posted 11-05-98 05:23 AM ET        

i've been thinkin..... u now what i think!?
the sniper is probley an devorced guy whos wife left him and had an abortion of his baby (its "his" too) and wants vengence!! Be afriad! be very very very afriad!! fear is a very powerful tool! and it is!!

November 11... remembernce day!!!!!!!!!!
lets remember shall we..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Ok good! now lets get your opinion!!! women DO have the right to "there" own bodies but they are carring someone elses inside them!!! if they were to pig headed to know that if you have sex the is ALWAYS!!!! a chance to get pregnent..... Have the baby!!!! give it up to adobtion if you have too but give it life!!!!.... same goes for rape! i understand its a very tromation thing to go through but have the baby and give it up to adobtion.....

well thats my lil rant for today!!... mabey i'm being to hard on the doctors.... well yes i am.. they shouldn't be shot! But! they should stop what they doing.....stop!! i say!!!

posted 11-05-98 09:50 AM ET            

You are one sick pathetic individual if you think doctors who save lives should be shot !!!

In fact, I think it's so disgusting what that doctor killer did, that killing him would be too kind ... whoever the doctor shooter is should be locked up in a cell and have an ounce of flesh sliced off every day until he disappears into nothingness !!!

posted 11-05-98 09:51 AM ET            

now that that's done:
well, i think that the couple should make the choice. And in that they should have as many options as possible. albeit, even if i don't like the killing. it is not for me to decide.

also, if the abortion doctor wasn't there, we may have lost 3 lives, not just one, the baby, the mother and the father? instead of just one? hmmmm

posted 11-05-98 12:49 PM ET            

No one can be THAT brain damaged.

First of all, what's the logic behind shooting the doctors?? It's not like less babies are going to die - those women that want an abortion will just go to another doctor. Result: 1 doctor dead, no reduction in 'baby murders'. I've never heard of a case where a mother didn't have an abortion because there wasn't a doctor around that could do it. So the target of those ill-formed minds must be to wipe out every doctor that can and is prepared to perform abortion. May be, eventually, there will be a shortage of such doctors then. Result: Many doctors brutally murdered, many patients die because of lack of qualified doctors, lots of unwanted babies will be born, many of which will fall through the welfare net to become drug addicts, criminals and murderers.

Why don't you just go and shoot the women that want to have an abortion? Or shoot the president for not banning abortion? This sort of mentality has no place in a democratic society. You can't go around shooting people if you don't like what they're doing.

Also, even if they manage to kill all the doctors that perform abortion, one must be naive to think that that would stop women from aborting their pregnancy. One way or the other, they will do with their own bodies what they choose, not what those twisted trigger happy maniacs tell them to. With a tiny difference though - many will die during the abortion done secretly, in poor conditions by an unqualified person. But I guess the existence of few cells are more precious to them then the life of a human being.

Finally, what right does anyone have to be the judge, jury and executioner in a case (or in fact in any case) where the society doesn't even agree on whether a crime has been committed?

My personal opinion is that no crime is committed during an abortion. However I'm pretty damn sure a crime is committed when a doctor gets shot. By your reasoning, I seem to have the right to go and kill the retard that did it...

In fact, I don't feel particularly strong about the issues of abortion. It's woman's body - let her decide. It is not my baby until it is born i.e. comes out of the womb and is able to live and develop into an adult, be it with some help from doctors. That is my opinion, I'll respect yours. What really does get me going though is display of complete and utter ignorance and stupidity. Please forgive me.

Thanks for your patience,

posted 11-05-98 01:15 PM ET            

-Maya

posted 11-05-98 02:38 PM ET            

Heckler

one small note about the above "eye for an eye" is a rotten deal everyone ends up blind.

"Behold I have become the destroyer of worlds"

posted 11-05-98 02:47 PM ET            

There seem to be a lot of quotes just made for Grimstonesomething.

posted 11-05-98 02:53 PM ET            

We killing abortion doctors.
Abortion doctors killing innocent babies.
Mothers killing their innocent children in the womb.

They all are WRONG.

My personal theory is that most abortion performers are ignorant of the ritual human sacrifices they perform to Satan in the abortion process. They have been deluded by the Extreme Feminists whom I believe know a lot better what abortion truly is and who it really serves. Judgement will fail hardest on those who knew and then on the ignorant who failed to check it all sides of the issue carefully.

Abortion - worse than the Holocast. More killed. Victims more innocent.
Abortion - the evilist act know to man - the ritual sacrificing of absolute innocents out of pure selfishness.
Abortion - the ultimate selfishness.

posted 11-05-98 03:08 PM ET            

"ritual human sacrifices they perform to Satan"

"Extreme Feminists whom I believe know a lot
better what abortion truly is and who it
really serves" - What, Satan again ?

"the ritual sacrificing of absolute innocents"

What's ritual about abortion ?

If we want a serious discussion about the issue
(non-serious is brimstonething, and IMO your rituality stuff - sorry),
OK. I'm strongly against abortion, and therefore strongly pro-choice.
If you try to deny choice, you won't reduce the number
of abortions, you'll just make them more dangerous and
cause additional loss of life. The only reasonal way is to
leave choice open, but to support a pro-life choice. If that's too pragmatic,
maybe, but the optimal solution - no abortions at all - just isn't on the menu.

posted 11-05-98 03:20 PM ET            

What say do they have it? Who speaks for them? Who safeguards their basic human right to live?

It is the role of government to protect the rights of those who can not protect them themselves. Most governments of the world fail this duty.

posted 11-05-98 03:26 PM ET            

5th amendment: life, liberty and property.

In Roe vs Wade, the supreme court held that a ban on
abortion is a violation of women's liberty. I don't support that
interpretation, but it shows you cannot undisputedly invoke
the constitution for your point.

posted 11-05-98 03:27 PM ET            

IF YOU HAVE SEX YOU MAY HAVE A BABY

how dumb are some people?
again stop running away and fess up for your actions!!!

posted 11-05-98 03:37 PM ET            

Abortion also is a violation of the UN's Universal Statement of Human Rights.

Society has an obligation to protect the rights of those who cannot protect them themselves. An unborn child has no means to protect those rights so governments have the obligation to protect the rights including their right to life even when opposed by the child's natural parents. Any government (of the people) who fails to do so, fails its basic role as a government. Any member of that government (of the people) who fails to advocate protecting the rights of those who can't protect them themselves is guilty of high treason against the people that the government represents.

posted 11-05-98 03:58 PM ET            

but i'm still against abortion but in a peaceful and calm way?

