes humans 'worthy' are their usefulness.
"Worthy"? "Usefulness"? I don't think you understand my model very well.
Quote:
Not necessarily, you see, because you gave him life, and that means you are responsible for his life.
You are responsible for its life, or for ending it.
Quote:
Just like a parent is responsible for his baby -- or are you telling me that she can do whatever she wants to her baby?
She can't kill it because it's already born. But she has no obligation to feed it - she only does so because she thinks she should, and her maternal instinct makes her do so.
Quote:
When you involve someone else, you are automatically responsible for him/her/it.
Do you see me disagreeing with this? Pregnant women are responsible for their fetuses' existence. But they are not responsible for keeping it alive. There's a difference.
Quote:
And besides, saying that the woman does not 'want' the baby (even though she knowingly does something which she knows might have a chance), but she does the action that brings it, it's like saying: "I want to put my hand in fire, because it's cool, but I don't want to burn myself". Or "I want to shoot that guy in the head, but I don't want him to die!". Action contradicts what you want. And action was done consciously. Thus, it was in your will.
People have to take responsiblity for their own actions. But that doesn't mean that they have to "live with the consequences". If you put your hand in the fire, that's entirely your problem, since it's your hand. But as for shooting the guy, if you could somehow cure him to make it so that it was like that it had never happened (not saying that it's all right to shoot someone), then good, you fixed the negative consequences of your actions, and shouldn't have to worry about that guy any more.
Quote:
I'm sorry but the fetus, as you see, is there with the woman's will
Until such a point at which the mother's will is withdrawn.
Quote:
Then, soul is also 'emotionally' benefit. There, done.
Explain how.
Quote:
So what you're saying is that when a device is connected to the Power Plant, we should take the plant into account (the device will 'die' without energy, so to speak)?
The device is not an actual part of the power plant, though. The womb is more like a turbine than something you connect in your home to the power grid.
Corribus:
Quote:
Could you please define in a non-arbitrary fashion when, exactly, a fetus crosses the line of "not yet viable" to "viable"?
"That stage of fetal development when the life of the unborn child may be continued indefitely outside the womb by natural or artifical life-supporative systems." is the legal definition, and I agree with it.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 06:11 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 18:12, 27 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
When the fetus gains a brain and a nervous system, then it becomes alive as it can think for itself.
And at what point does the fetus gain a "brain" and "nervous system"? A fetus develops a rudimentary nervous system within the first couple weeks of gestation. Is it alive at the point? Perhaps you should just take a look at this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neural_development_in_humans
and pinpoint an arbitrary point when the fetus becomes alive according to your criterium of "having a nervous system".
Furthermore, what about species that have no nervous system? Like a sponge, or an amoeba. Are these not alive? Seems like a pretty exclusionary definition of "alive" if you ask me.
@mvass
Quote:
Could you please define in a non-arbitrary fashion when, exactly, a fetus crosses the line of "not yet viable" to "viable"?
"That stage of fetal development when the life of the unborn child may be continued indefitely outside the womb by natural or artifical life-supporative systems." is the legal definition, and I agree with it.
And when is that? I'd like a precise gestational time in # of weeks.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 06:12 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Furthermore, what about species that have no nervous system? Like a sponge, or an amoeba. Are these not alive? Seems like a pretty exclusionary definition of "alive" if you ask me.
They aren't humans anyway, so it doesn't matter as much with them (not that I take that as my definition).
Quote:
And when is that? I'd like a precise gestational time in # of weeks.
The second trimester, so let's say 12 weeks. Best to err on the side of caution there.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 06:13 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 18:14, 27 Jun 2008.
|
Quote:
They aren't humans anyway, so it doesn't matter.
I asked for a definition of "alive". Asheera said that the fetus becomes "alive" when it develops a brain and nervous system. Any definition of "alive" should hold across species.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 06:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Furthermore, what about species that have no nervous system?
There is a reason why those species nor the plants are considered by religious people to not have a soul.
____________
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 06:22 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Furthermore, what about species that have no nervous system?
There is a reason why those species nor the plants are considered by religious people to not have a soul.
Wow, talk about skirting a question. And just for the sake of curiosity - what's the reason?
@mvass
Quote:
The second trimester, so let's say 12 weeks. Best to err on the side of caution there.
(1) You think a fetus can live on its own after 12 weeks?
(2) What's the difference between 12 weeks and 11.5? Seems pretty arbitrary to me.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Asheera
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Elite Assassin
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 06:28 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Wow, talk about skirting a question. And just for the sake of curiosity - what's the reason?
Because they have a brain, they can THINK.
Ok, maybe "alive" is not a good word, since plants are also "alive", but "alive" as in the soul definition, that means you also should get punished if you kill it.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 06:29 PM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 18:36, 27 Jun 2008.
|
@Asheera:Quote:
No, you are not obligated to give him anything. He should be grateful that you gave him life in the first place (because, YOU said earlier "Who doesn't want to live?" so I guess if you give him life it is already a big favor)
Let's see an extreme example:
1) You give life to someone
2) You torture him
3) That someone wants to suicide to end the pain; is it grateful for that?
