# Unborn Child



## yiostheoy

Back in 1974 the singing duo of Seals & Crofts released an album of songs including "Unborn Child" of which the title song was written by Jim Seals and Lana Bogan was a powerfully emotional appeal against abortion.  These are the lyrics:

"Oh little baby, you'll never cry, nor will you hear a sweet lullaby;
Oh unborn child, if you only knew, just what your momma was planning to do;
You're still a-clinging to the three of life, but soon you'll be cut off, before you get ripe;
Oh unborn child, beginning to grow, inside your momma, but you'll never know;
Oh tiny bud, that grows in the womb, only to be crushed, before you can bloom;
Momma stop!  Turn around!  Go back!  Think it over! ... ."

In Philosophy any emotional argument is purely a fallacy which eludes logical thinking and rational analysis.

In Science which is the philosophy of the physical, natural world, data must first be gathered and analyzed before a logical conclusion can be inferred through inductive reasoning.

In Religion which is the doctrinal dogmatic pronouncement of an authoritarian council or leader pertaining to what Aristotle called "metaphysics" (meaning beyond physics), anything goes.  Emotional arguments are prized and very common in religion.

With 2016 being a national election year, we have not heard a lot about the hot button issue of abortion so far.  Perhaps this is because both major candidates, Hillary and Trump, have both already gone on the record that they are personally pro choice.

As for analyzing the issue of abortion itself, you must first decide which forum you intend to study it from and pronounce your sentence upon it in accordance with -- whether that be philosophical, or scientific, or religious, or Constitutional, or political.  Each of these forums (fora  in Latin) is completely different.

Ergo if you desire to analyze the topic philosophically you must choose a criterion such as the greater good to weigh the pro- and anti- arguments with.  Is the greater good benefitted or hurt by abortion?  Most likely according to this criterion the greater good is benefitted by abortion.

Scientifically there are no data (note that data is a plural word, and datum is the singular) which tell us either way if an unborn fetus is a conscious living being or not.  From science we draw a blank.

From religion if you are Catholic or one of its derivative Christian offshoots, abortion has been pronounced by the Pope and other religious leadership as anathema.  The Pope is presumably Christ's representative on Earth, unless you are anti-Catholic in which case he is Lucifer's.

Constitutionally the Burger Court in 1973 decided in Roe v. Wade in a 7 to 2 decision that women (not men) had an inherent right to choose whether to abort a pregnancy or not.  White and Rehnquist were the dissenters, with Burger and the other justices concurring, who favored Ms. Roe.

I suppose any time that there is a dissent on the SCOTUS it means the case could have gone either way.  A 7 to 2 decision suggests the overwhelming majority of the court agreed however.  Today if the decision were rendered it would be closer to 4 to 4 at the moment most likely.

Politically this is and always has been a hot button issue.  There are emotional arguments on both sides which tend to lend sway to either point of view.

My personal view is that no one should tell someone else what to do.

Of course if someday we establish contact with a prenatal fetus and he/she tells us please don't murder her/him, we might all change our minds about extending Constitutional rights to fetuses (feti in Latin).

In the meantime there will always be those on the far left and the far right who will argue emotionally (not logically nor scientifically nor philosophically) that their own view, whether pro- or anti- abortion, should be forced upon the rest of the Nation.

Q.E.D.


----------



## racialreality9

I support abortion, and I don't really care about humanity.  Abort the entire human race.


----------



## Unkotare

racialreality9 said:


> I support abortion.....


 


Start with yourself. It's not too late.


----------



## PK1

yiostheoy said:


> Scientifically there are no data which tell us either way if an unborn fetus is a conscious living being or not.  From science we draw a blank.


Philosophies of Mind and Science provide us conceptual contexts in data interpretation.
In science, conceptual definitions are related to operational definitions that data represent.
Scientists, both bio & psych, can associate "consciousness" with patterns of brain activity.

Consciousness has many aspects; many neural patterns.
It's highly likely (inductive & deductive reasoning) that fetuses, and especially embryos, human or other, have *primitive*/sensory "consciousness", *if any*.


----------



## The Pipe

All living mortal entities are thinking-feeling creatures---from the lowliest microbe and human being to the tallest redwood and biggest whale. All earthly creatures eat the bodies of living and once living creatures. Humans prefer to believe there is a hierarchy of living creatures---that non-humans are lesser beings, that killing a potato is less heinous than killing a cow, that stepping on a snail is less ugly than running over a human...but we are all perfectly equal and equally perfect as living consciousness. So yes, a fetus is a living, conscious entity. But in the grand scheme of things, killing a fetus is no more heinous than killing the fish you are gonna eat tonight. All living mortal beings are thinking-feeling creatures. Each was created by their spiritual self. The fetus knew its fate before incarnating as a fetus.