Well i'm not sure i have brain damage but i do have a headach...... Roland!!! stop using you highly developed phycic mind try to hurt me

posted 11-05-98 05:36 PM ET            

Anyway, I find the idea that a fetus is actually an individual dubious at best.

posted 11-05-98 05:44 PM ET            

That's the joy of the Internet being so freaking big you know, there's always an appropriate place to talk about something, and yet so many insist on doing it in inappropriate places.

posted 11-05-98 05:56 PM ET            

A fetus is just a collection of generic cells for a considerable portion of development. After specialization had occured to the extent that there is a brain capable of operating the body, I will accept that the fetus is an individual, seperate from the mother, but not before.

posted 11-05-98 06:30 PM ET            

You have some serious problems Grim, no life deserves to be taken, no matter if they were a fetus, or a murder victim. An abortion doctor is doing his job, not some evil Hitler scheme. Get your head checked, I tend to think people like you should all be shot!

FREEDOM, LIberty & Im tired of typing all this.

posted 11-05-98 07:05 PM ET            

"State Laws also make it a crime to deliberately kill an individual." And an individual is what the Supreme Court says it is, and right now that's after birth not conception.

It is a violation of the 10th amendment for the Supreme Court to rule against them.

Again, the Supreme Court is infallible unless it says itself that it messed up. They can interpret the Constitution however they want. The SC doesn't "violate" the constitution, they simply intrepet the Constitution differently than how it "should" be, i.e. Dred Scott, U.S. v. E.C. Knight Co., and Plessy v. Ferguson. Whether Roe v. Wade should be added to that list is up to the modern SC, and so far it shouldn't be.

"This issue has not been addressed in front of the Supreme Court yet. It is also grounds for any state to leave the United States for breach of Contract, namely, the US Constitions. If I had the influence, I would lead a succession from the US of as many states that would follow."

But the Contract can't be breached by the SC, they are always right. So it would be the states who are breaching contract by trying to leave and we'd be forced to install martial law there to remind them who's the boss.

"Abortion also is a violation of the UN's Universal Statement of Human Rights."

Is it? Or is this another creative interpretation? Please fill us in.

"Society has an obligation to protect the rights of those who cannot protect them themselves. An unborn child has no means to protect those rights so governments have the obligation to protect the rights including their right to life even when opposed by the child's natural parents. Any government (of the people) who fails to do so, fails its basic role as a government."

The government has a responsibilty to protect the helpless and weak, yes, I completely agree. But a fetus is part of the mother, too, and soceity has an obligation to protect her rights as well. If she wants to do that, that's her choice. The fetus isn't legally alive. Also, government should know where it cannot hope to be effective and also that it should not tread on moral issues. Let's face it, abortion is a moral issue. Things like stealing and murdering are harmful to soceity, but abortion is only harmful to oneself (maybe, as God hopefully does not throw everyone directly to hell who disagreed with Him). It's an exact parallel to Prohibition, it was a moral crusade (don't drink! admirable but...) and it was almost impossible to enforce (it only outlawed production and transportation of, not consumption or possesion of). Same with abortion, it's a moral crusade and abortion will simply be forced underground, where it will be more dangerous. I agree with Roland, banning abortion is not an option. If you want to start a moral crusade outside government to change peoples minds, feel free.

" Any member of that government (of the people) who fails to advocate protecting the rights of those who can't protect them themselves is guilty of high treason against the people that the government represents.

Another ground to impreach Bill Clinton, most of his cabinet, a good part of Congress, and the Supreme Court."

posted 11-05-98 07:30 PM ET            

ei ei,, I only read one of yer msges.. sanatic this ritual that.. no offense.. but such thinking is seriously outdated

as for killing being wrong.. sorry killing is not wrong.. many liveing creatures kill, but they are not evil, often it is nessisary for survival, what is wrong is takeing PLEASURE from the killing, I'm pretty sure docs dont take pleasure in killing an unborn fectus.. but it seems to me these doc killers got a lot of pleasure at watching his body fall...

posted 11-05-98 07:52 PM ET            

2. Satan is doing very well in today's society of sin. To think that Satan is a myth just makes his task easier. We must all be very aware of him.

3. To date, the issue of the federal government's violation of the 10th amendment has not be brought before the US Supreme Court.

4. Both the US Constitution and the Universal Statement of Human Rights do not define any age limit on when the rights begin.

5. No parent has the right to kill one of their children for any reason, including inconvenience.

6. Scientific Evidence shows that a child is sentient before birth. So birth is not a valid defining moment for rights.

7. Laws exists to protect individuals from the actions of others. As Abortion is the murder of an individual by other, laws should address the crime and prohibit it under all circumstances. Zero Tolerance for Murder - I would not want to live in a society with any tolerance for murder in any form.

8. Ignoring the moral issues, abortion is still a necessary legal one. (see 7.)

9. Even in cases, where termination of the pregnancy is necessary to save for the mother's life, all means available should be taken to preserve the life of the delivered living child, however much pre-mature. It if dies under all that care, then it happens, but the attempt should always be made.

10. When government officials fail to update their oaths of office, they should be removed. I consider it high treason when they neglect their duties by choice.

posted 11-05-98 08:41 PM ET            

Murder: I might be inclined to agree with you that the act of killing any human being deliberately is murder; convention, though, tends to exclude for instance acts of warfare. Zero tolerance for murder: I don't think so. Oppressors (among others) should ALWAYS be killed - allowing the Stalins, Hitlers, Pol Pots, Pinochets etc. to carry on for as long as they do is a disgrace. The 'forgive and forget' mentality (South African truth commission springs to mind) is disgusting.

What is humanity: At conception there is nothing but an egg and a spermie. Calling this human life is to me pure nonsense. Deciding the exact point where non-human life turns into human life is, admittedly, difficult. That doesn't mean it's impossible, at least not within a somewhat wide margin. Normally, the abortion is performed before this emergence of humanity - as such, no individual is murdered.

Finally, the argument of 'saving people from future psychological problems' is an inherently bad one. It is, simply, none of your business.

posted 11-05-98 09:17 PM ET            

The doctors don't believe its wrong so they have no moral delema or ethical issues...

if proof came out to sugest that the doctors
are really mudering! i think they would kill themselves.... and save my the bullets!!

posted 11-05-98 09:44 PM ET            

On the issue of abortion, Sagan said that most pro-life people said that killing something that has a pontential to be a child is wrong. Then what about when a man mastribates? All those millions of sperm, each one capable of forming a baby, killed. Or when a woman goes through a period. Those egg cells, just killed like that.

END

Sagan was poking fun in his usual sarcastic way, but there is truth in this.