Just because you give him/her/it life, does not, I repeat, does not give you the right to do whatever you want with it, especially killing.
So are the parents supposed to do whatever they want to the child, abuse him, kill him, you name them...
@mvassilev:Quote:
Quote:
1) Does your model allow compassion for humans?
Yes.
As long as they don't get in your way, I presume, like the fetus, right?
Quote:
It's not as long as they're born - it's as long as they're viable. And the difference between viable and non-viable is far greater than between black and white.
Again, you miss the point. It's not supposed to be a one to one analogy. People discriminate, does not matter what the difference is, they will.
Quote:
That is, if one is not viable, then one can't live.
What is this supposed to mean? Some virii or bacteria are less developed than a fetus and you're telling me they can't live?
Quote:
"Worthy"? "Usefulness"? I don't think you understand my model very well.
Actually I do, you see yours is based more on economics and profit -- as long as a person has no job (even though the person might, for example, be altruistic, but that is not a 'job') you think he/she is lazy and does not deserve any kind of sympathy from the big bosses with money. At least, it's what you said when you explained about the 'less fortunate' ones.
Quote:
You are responsible for its life, or for ending it.
So it means your mother can end your life whenever she wants?
Quote:
Do you see me disagreeing with this? Pregnant women are responsible for their fetuses' existence. But they are not responsible for keeping it alive. There's a difference.
See above with the 'torture' example.
Quote:
People have to take responsiblity for their own actions. But that doesn't mean that they have to "live with the consequences". If you put your hand in the fire, that's entirely your problem, since it's your hand. But as for shooting the guy, if you could somehow cure him to make it so that it was like that it had never happened (not saying that it's all right to shoot someone), then good, you fixed the negative consequences of your actions, and shouldn't have to worry about that guy any more.
You have to live with the consequences, the guy can sue you for shooting him in the head (even though you brought him back to life in this example). Maybe you ruined his life that particular second.. The idea is, whenever your actions involve someone else, you are first supposed to treat him correctly, then you can see to your life. If that means 9 months of treating him, fine, it was your fault. So what if you lose your job (for example)? You're talking as if you're the victim that deserves sympathy first and foremost. That comes after the true victim's sympathy however.
Quote:
Explain how.
See the priests or people that meditate around? They have that 'emotional benefit' (actually to be honest, it's not a true emotional benefit, but I wanted to play your game for a bit). I can't explain since I can't explain emotions either 
Quote:
The device is not an actual part of the power plant, though. The womb is more like a turbine than something you connect in your home to the power grid.
Why is the power plant not an actual part? It needs that part to 'survive'. Is there any kind of objective definition of a 'part'? Nope, but since we assumed one needs the other, then it's a part of it. Actually, since it connects to it, it's a part of it.
Quote:
"That stage of fetal development when the life of the unborn child may be continued indefitely outside the womb by natural or artifical life-supporative systems." is the legal definition, and I agree with it.
Fine, I don't, and for that matter, why should this be the line and not, for example, texts like the Bible (actually I don't think this is mentioned in the Bible, it was just an example!). For that matter, different countries have different 'legal' definitions. It seems it's more subjective than even the Bible!
EDIT: @Asheera:Quote:
There is a reason why those species nor the plants are considered by religious people to not have a soul.
Actually if you read my article, the soul gets first when the 'biological' definition of a life is born.
Secondly, if you take it religiously, the soul does not 'appear' after the brain and has no relation to the brain. The body is in the spirit, not the spirit in the body. That's at least how it goes (the religious definition). In religious terms, the brain is only the RAM (memory) where you keep the storage (sometimes people also said they could remember things outside their lives (this has been used as an argument for reincarnation) but let's not get into that).
Oh, and religion does not say that plants or other beings are not alive 
EDIT2: Quote:
Because they have a brain, they can THINK.
So it's ok to kill something that does not think? Some people can't 'think' when in sleep and don't feel pain, it's ok to kill them because 'tomorrow' they are going to be 'alive'? (just as the baby 'tomorrow' is going to be alive, not exactly tomorrow but you get the idea)
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted June 27, 2008 06:33 PM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 18:34, 27 Jun 2008.
|
@Asheera
Quote:
Quote:
Wow, talk about skirting a question. And just for the sake of curiosity - what's the reason?
Because they have a brain, they can THINK.
Ah, so capability of thought is the criterium for having a soul/being alive? What about a coma patient? What about a dog? Are they alive? Do they have souls?
And I'm still waiting for you to pick a point in neural embryonic development where the fetus "gains a nervous system" and is thus alive by your definition. Unless you can't....
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