----------



## Unkotare

*facepalm*


----------



## koshergrl

racialreality9 said:


> I support abortion, and I don't really care about humanity.  Abort the entire human race.


that's the attitude of most baby kikkers. Though I notice you don't extend that opinion to your own self.


----------



## yiostheoy

PK1 said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientifically there are no data which tell us either way if an unborn fetus is a conscious living being or not.  From science we draw a blank.
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophies of Mind and Science provide us conceptual contexts in data interpretation.
> In science, conceptual definitions are related to operational definitions that data represent.
> Scientists, both bio & psych, can associate "consciousness" with patterns of brain activity.
> 
> Consciousness has many aspects; many neural patterns.
> It's highly likely (inductive & deductive reasoning) that fetuses, and especially embryos, human or other, have *primitive*/sensory "consciousness", *if any*.
Click to expand...

You are of course correct about the data interpretation -- which is of course inference -- inductive logic.

There is very little -- not even the so called "laws" -- that we can actually know of a certainty.

I know if a bullet goes through my heart, liver, or brain that I will die fairly quickly.  All other gunshot wounds can be surgically repaired at a proper medical facility.

I don't know if a cancer is lurking somewhere inside me and causing an inevitable slow death that not even a cutting edge medical facility can prevent.

I know it takes a really big rocket to escape the gravity of the Earth.  I know sometimes these rockets blow up too.

Life is a game of tabula rasa to which we add our own daily experiences and interpretations.

All decisions affecting others -- whether human or nonhuman life forms -- are a derivative of populist law.

If the law allows you to kill something, and you have a reason to do it, you probably will.

We all kill to eat, whether we do our killing at the supermarket or with a gun.

We would all kill to defend our children -- this is also instinctive.

Abortion is the opposite -- it is the killing of a future child.  Apparently the child is currently unwanted.

Our (the USA) laws allow it.  It is viewed by our society as a matter of choice not a matter of killing.

Our government (and all the other governments around the world that our own democratic republic has been able to influence, like France, England, Holland, Canada, Australia, Germany, Japan, etc., and now even Russia (but not China, N.Korea, or the Arab kingdoms yet) -- these governments including our own allows the infanticide of abortion for any reason.

The ancient Spartans were less cruel.  They allowed infanticide only in the case of birth defects.

A perfectly developing child should be given a chance at life and at productivity.  Society benefits most, besides the child itself, so if it is unwanted by its mother it should be taken by society when it can survive outside of the womb, and be raised by society into a productive human being.

This is self evident.


----------



## PK1

yiostheoy said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientifically there are no data which tell us either way if an unborn fetus is a conscious living being or not.  From science we draw a blank.
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophies of Mind and Science provide us conceptual contexts in data interpretation.
> In science, conceptual definitions are related to operational definitions that data represent.
> Scientists, both bio & psych, can associate "consciousness" with patterns of brain activity.
> 
> Consciousness has many aspects; many neural patterns.
> It's highly likely (inductive & deductive reasoning) that fetuses, and especially embryos, human or other, have *primitive*/sensory "consciousness", *if any*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are of course correct about the data interpretation -- which is of course inference -- inductive logic.
> 
> There is very little -- not even the so called "laws" -- that we can actually know of a certainty.
> 
> I know if a bullet goes through my heart, liver, or brain that I will die fairly quickly.  All other gunshot wounds can be surgically repaired at a proper medical facility.
> 
> I don't know if a cancer is lurking somewhere inside me and causing an inevitable slow death that not even a cutting edge medical facility can prevent.
> 
> I know it takes a really big rocket to escape the gravity of the Earth.  I know sometimes these rockets blow up too.
> 
> Life is a game of tabula rasa to which we add our own daily experiences and interpretations.
> 
> All decisions affecting others -- whether human or nonhuman life forms -- are a derivative of populist law.
> 
> If the law allows you to kill something, and you have a reason to do it, you probably will.
> 
> We all kill to eat, whether we do our killing at the supermarket or with a gun.
> 
> We would all kill to defend our children -- this is also instinctive.
> 
> Abortion is the opposite -- it is the killing of a future child.  Apparently the child is currently unwanted.
> 
> Our (the USA) laws allow it.  It is viewed by our society as a matter of choice not a matter of killing.
> 
> Our government (and all the other governments around the world that our own democratic republic has been able to influence, like France, England, Holland, Canada, Australia, Germany, Japan, etc., and now even Russia (but not China, N.Korea, or the Arab kingdoms yet) -- these governments including our own allows the infanticide of abortion for any reason.
> 
> The ancient Spartans were less cruel.  They allowed infanticide only in the case of birth defects.
> 
> A perfectly developing child should be given a chance at life and at productivity.  Society benefits most, besides the child itself, so if it is unwanted by its mother it should be taken by society when it can survive outside of the womb, and be raised by society into a productive human being.
> 
> This is self evident.
Click to expand...