For the record, I do not support abortion unless it is abslutly nessesary, as in rape or incest, or when it poses a health hazard to the woman.

Also, Heinlein had something to say about "life, liberty, and happiness" in Starship Troopers: he said that if two men are on a desert island, and the only way to survive until help arrives is cannabolism, which man has the right to life? Thus, the issue of the mother who may have the baby and die, or abort and live.

But I think we should always give the baby a chance. Maybe someone should develop the artificial womb. That would certainly help.

posted 11-05-98 10:43 PM ET            

Thomas-
I have religous objections to abortion as well, but think that it is more the "Cult of Self" than the "Cult of Satan." Whether or not Melissa Dexler was to be charged with murder depended on whether or not the umbilical chord was cut. The people who killed their baby somewhere in New England could have gotten a partial-birth abortion without any trouble whatsoever.

The world birth rate has fallen below sustenance level, Trevor.

I've had experience with the moral issues people raise. My mother was adopted and my brother died from complications-we knew of before birth-of Down's Syndrome. There are millions upon millions of couples unable to have children, and who would gladly adopt. If there are not enough to adopt, the government should take care of the children. Adoption laws should make it easier to adopt, the government should help those who adopt, and adoptions should be closed.

posted 11-05-98 11:23 PM ET            

that statement ye made reminds me of a book.. its one of the Wheel of Time books by Rober Jordan
<not actual quote.. but dang close.. dont feel like diggin it up>

"Men seem to think they can solve the problem with violence, someone should shrash some sense into them!"

the irony in that is in yer statement.. self contradicting statements just dont work as arguments.

AU

posted 11-06-98 12:05 AM ET            

As for Satan, whether he exists is a question that probably won't be answerd in our lifetimes. But abortion is not a Satanic rite. It's done by well-meaning doctors who believe they are doing good. So you say that the people on the Spanish Inquisition thought they did good, too. I don't think something can be Satanic if you don't intend it to be. Satan might be pleased you thought you killed the dissenters for God's glory, but it's definitely not some sort of sacrifice.

TAS, if you oppose murder unconditionally, please state your position on war. Because otherwise, there are people who ARE willing to kill people and they will take over the world because no one was willing to stop them. Personally, I disagree with capital punishment not only because it's moraly wrong, but because there's always a chance someone will be executed who's innocent, the evilest thing that can possibly be done by a government (and by that definition, the deaths of 12 million innocent people in Nazi Germany would make that the evillest government ever).

As for legally why abortion is bad, first I suggest you check out the Sagan quote. Those dead sperm had just as much potential to being babies as a growing fetus, and they're dead. No ethical problems there, eh? Also, if no form of murder is okay, and murder is the delibrate killing of an individual, then what would you want the SWAT officers to do to the maniac attacking your apartment? Aim for the legs? Sometimes, sad as it may be, deadly force has to be used for civil order or in wars.

posted 11-06-98 02:58 AM ET            

Any of you willing to decide that animals aren't worth it? That humans are so much important than animals? That we're higher beings?

Phah! We're only higher evolved beings. That is the ONLY difference.

Accept both, or accept neither.

And as people said, what of bringing children with deadly or painful diseases into this world? What of bringing mentally retarded children into this world? There are some (Fragile X for one) problems that cause mental retardation that can be detected pre-birth? Is it right to bring these children into the world?

And what of Rape or incest?

You can't allow abortions from one, and not the other.

And I suppose you are against Euthanasia as well?

Man, takes a LOT to get me agitated, but this is one topic that will.

posted 11-06-98 03:08 AM ET            

i didn't want to do this..... but it seems i must...... this is disterbing...if you are eating do not read forward..

In labor abortions(sorry i can't remember the real name for it)..... i'm gonna tell you what they do ok?

A women is in labor and decides to have an abortion at that second(yup thats legal too)
the "doctor" pulls the baby out sticks a small pair of scissors into the back of the babies skull making a small opening, sucks the babies brians out which kills it.. happy?? good.....i've had enough out of all of you!!! voice you opinions sure i'm ok with that! but please don't call me stupid or a fanatic!! ok?

all that i said above is ture! reserch it on your own if you like

posted 11-06-98 03:53 AM ET            

Greg: Though I'd agree with you any day that animals are at least as intelligent as humans, I don't think they technically live up to the requirements for sentience (as defined by the Turing scale or whatever, which might or might not be bull****).

Furthermore, I'm not quite buying your 'can't allow one and not the other' argument, but then I'm usually quite pragmatic. From an absolutist standpoint I guess what you're saying is true.

And, finally, yes - I guess most of the people here are against Euthanasia. I'm not among them of course.

posted 11-06-98 07:13 AM ET            

Luckily some of my views have already been expounded so I don't have to go through everything.

Brother Greg "stole" my question of who here is a vegetarian, so I'll leave that one.

TAS: The UN Human Rights doobrie only covers those of us who have been born.

AuH20: I really don't know where you got your figure for world birth rates from, because it is complete rubbish.
There are only a handful of Western countries where the birth rate is below death rate, and even then only by a small margin (I think France is one of them)...

posted 11-06-98 07:26 AM ET            

Don't try to prove it, it is definately wrong. Growth (NET growth, not birth rates) went down from almost 2 % to about 1,5 % now, but that's still about 90 million people more per year.

Greg: I can't follow the "don't eat meat"-argument in the strict sense, but I see a problem in killing animals for our enjoyment (as meat is not necessary for our nutrition). Ihaven't sorted this out for mayself yet, but I've becoming closer to vegetarianism for years.

posted 11-06-98 07:33 AM ET            

There seems to start a consent in Europe that life starts when the fetus is about 14 days old. Under that, most abortion cases would have to be seen under the protection of these provisions. That does, however, not mean that criminal justice is the proper way of protection. As others and I have said, it just would fail like the prohibition.

posted 11-06-98 09:00 AM ET            

Minimum Qualifications for a fetus.
Any fetus to be defined as human must have developed at the minimum 1. A Hindbrain (nessecary to support life) 2. Some specalization of cells to the point that thought would be POSSIBLE (dont remember the critical mass but it is expressed in a number of synapses) This is assuming current technological levels and biological knowledge.

Minimum Requirements Post Fetus
Cognative ability, the being must be capable of thought. If the above question is not answerable (ex. coma patients) then the body should be able to survive on its own. I do not count brain dead vegtables as human as callus as it sounds. However, for you real sickos anyTHING capable of showing concious thought should be given some minimum of concideration this includes animals such as apes, whales, and any yet undiscovered.

