Bells
Staff member
Which is a completely different area of medical ethics in general, don't you think?
Abortion
- Thread starter Anarcho Union
- Start date
- Status
Which is a completely different area of medical ethics in general, don't you think?
not in this context, no.
because it's fucking creepy and gross, that's why.
and because i know damn good and well that that being has an identity whether the mother wanted it or not, or wherever it was grown, and that identity is just as valuable as mine.
oK... but the deal braker is... you'r agans the destructon of an embryo for any reason... an heres a hypothetical queston about "value"... if you had to choose between the destructon of 1 of you'r embryos or you'r 2 year old child... woud it be a toss-up.???
Bells
Staff member
So you think growing human beings in artificial wombs, having those individuals grow up into adults to be slaves or to be treated as stock for human organs (not stuff like bone marrow or cord blood which is donated and people have other children for that now anyway, but actual human organs), is somehow akin to or within the same context as abortion?
Anything that has life has free will.
The opportunity that it gets to widely express it (at least as far as the material world is concerned, which seems to be the main focus of your questioning) depends on the form of body it is awarded (and again, the form of body it is awarded depends on one's use of free will ... although the general scheme of things is that once one slips down out of the human form of life, it can take literally millions of births to get there again)
a 5 year old probably could not recognize an embreyo full stop ... although the distinctions between a dead and living one are quite apparent to any one who sees abortion as fulfilling a dire need
Given the atrocities that were performed to their communities, yes, it does appear to have been "difficult" for the advocates of the time.
Strange piece of knowledge, Lori. Quite a bit of medical science seems to fly in your face here. You can have an identity even with no neocortex?
Origionaly posted by cluelusshusbund
“ oK... so if you was a God wit free-will an had the choise of creatin humans or not... but the creaton plan included the necessity that millions of children woud be raped an murdered... woud you create humans...
oK... sinse God created us all equaly... why are som people inclined to misuse ther free will an som ant.???
Do other animals misuse ther free will.???
“ oK... so if you was a God wit free-will an had the choise of creatin humans or not... but the creaton plan included the necessity that millions of children woud be raped an murdered... woud you create humans...
oK... sinse God created us all equaly... why are som people inclined to misuse ther free will an som ant.???
Do other animals misuse ther free will.???
i think that the same pro-abortion arguments and rationale that i've heard, if extrapolated upon, also should defend a practice like this. i mean, either the glob of dna has an identity and individual rights or it doesn't. if because a mother is providing sustenance to the glob in the womb, she has a right to with that glob whatever she wants, even to kill it, then if the science community provides that sustenance artificially, they should possess those same rights, and be able to do with the glob whatever they want to, even harvest it's organs and run tests on it.
do people who are in a coma, and on life support have an identity?
There is a difference between an unconscious person and a lump that was never sentient in the first place.
Its an oxymoron to suggest that some people are created with the propensity to misuse their free will.
IOW if one wasn't free to utilize one's free will however one sees fit, it wouldn't be free will
Not really since its the very nature of being slapped with an animal's body that one becomes obedient to the laws of nature -IOW it is a more deeply conditioned state of existence (so issues like morality and sin cannot make an entrance)
So if one misuses their free will and winds up in an animal's body its considered unfortunate since the next opportunity to take birth in the human form could be millions of life times away.
and there is a difference between a lump that is never sentient and an embryo ..... which is of course obvious to anyone who is going to great pains to make sure they have an abortion before a certain time
NO, moron! It's that the lump WAS NEVER SENTIENT.
A person who has fallen unconscious, is in no way equivalent to a lump of gook that never had thoughts or feelings in the first place.
sinse God created us all equaly... why are som people inclined to misuse ther free will an som ant.???
So what did you mean by this:::
"what I would do is create a virtual world where persons who had the inclination to misuse their free will in destructive ways could play out their dramas."
Are ther reasons why som people are inclined to misuse ther free will.???
It depends on the person who misused it ... or more specifically, their free will
so what do you see as the essential difference between an abortion and, say, a mastectomy .... since both involve the removal of lumps that are "nonsentient".
So what did you mean by this:::
"what I would do is create a virtual world where persons who had the inclination to misuse their free will in destructive ways could play out their dramas."
Are ther reasons why som people are inclined to misuse ther free will.???
oK... in what way does it depend on the person... an you for esample... was ther reasons why you misused you'r free will.???
what if it's born in a coma and on life support?
- Status