What is evident is that you do not understand philosophy of mind, science, and developmental psychology.
Passing your intellectually immature judgements onto others as a political position is not only socially irresponsible, but also egocentric/selfish.
Grow up.


----------



## PK1

The Pipe said:


> All living mortal entities are thinking-feeling creatures---from the lowliest microbe and human being to the tallest redwood and biggest whale. All earthly creatures eat the bodies of living and once living creatures. Humans prefer to believe there is a hierarchy of living creatures---that non-humans are lesser beings, that killing a potato is less heinous than killing a cow, that stepping on a snail is less ugly than running over a human...but we are all perfectly equal and equally perfect as living consciousness. So yes, a fetus is a living, conscious entity. But in the grand scheme of things, killing a fetus is no more heinous than killing the fish you are gonna eat tonight. All living mortal beings are thinking-feeling creatures. Each was created by their spiritual self. The fetus knew its fate before incarnating as a fetus.


An example of non-scientific fantasy.


----------



## The Pipe

PK1 said:


> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> All living mortal entities are thinking-feeling creatures---from the lowliest microbe and human being to the tallest redwood and biggest whale. All earthly creatures eat the bodies of living and once living creatures. Humans prefer to believe there is a hierarchy of living creatures---that non-humans are lesser beings, that killing a potato is less heinous than killing a cow, that stepping on a snail is less ugly than running over a human...but we are all perfectly equal and equally perfect as living consciousness. So yes, a fetus is a living, conscious entity. But in the grand scheme of things, killing a fetus is no more heinous than killing the fish you are gonna eat tonight. All living mortal beings are thinking-feeling creatures. Each was created by their spiritual self. The fetus knew its fate before incarnating as a fetus.
> 
> 
> 
> An example of non-scientific fantasy.
Click to expand...


 And where do you live? You live on a grain of sand in the middle of outer space. You actually & factually have no idea when you will die, where you will die, nor how you will die. You could actually die in the next couple of minutes. So, you live a temporary life on a temporary grain of sand in the middle of temporary outer space and you don't know when you will die or be killed---you live in a Mystery where you seriously don't know how physical life originated nor do you know if consciousness both precedes mortal birth and continues after mortal death, and you sit there in your glaring, throbbing state of existential ignorance and try to bust my balls about scientific fantasy? Science hasn't helped you or mankind address any of these issues and will never be able to as long as it insists on empirical evidence. You have to be able to take a leap of faith in your mind that the Truth has been intentionally hidden by us so this world would seem like the only one we have ever experienced. It is obvious that the Answer/Truth is behind the door of death.


----------



## Unkotare

A dropout dimwit with a bong and an internet connection.^^^^ Just what nobody needs.


----------



## The Pipe

Unkotare said:


> A dropout dimwit with a bong and an internet connection.^^^^ Just what nobody needs.


Sing me a song, you're a preacher
Do me a wrong, you're a bringer of evil
The devil is never a maker
The less that you give, you're a taker