On those who claim meat is not among the required nutrients for a human being you are not totally correct, it is possible to gain all nessecary nutreints from vegtable protein. But this is only in a fairly advanced society with acess to a large variety of vegtables in a base aggricultural system such as a fair portion of the world exists in even to this date it is not.

Final point, for those who say abortion is completly wrong I ask a question. I have no wish to support someone else, nor do I wish to be supported, why should I have to support a child that will proabably grow up in an unloving environment (and yes I know people who were adopted and people who weren't its not for the most part an enjoyable life) so that your concice will feel better? If you wish to stop abortions do this. Go down to the clinic, talk to a woman who is there to have one, offer to adopt the child if she will carry it to term. This way your concience has been salved and I dont have to pay for it.

Heckler

posted 11-06-98 09:18 AM ET            

Perfectly true. But I have to add that one of the reasons
why such a variety of vegetarian food is not available to many
people is (the quasi-industrial) meat production. It takes
about 5-10 calories in feed to achieve one calory in meat,
IIRC. Only where meat production is based on resources that
can't be used otherwise (grassland areas or something), it may be
neceessary for a group to survive. Globally, for industrial
meat production, it is rather the other way round, so in fact,
we (me included) eat meat purley for enjoyment.

posted 11-06-98 02:09 PM ET            

Sex Education
=============
Sex education should start at earlier ages in the homes and churchs and be re-inforced in the schools.

Contraceptives
==============
Contraceptives are wrong.

Pre-martial Sex
===============
Sex outside of marriage is also wrong. Sex creates a tie between the two souls of the individuals linking them together and slowly unites them as one. When breakups occur, they painfully rip the bonds causing long term damage to both individuals. Sex always should be a total commitment (covenent) to the other person.

Definition of Human
===================
An organism is human when it is endowed with a soul. This endowment is done by God. I believe that this occurs at the moment of conception.

Legalities
==========
Roland, you are correct not time limits are given and no starting time is given. Given this, you cannot arbitarily assign a start time. Why birth, why not 5? or 18? or 21? or 21 for white females and 35 for everyone else? The law when it what start time to apply, clearly states it. In the US, to be considered an adult legally, you must be 18 or have a court rule that your actions should be considered those of an adult, exception for the purchase of alchocol in most states it is 21, unless you are in the military, in which case it is 18 again.

posted 11-06-98 02:16 PM ET            

To all the religious zealots out there, think about this:
"If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, 'Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity; and its name is covered in obscurity. It never sees the sun and it never knows anything; it is better off than he.'"
-Ecclesiastes 6:3-5

Heckler, I'm glad that you didn't made that decision. And, BTW, suicide _is_ legal (well, at least here in Canada).

The right to decide what is done with or to one's body is part of the fundamental human right. Our "bodily integrity" is part of our personal autonomy and inherent human dignity. This is the same principle that defends us all from invasions of our body by medical, security, or other authorities against our will. It protects our minds as well as our bodies. If the pregnant woman does not have the right to decide whether her body is to be used to nurture a new life, if someone else can force her to carry a fetus to term against her will, then she is less than human.

The possession of certain capacities are necessary for a person to exist, specifically, a nervous system capable of some level of self-awareness and conscious perception ("sapient cognitive awareness"). An embryo or fetus at the stage at which abortions are performed has no consciousness or self-awareness-- its rudimentary body pre-dates a mind. Thus, it has not yet met the criteria for personhood that must be met by all other human beings.

Many of you used words like "murder" to describe abortion. You are thus equating an embryo, something which has the potential to become a person, with an actual person. Potentialities are certainly important but they are not the same as actualities. Ending the biological life of an embryo through abortion is morally very different from taking the life of a full human being.

-Maya

posted 11-06-98 02:47 PM ET            

Newborns who are not taken care of, die. In the US, this neglect is consider murder. Being able to live independent for all other humans is not a necessary requirement for live.

In the US, it is against the law to kill an bald eagle in the egg, but legal to kill a human in the womb.

A fetus is a full human being, fully endowed by its creators, it two parents and God, with all that is necessary to live a productive life. Just because it is helpless, does not means that it is not fully human. Was Hilter right in his culling of the undesirables (in his opinion)? I do not think so. Everyone has the right to live. Are women right in culling their undesired children, just for their personal comfort? Again. No. Their comfort is not more important that the child's right to life. Hitler used the same argument about killing the Jews (and others). At some of those Hitler targeted escaped. No one targeted by the abortionists do.

posted 11-06-98 03:54 PM ET            

People I liked, and respected now terrify me.

I think I will be staying away from this forum from now on.

I apologize, but someone who compares Hitler to abortionists scares the living daylights out of me. And to say abortionist are worse? I do not know what to say. I do not know what to say.

Any respect I had for Thomas has been lost. I'm sorry. Maybe, months from now, I may come to respect you again. I don't want to flame. I am just scared.

I am close to tears now.

posted 11-06-98 04:29 PM ET            

TAS: I think we've come to a point here where there's little
point in continuing the discussion. I obviously disagree
with your views on contraceptives and pre-marital sex, and
the religious issues are, by nature, non-refutable.

Furthermore, I find some of your arguments quite cheap:
The implied accusations of racism ("21 for white females and 35 for
everyone else?" are plain stupid, and Hitler's got nothing
to do with anything (suffice to say: yes, there is a difference
between abortion and genocide).

posted 11-06-98 04:35 PM ET            

I am in principle against killing, but if the choice is between
1. possibly destroying a humans future (getting an unwanted baby could destroy a future)
or
2. kill something which is not yet human (the only thing that makes it different from a pig fetus is its genes and the human womb it grows in),
I think the choice is easy. Alternative number 2.

posted 11-06-98 06:08 PM ET            

"In the US, it is against the law to kill an bald eagle
in the egg, but legal to kill a human in the womb. "
Humans are not endangered species, last time I checked.

There is nothing dishonorable about euthanasia.
But there are limits. Killing yourself because
you have a deadly disease that's extradinarily
painful or becasue you're about to be caught and
tortured for valuable by an enemy army is completely
legitimate.
I do agree that it shouldn't be encouraged for people
who are simply depressed though.

"How can one be both for animal rights and veegan
and all that AND be pro-choice."

I'm not vegetarian, though I respect people who are.
Meat is extremely inefficent and wastes the valuable
food supply of the world that overpopulation
(AuH20's undocumented claims aside) is eating up.
Plus, some people don't want to kill other animals
unless it's completely neccesary. In our modern
soceity it's not. Not all vegetarians are the "Killing is
always bad!" and it's an oversimplification to say that
they are. Besides, even the extremes who would say
that would simply respond that a fetus is not an
independent lifeform yet, so an abortion is not a killing.

Arnelos said:
"These people, who seem to get all concerned
when someone sticks a tack in tree, are also
downright jubilant when an abortion is performed. . .
So they value all life above that of the human lifeform
before exiting the mother's woom??? "

posted 11-06-98 06:52 PM ET            

Your comments put you on a level not much better that GrimStoneKane, obiously falling into the third category of believers. You seem to uncritically accept anything that is presented to you if it supports your religious beliefs, but if you fell it goes against them, you reject it immediately. Futhermore, it also appears to me that you do not event don't take time to read your own Bible:

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
Genesis 2:7

As far as your comments saying that abortion is _worse_ than the holocaust, DCA qualified them of "quite cheap". But they are much worse that just that, they show us a person so indoctrinated in his own beliefs that he will resort to _anything_ to try to justify them.

I can only hope that you are not the TAS I remember from the old forums...

-A sad Maya

PS: I hope that you don't leave or will come back soon Simon.

And I just have to use that quote from Roland again:

posted 11-06-98 08:10 PM ET            

It is my belief that 99.99% of all people who advocate abortion in any form, do not truly understand what they are standing for. They have been mislead in their beliefs.

While I love deeply every human being, including those murdered in the womb, I can not stand by silently where others can be mislead on such a serious issue.

My things I presented as facts are facts for me, having been proved without any shadow of a doubt. God & I have discussed this topic in depth.

Whether you believe me is another matter. This for me, is not about what I believe, but what I know.

HUMAN LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION.

For me, this is a fact.

DELIBERATE TAKING OF HUMAN LIFE IS MURDER

For me, this is a fact.

MASS SELECTIVE MURDER IS AN ABOMINATION.

And with over 100,000,000 abortions in the world, it far exceeeds the damage done in any war or other selective murder such as the holocast.

Whether you believe me or not is a decision you have to make. I have the moral obligation to present the truth to you about the crime against humanity. When the topic came up without a solid champion I had no moral choice then to speak up.

Consider what if I am right in what I say. How will your actions be judged.

Consider what if I am wrong in what I say. How will your actions be judged.

I consider my postings on this topic a success if one soul or life is saved regardless of the ridicule and personal dislike for me. Are you will to suffer for the life of another? I am.

Ask GOD to show you the truth. Be persistent and He will.

posted 11-06-98 08:34 PM ET            

Again, I feel that the discussion has come down to a question of religious
beliefs. While TAS might feel that he has been subject to divine guidance
(allowing him to state his opinion as fact), others obviously do not have
that benefit (or, as I would see it, hindrance). There is little point
in saying less than others have before you, so I'll just conclude with
saying that personally, I'm not very interested in God's version of the truth.

posted 11-06-98 09:44 PM ET            

Also, I agree with others in saying TAS has lost all respect from me. Before, I took him as a competent scientist or something. Now he seems like a religious fanatic, IMO about the lowest anyone can get. I didn't come here for someone to promote God and say He will give us the truth. You have very little to back up you beliefs other than religious sermons. Yes, I am against abortion, but I can't speek for a woman because I'm not one. And no matter what you think, telling people not to have sex untill marrage will not help. Why are you against contraceptives? Couples are going to have sex, so we might as well have them be protected.

"It is my belief that 99.99% of all people who advocate abortion in any form, do not truly understand what they are standing for. They have been mislead in their beliefs."

What about your beliefs? Have you been mislead? Your great faith in religion, despite all the scientific evidence to the contrary, shows, in my belief, you have been mislead.

"A fetus is a full human being, fully endowed by its creators, it two parents and God, with all that is necessary to live a productive life."

A fetus is not a full human being: in the time of most abortions, it has no CNS, possibly not a heart, and has no concious thought. It is not a full human being. And I wish you could leave God out of this.

Grim; On PBA:

posted 11-06-98 11:13 PM ET            

The argument about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness was not the Constitution; it was actually the Declaration of Independence. Actually, the Constitution contradicts the Declaration in that the DoI states all persons should be have the rights of life, LIBERTY, and pursuit of happiness; and then the Constitution invokes the Importation of Persons shall be allowed if taxed, which most Constitution scholars apply to slavery (Article I, Section 9, Clause 1).

My second argument is most tenuous. If you believe that life begins at conception, as I see some of this forum believing, why not protest the IUD or birth control pills. The IUD prevents the embryo, post conception, from implanting, and the BCP, although mainly works by the prevention of ovulation, also works by making the uterus an inhospitable place for the fetus to land. Actually, all female contraceptives, OCP, Depo, progesterone, work these ways. One is to prevent ovulation and the other to make the Uterine lining the equivalent of the Martian landscape for the embryo. Or is it just that taking pills or using the IUD is a more passive form so it is easier to protest the abortion.

Actually, this original topic nauseated me.(Suprisingly, since I am a doctor. ) I have a fear of this type of vigilante justice, especially since many of my friends are OB/Gyn's. having done numerous rotations, occaisonally a baby must die to save the mother's life. Do not want my friends killed due to this.

posted 11-06-98 11:31 PM ET            

Firstly, let me say that I am not in favor of abortion as a means of birth control ... but it should be available if someone who is responsibly using another means of birth control turns into one of the statictics who that form of birth control doesn't work on!!!

TAS have you ever had sex in your life ???

If you have, then by your arguments each time you've comminted murder a billion fold! Even if you had a child, during that session, you killed billions of pottential lives !!!

Do you walk around the streets with a super magnoscope to avoid killing the billions of living organisms each human kills a day just by breathing moving and walking ???

Do you smoke or drink ever ??? Either will mess up your system enough to damage at least a few of your sperm !!!

Let me say that I see your point of view and understand your frustration in people who use abortion irresponsibly, but you haven't the right to impose your beliefs on anyone!!

It is my belief that you shouldn't have sex with anyone without knowing where the other person stands on birth control !!!

Your views also commit innocent children to lives of unwanted misery .. a far far far worse fate than death !!! To me it's not fair to the unborn child if you let it live sometimes !!!

Personaly, I think people should have a permit before they have children .. and a prerequisite to getting the permit is to complete an awareness course .. people take parenting for too lightely nowadays .. and it's making this planet a mess !!!

But when all is said and done, life is not "not being dead" ... life is having having the ability to enjoy each day as they are presented to you !!! If you can't eventually enjoy life at some point, what's the point ???

As for your conversation with god !!! If you'd be so inclinened as to include me in your next conversation with him/her/it, and "god" tells me that abortion is unethical, I promise to wrote every member of Canadian parlement supporting your view !!!

posted 11-07-98 02:09 AM ET            

By the way, sperm are not human. I don't support randomly killing things like trees, bacteria, animals etc... Everyone has killed millions-billions of organisms. If it is wrong to kill bacteria, then sentence everything in existence to eternal hell.

Maya, by the way, you are not an independent being, nothing is. We all depend on other things for life directly. Without plants, we'd be as good as dead, without the sun-dead, without oxygen-dead. There is no such thin is 'independent' life. Go ahead, check a Webster.

It is not pointless to argue with me, if you had any real arguments for abortion, then shoot, otherwise, forget it. And by the way, check your statistics, a baby (unborn) has a functioning nervous system several days before 90% of all abortions. And as far as I'm concerned, partial birth abortions are about the least painful and cruel of methods used.

One thing that I am very impressed with in the pro-death crowd here is that they are obviously very just, wise, knowledgable and holy. After all, they know whose life will be worth living even before they are born! Tell me that is not a Hitler mentality! Let's see, you're deformed so you should die. You won't be loved by your parents, so die. You won't know who your father is, so you should die. You will be born with some handicaps so your life will be miserable, and not worth anything, so die. COME ON! How in the world can you judge someone without knowing them or even giving them a chance?

I for one am glad that my mother did not 'choose' to execute me. How about you? What if your mom decided that your life would be worth nothing?

Genetically, from the time of conception, the unborn child has an individual genetic make up different from anyone elses. They are an individual. Please please please at least consider that children are worth more than the fancy of the mother. PLEASE!?!?!

Well, let it be known that I love you all regardless of anything, and if there is anything I can do for you, let me know.

posted 11-07-98 02:56 AM ET            

As for what if my mother had decided to abort me ??? Honestly ... I couldn't have cared less ... I would never have know life !!! That's the principle difference in the way Pro and anti abortionists think .. pro-life to me are actually selfish in that they want everyone to live life the way they want them to ...

Religion on Earth is dying .. and it's about time .. as the intellegence of the average man increases so to does the number of religious men decrease !!! It's a fact !!!

Religion was an institution implemented to control the masses !!!

I have many friends who are religious who are perplexed at how moral a person I am .. one keeps telling me that I have more morality in me than any religious person he knows !!! Including himself !!! He asks me if I don't believe in going to heaven after death, what stops me from stealing what I want or need in life instead of having to work for it !!!

The answer is simple my "God" is humanity !!!

If I am good, and everyone around me is equal, then humanity as a whole is good .. unfortunately not everyone thinks like I do and therefore this world is not in a state of bliss !!!

In fact I think it is completely pathetic that anyone needs the excuse of going to heaven after death to be good !!!

I'm not even saying that there is no God ... I don't know that .. but you don't know that .. in fact no-one knows that ... why then does everyone (in the modern world) believe in the same god more or less ??? It's because religion has been conditioned upon the masses for generations !!!

In fact if your God truly exists, he'd probably be disgusted at your inablility to live your own live the way you want without being afraid of concequenses if your intentions are good !!!

Humanity has almost "transended" to godhood in that we can now make living creations of our own ... let's just say you created a life form ... would you want it to spend half it's energy worshipping you ??? If you answer yes, then you are a pathertic excuse for a human being !!!

Your "God" has not shown itself for a reason if it truly exists ... why do you continue to waste half your lives away warshipping it ???

Anyways .. humanity has been held back for thousands of years because of religion !!! Now that religion is being slowly forgotten, we are slowly starting to improve as a society as a whole !!!

posted 11-07-98 03:13 AM ET            

Also, I agree with DJ RRebbel on his religoius post.

posted 11-07-98 03:57 AM ET            

Once again, thanks for your input, it is very insightful, and I certainly do consider it thoroughly, but I also know that my reasons for a belief in God and Jesus are very deep, and very powerful. It would take a lot to overthrow them, but I do not completely discount it as a possibility. You see, and this will sound Cheesy, but the best evidence for Christianity is what it does to your heart when you recieve it. I know, I hate that kind of thing too, but it is totally true. The power of God in your life is absolutely undeniable.

If I were to create life, I certainly wouldn't expect it to worship me because I am not perfect! I am the sinner of sinners! I am not worthy of anything but death! That's why I (and you (and everyone else)) needs Jesus.

God created life, and if we recognize God, we have no choice but to worship Him! He is SOOO AWESOME!!! Someday, one way or another, everyone will find that out.

I agree totally with your statement: "In fact I think it is completely pathetic that anyone needs the excuse of going to heaven after death to be good !!!" I have difficulty seeing how anyone could accept the grace of Christ with that attitude. You see, Christianity is NOT about being good. It is about having a Good God.

God loves you regardless of anything Rebel, you can rebel against Him all you want, but know that He is saddened beyond tears. Once again, I am praying for you. If there is just one chance in a trillion that Christianity is true, then it is completely worth a lifetime of investigation. No matter the odds, the consequences are more. Love 'ya all!!!

posted 11-07-98 04:27 AM ET            

I'm also happy for you that you are happy .. but I really don't think you are a good representation of a religious person .. if all religious people were like you this world would be a better place !!!

But unfortunately most religious people aren't in fact as much as at peace with themselves as you are !!!

Sometimes I wish I did believe in God .. it would explain alot .. but unfortunately I can't believe anything I can't remotely understand !!!

The idea of a God isn't possible for ANY human mind to fathom !!!

Most people can't even fathom how patheticaly small and insignificant we are in the grand scheme of things .. yet we have been given an incredible gift of self-consciousness .. why ???

Until we can answer that, we'll never know anything ...
and that is my point .. we can't know !!!
If what you call having Jesus in your heart puts you at piece,
I'm happy for you, but to me you're just giving contentment a face .. what did Jesus actually do for a fact that has affected your life .. there are so many other people in history who have done awsome selfless things for others !!!

Why honour only Jesus ???
I know you'll say you honour everyone, but look at my
point of view and then try to understand what I meant
by that ..
you don't others to the same extent that you worship him !!!
(By you I'm refering to all Religious people)

How can you worship something you don't understand ???

The whole matter frustrates me to think people condition
and force themselves to believe something that they don't understand !!!

Having inner piece doesn't mean you have to believe in God !!!

Believing in a God doesn't give you inner piece !!!

Inner piece is achieved when you are content with yourself !!!

Something which you seem to have reached ..
and for that I am truly happy for you ...
I'm just sorry that you can't truly understand why ...
or how ...

I live my life to the fullest because I want to ..
most religious people do it because they have to ..

You are one of the rare people who have turned
religious after not being religious ... why ???
I am truly curious !!!

Please don't think I am trying to mock you or anything,
I'm truly curious !!!

posted 11-07-98 03:11 PM ET            

TAS I can understand your point of view but I cannot
agree with you or even continue this discussion,
simply because you have shown an inability to read and
concider the POV of others one cannot argue with
someone whose mind is made up.

The others, sorry to lump you all in one group
but I wish to thank those who contributed logical
though out opinions to this discussion.

Heckler

posted 11-07-98 04:20 PM ET            

Thomas: I'm curious about your opinions
on souls. If I read right, you feel that God
bestows a soul at the moment of
conception. The questions:

Do clones have souls? A clone could be
grown completely from a single mature
cell from a donor. There is no "moment
of conception". Is the time of bestowing
a soul the time that the cloning
process begins? What if someone is only
trying to clone certain cells (for example,
skin cells to use in a graft for burn
treatment)? I assume that a sheet of skin
has no soul. But, what if that process is
underway and a feak accident in the lab
introduces a chemical into the vat that
causes the cells to differentiate and form
a fetus? Is the time of soul endowment the
time of the freak accident?

posted 11-07-98 08:26 PM ET            

Also, moving on, I agree with MedIntern. Why is birth control so bad? Because it encourages pre-maritial sex?

Octupus restates many of the most important points of the Pro-Choicers. We lack the legal way to tell if something has a soul or not.

Sigh... Should we keep this topic going? It seems to be on reconciliation right now, with TAS stating his desire to save one of the unborn and Larry Boy and DJRR shaking hands... maybe we should end on a high note...

posted 11-07-98 08:45 PM ET            

Your point being?

Larry, you seem to forget that an embryo or a fetus are only that, an embryo or a fetus. It's not a child, it's not a baby, it's not a human being... It only has the possibility to become one.

You also seem to have a total and complete disregard to the rights of the woman carrying that fetus.

"pro-death", "execute" [Larry Boy]

Pathetic...

Btw, MedIntern, in what particular field of medecine are you interested? (I'm in my second year of med school) =).

Octopus, I'm curious about Thomas' view on life too, because event the Bible doesn't start life at conception.

SnowFire, the problem I have with TAS is not at all with his religious beliefs, it is with is comments on abortion being worse than murder or the holocaust and with the fact that he seems unable to consider something that goes against his beliefs.

If everyone want to end it here, it's fine with me. But I don't mind discussing it either.

-Maya

posted 11-07-98 08:52 PM ET            

Good points there Octopus .. one thought though ... all these posts on the soul of the baby by the pro-lifers .. yet there is not one human on this Earth who could properly define and describe "a soul" ..

How can you want to save something if you don't even know it exists ???

Not one pro-lifer can truly HONESTLY tell me that they know what a soul is and how it works ... personally, to me our souls is nothing more than the collections of our thought patterns in our brains .. I say nothing more than, but that in itself when you think about it is unfathomly incredibly amazing .. but in that, we don't even understand how or why we think, how could anyone be so pretentious as to think they know what a soul is for sure .. just fanatics blinded by their faith in something else they can't posibly hope to ever explain!

As for TAS ... he's a very smart guy ..
I respect everything he's had to say on anything before,
now I don't see eye to eye with him on everything ...
that's comforting to know that we aren't all the same ..
I don't like his views on abortion, but he could argue his point
for more than 10 minutes which is more than I can say for most other people
... he gets my respect for that ..
I don't know why you think he ever lost our respect ..
We may all think he's a tad crazier than before,
but that still makes him saner than most !!!

posted 11-07-98 09:14 PM ET            

This is mainly in response to Rebel. Wow, seems we are finding some great similarities, and I certainly respect your good will toward humanity. To answer your question, I don't understand God, I can't, and I don't try to. People who try to understand God find themselves wondering about a lot of things "Why does God allow this?" "How can God be all loving and..." Etc... The thing is, I worship God BECAUSE I don't understand Him. If God were understandable, then wouldn't that put Him on our level? I mean, if someone could fully understand something totally not of this universe then they would be god-like themself! Which I am certainly not! Not even close. And by the way, I appreciate your comments, but I don't feel that I have done too much for humanity. 30,000 children die of starvation every day, thousands more are aborted. I have done little to slow this. All of us in this forum in fact could do a lot more to stop these horrific things and if we could unite together and at least agree to help stop starvation that would be an awesome thing. OK, I have a question, how many here would be willing to not buy SMAC and instead send the $50 or whatever to say Somalia? Just a question, I don't know how to answer it myself, but I'm sure the responses would be interesting. Anyway...

I don't consider myself religious. Religion infers trying to better yourself by some belief. I just have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Sounds weird doesn't it? I imagine you think I'm a freak. Fine. Call me a Jesus freak (a great song by the way). But I consider myself a logical person, and if I honestly didn't believe that Christianity changed me in any way or that it wasn't believeable, I would reject it on the spot. Truth is, like millions of people, actually, I believe over 1 billion people (in all history) I have found greater peace in Jesus Christ than can exist in this world. How? I can't understand God, neither can you, but God is love, and I feel pretty darn loved! YEAH! I hope that answers your question about worshipping and believing in something that I can't understand. Let me finish it off with this, how many people can comprehend the universe? It is infinitely large in all directions (I guess I'm assuming this because there is no way to prove it). How many people believe that it exists though? Probably everyone. You believe it because you are in it, you are experiencing it. In the same way, I believe in God because He is in my, and I experience Him constantly. What a great thing it is!

Now to Maya: You complain about my words "pro-death" and "execute", well, I complain about your word "choice" and phrases such as "it is just a fetus" etc... What makes me the sicko? I am not against a woman's rights at all. I am a firm believer in the constitution (The US constitution that is). I believe that the woman has every right that a man has, it seems to me that you are saying woman have a right that men don't have, that is, the right to kill an unborn baby. Seems rather un-equal to me. Besides that, you completely disregard the rights of the child which you say is not alive at all. I guess the issue then is to decide whether or not the un-born child is alive then. Tell me, what is it that makes a baby become instantly alive and concious the very moment it emerges from the womb. And also, is it alive when the leg comes out? What about the neck? What about when one quarter of the head is out? At what instant is *POOF* the baby alive, concious, human, etc...? What if all that has not yet emerged is a piece of hair? When is the baby a human? My point about independence is directly related to the abortion issue. Someone claimed that independence is part of the definition of life, I was merely pointing out that independence is either relative, or non-existant in the case of life.

Snowfire: I like your quote on prayer.

God Bless all 'o ya!
Larry Boy

posted 11-07-98 09:24 PM ET            

Let me try to define 'soul'. The 'soul' is something that goes beyond the chemical reactions of the brain. In other words, it is the part of humans that makes them different from rocks, or a log burning. If you don't believe in souls, then do you believe that you are truly concious that is, that humans have 'thoughts' that are beyond what a rock can do or do you believe that we are all just like a complex burning log--nuerons firing here like computers, or rather robots? IF, and here is where I am going to be attacked by everyone, if we do not indeed have thoughts that go beyond a computer, babies should be killed whether pre-born or born. Hey! What does it matter if we all die? No one cares when an old Apple IIe or something is thrown into a trash compactor right? Interested to hear your input.

*Larry Boy hugs Rebel back and then blushes* (-8 That was a bit akward... (-8

posted 11-07-98 09:58 PM ET            

"I don't usually do this, but Maya, calling someone a sicko is not acceptable. It's just plain wrong." [Imran Siddiqui]

Where on earth did you get that idea???

Larry, since it seems that you didn't read my previous messages, let me say it again:

The possession of certain capacities are necessary for a person to exist, specifically, a nervous system -->capable<-- of some level of self-awareness and conscious perception ("sapient cognitive awareness"). An embryo or fetus at the stage at which abortions are performed has no consciousness or self-awareness-- its rudimentary body pre-dates a mind. Thus, it has not yet met the criteria for personhood that must be met by all other human beings.

The right to decide what is done with or to one's body is part of the fundamental human right. Our "bodily integrity" is part of our personal autonomy and inherent human dignity. This is the same principle that defends us all from invasions of our body by medical, security, or other authorities against our will. It protects our minds as well as our bodies. If the pregnant woman does not have the right to decide whether her body is to be used to nurture a new life, if someone else can force her to carry a fetus to term against her will, then she is less than human.

And I refered to the use of words like "execute" and "pro-death" as pathetic because it is like resorting to name-calling...

-Maya

posted 11-07-98 10:12 PM ET            

Anyways .. Larry Boy, Human thought is the same thing as
computer processing but on a much much more complex scale ...
in a sence though, when you think about it they are the
same thing .. it's just that we haven't built a processor with
the complexity yet ... it might not be posible for hundreds of years ...
but remember it took millions of years for man to evolve
to where he is today (please tell me you believe in
evolution at least) ... plus it takes years of experience
for us to develop any sort of truly intelligent thought!!!

posted 11-07-98 10:38 PM ET            

Very insightful into this topic. He shares the full history of the abortion issue in American society and Western societies in general (well, it's only a single chapter in his book, so not that long). He tries to point out alot of the inconsistencies in the arguments of the two sides and some the scientific truths that may guide us to a better definition.

One thing that Sagan discusses alot in several of his books is the "false dichotemy" or "slippery slope" principal that the proponents of both sides of an argument like this tend to harbor. You see, pro-choicers are willing to accept a ban on late-term abortions because they fear that will lead to a more comprehensive ban while pro-lifers aren't willing to accept abortions even right after conception because they fear it may lead to abortion having a more broad acceptance. So on both sides, those already supporting some modicum of pro-choice or pro-life tend to be pushed toward a dychotemous view based on this fear.

Sagan uses the point when a human being displays traights that no other being displays, THINKING. This tends to happen at the start of the thrid trimester of pregnancy that two things happen for a baby:
1. The baby could survive outside the mother's woom
2. The baby begins using its brain for thought patterns beyond those capable of any other creature on Earth.

This, he states, is a fairly reasonable time at which to call the fetus "human", because it can both surive and it can think like a human, which is how we distinguish ourselves from other creatures. It just happens to be that this is the time when Roe v. Wade placed the limit of abortions to:
1. You can't make the first two trimesters illegal (it can't survive)
2. You CAN ban all abortions during the third trimester (it can survive and is declared 'human' enough to receive rights from the state).

Sagan attempts to back up the argument that abortion is wrong in the third trimester by pointing out that by using his criterion, human brain functions, the baby is a thinking and living human being after the 6th month. Since it thinks like a human, and has grown beyond thinking like any other animal, it is arguable now quite human.

I don't know if I fully agree with Sagan's argument yet (I just read it last night), but I find it HIGHLY compelling. Human thought seems to be a pretty good criterion. The fact that the baby starts using distincly human thought at about the same time it is able to survive outside the mother's woom makes it even more compelling to ban abortions at this point.

posted 11-07-98 11:09 PM ET            

As for his arguments, they make alot of sense, and I'd be willing to accept his point of view .. with the exception of medical complications to the mother though !!!

posted 11-08-98 02:50 AM ET            

Maya: I asked again, because your definition of life was quite meager, I was hoping you could add a bit to it. You did. Thanks! I'm also quite fascinated that you know the second a baby is concious! Is that a gift you were born with or something you developed over time? Just how would you prove when a human becomes concious? Are you basing it on the brain activity? To say that being able to calculate something and to be concious are the same thing makes no sense to me. I do not think that a computer could ever be the same as a human. No matter how well the AI is programmed (Sorry Brian Reynolds! (-8 ) it cannot develop into conciousness. I'm trying to think how either side of this issue could demonstrate their side to be true. OK, look at it this way, brain activity begins in the first trimester and yet Carl Sagan says that real thought develops in the third trimester. This means there has to be a starting point for thought that is seperate from activity. When you think about a computer, it has activity (adding binary numbers very quickly) even in it's early stages of say, the ENIAC, but if it is the same with humans than it is with computers, there must be a point in the development of computers that *poof* they are concious. What is necesary for this change to occur, and if anyone figures out, be sure to tell Brian so they can delay Alpha Centauri another month and make the AI truly concious. (-8

I getting quite attached to you all! (-8 I'd love to meet you sometime! I wonder if anyone of you live close. I currently reside in NJ though that could change rather soon. Love 'ya!

posted 11-08-98 01:51 PM ET            

That should have read >>> by your definition
and >>> our minds in their own ways are ...

posted 11-08-98 02:26 PM ET            

You might think it sounds rediculous, but look at the awsome steps forward humanity has taken in just the last 100 years .. 100 is nothing in the grand scheme of things !!!

posted 11-08-98 02:31 PM ET            

And congratulations to everyone in this thread,
it is the first in the new forum to achieve 100 posts !!!

You know what that means ... lol ... time for part 2

>>> Look for

posted 11-08-98 02:32 PM ET            

I want nothing to do with his inner pieces !!!