----------



## PK1

The Pipe said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> All living mortal entities are thinking-feeling creatures---from the lowliest microbe and human being to the tallest redwood and biggest whale. All earthly creatures eat the bodies of living and once living creatures. Humans prefer to believe there is a hierarchy of living creatures---that non-humans are lesser beings, that killing a potato is less heinous than killing a cow, that stepping on a snail is less ugly than running over a human...but we are all perfectly equal and equally perfect as living consciousness. So yes, a fetus is a living, conscious entity. But in the grand scheme of things, killing a fetus is no more heinous than killing the fish you are gonna eat tonight. All living mortal beings are thinking-feeling creatures. Each was created by their spiritual self. The fetus knew its fate before incarnating as a fetus.
> 
> 
> 
> An example of non-scientific fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where do you live? You live on a grain of sand in the middle of outer space. You actually & factually have no idea when you will die, where you will die, nor how you will die. You could actually die in the next couple of minutes. So, you live a temporary life on a temporary grain of sand in the middle of temporary outer space and you don't know when you will die or be killed---you live in a Mystery where you seriously don't know how physical life originated nor do you know if consciousness both precedes mortal birth and continues after mortal death, and you sit there in your glaring, throbbing state of existential ignorance and try to bust my balls about scientific fantasy? Science hasn't helped you or mankind address any of these issues and will never be able to as long as it insists on empirical evidence. You have to be able to take a leap of faith in your mind that the Truth has been intentionally hidden by us so this world would seem like the only one we have ever experienced. It is obvious that the Answer/Truth is behind the door of death.
Click to expand...

"Truth" is whatever you want to believe, it seems. And what a concern about death you have!
It's clear you don't understand what "consciousness" is from an objective perspective, and that's why you resort to fantasy.


----------



## The Pipe

PK1 said:


> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> All living mortal entities are thinking-feeling creatures---from the lowliest microbe and human being to the tallest redwood and biggest whale. All earthly creatures eat the bodies of living and once living creatures. Humans prefer to believe there is a hierarchy of living creatures---that non-humans are lesser beings, that killing a potato is less heinous than killing a cow, that stepping on a snail is less ugly than running over a human...but we are all perfectly equal and equally perfect as living consciousness. So yes, a fetus is a living, conscious entity. But in the grand scheme of things, killing a fetus is no more heinous than killing the fish you are gonna eat tonight. All living mortal beings are thinking-feeling creatures. Each was created by their spiritual self. The fetus knew its fate before incarnating as a fetus.
> 
> 
> 
> An example of non-scientific fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where do you live? You live on a grain of sand in the middle of outer space. You actually & factually have no idea when you will die, where you will die, nor how you will die. You could actually die in the next couple of minutes. So, you live a temporary life on a temporary grain of sand in the middle of temporary outer space and you don't know when you will die or be killed---you live in a Mystery where you seriously don't know how physical life originated nor do you know if consciousness both precedes mortal birth and continues after mortal death, and you sit there in your glaring, throbbing state of existential ignorance and try to bust my balls about scientific fantasy? Science hasn't helped you or mankind address any of these issues and will never be able to as long as it insists on empirical evidence. You have to be able to take a leap of faith in your mind that the Truth has been intentionally hidden by us so this world would seem like the only one we have ever experienced. It is obvious that the Answer/Truth is behind the door of death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Truth" is whatever you want to believe, it seems. And what a concern about death you have!
> It's clear you don't understand what "consciousness" is from an objective perspective, and that's why you resort to fantasy.
Click to expand...


Fact is, and you can verify this for yourself instantly, the philosophical/spiritual Truth can never be proven empirically. There is no empirical way to prove what the answers are. There is no scientific test you can conduct whose answers won't be relative to subjective interpretation. The philosophical/spiritual Truth is absolutely and unequivocally whatever you believe it is. Now, what is the value of belief? The only benefit of a belief lies in whether or not it lifts you or soothes you or relieves you or empowers you emotionally. 

I can tell by your comments you have never seriously contemplated the idea that death is eternal oblivion. You have not contemplated the idea of eternity. You have not explored your consciousness nor experienced the higher states available via LSD, marijuana, shrooms, and MDMA. You know only what your school books tell you about consciousness and mortal life itself.

You fit in just right.


----------



## Unkotare

Get off the drugs kid, they're not doing you any good.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

yiostheoy said:


> Back in 1974 the singing duo of Seals & Crofts released an album of songs including "Unborn Child" of which the title song was written by Jim Seals and Lana Bogan was a powerfully emotional appeal against abortion.  These are the lyrics:
> 
> "Oh little baby, you'll never cry, nor will you hear a sweet lullaby;
> Oh unborn child, if you only knew, just what your momma was planning to do;
> You're still a-clinging to the three of life, but soon you'll be cut off, before you get ripe;
> Oh unborn child, beginning to grow, inside your momma, but you'll never know;
> Oh tiny bud, that grows in the womb, only to be crushed, before you can bloom;
> Momma stop!  Turn around!  Go back!  Think it over! ... ."
> 
> In Philosophy any emotional argument is purely a fallacy which eludes logical thinking and rational analysis.
> 
> In Science which is the philosophy of the physical, natural world, data must first be gathered and analyzed before a logical conclusion can be inferred through inductive reasoning.
> 
> In Religion which is the doctrinal dogmatic pronouncement of an authoritarian council or leader pertaining to what Aristotle called "metaphysics" (meaning beyond physics), anything goes.  Emotional arguments are prized and very common in religion.
> 
> With 2016 being a national election year, we have not heard a lot about the hot button issue of abortion so far.  Perhaps this is because both major candidates, Hillary and Trump, have both already gone on the record that they are personally pro choice.
> 
> As for analyzing the issue of abortion itself, you must first decide which forum you intend to study it from and pronounce your sentence upon it in accordance with -- whether that be philosophical, or scientific, or religious, or Constitutional, or political.  Each of these forums (fora  in Latin) is completely different.
> 
> Ergo if you desire to analyze the topic philosophically you must choose a criterion such as the greater good to weigh the pro- and anti- arguments with.  Is the greater good benefitted or hurt by abortion?  Most likely according to this criterion the greater good is benefitted by abortion.
> 
> Scientifically there are no data (note that data is a plural word, and datum is the singular) which tell us either way if an unborn fetus is a conscious living being or not.  From science we draw a blank.
> 
> From religion if you are Catholic or one of its derivative Christian offshoots, abortion has been pronounced by the Pope and other religious leadership as anathema.  The Pope is presumably Christ's representative on Earth, unless you are anti-Catholic in which case he is Lucifer's.
> 
> Constitutionally the Burger Court in 1973 decided in Roe v. Wade in a 7 to 2 decision that women (not men) had an inherent right to choose whether to abort a pregnancy or not.  White and Rehnquist were the dissenters, with Burger and the other justices concurring, who favored Ms. Roe.
> 
> I suppose any time that there is a dissent on the SCOTUS it means the case could have gone either way.  A 7 to 2 decision suggests the overwhelming majority of the court agreed however.  Today if the decision were rendered it would be closer to 4 to 4 at the moment most likely.
> 
> Politically this is and always has been a hot button issue.  There are emotional arguments on both sides which tend to lend sway to either point of view.
> 
> My personal view is that no one should tell someone else what to do.
> 
> Of course if someday we establish contact with a prenatal fetus and he/she tells us please don't murder her/him, we might all change our minds about extending Constitutional rights to fetuses (feti in Latin).
> 
> In the meantime there will always be those on the far left and the far right who will argue emotionally (not logically nor scientifically nor philosophically) that their own view, whether pro- or anti- abortion, should be forced upon the rest of the Nation.
> 
> Q.E.D.


 Nonsense.

Everyone is opposed to abortion, everyone wishes to see the practice end.

That’s not the source of the conflict.

The source of the conflict concerns how to indeed bring about the end of the practice, where there are those who seek to ‘ban’ abortion in violation of the 14th Amendment and the right to privacy, and those who seek to end the practice consistent with the Constitution and its case law.

And defending the privacy rights of women, where the state cannot compel a woman to give birth against her will, is not to ‘force’ anything on anyone.


----------



## Unkotare

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back in 1974 the singing duo of Seals & Crofts released an album of songs including "Unborn Child" of which the title song was written by Jim Seals and Lana Bogan was a powerfully emotional appeal against abortion.  These are the lyrics:
> 
> "Oh little baby, you'll never cry, nor will you hear a sweet lullaby;
> Oh unborn child, if you only knew, just what your momma was planning to do;
> You're still a-clinging to the three of life, but soon you'll be cut off, before you get ripe;
> Oh unborn child, beginning to grow, inside your momma, but you'll never know;
> Oh tiny bud, that grows in the womb, only to be crushed, before you can bloom;
> Momma stop!  Turn around!  Go back!  Think it over! ... ."
> 
> In Philosophy any emotional argument is purely a fallacy which eludes logical thinking and rational analysis.
> 
> In Science which is the philosophy of the physical, natural world, data must first be gathered and analyzed before a logical conclusion can be inferred through inductive reasoning.
> 
> In Religion which is the doctrinal dogmatic pronouncement of an authoritarian council or leader pertaining to what Aristotle called "metaphysics" (meaning beyond physics), anything goes.  Emotional arguments are prized and very common in religion.
> 
> With 2016 being a national election year, we have not heard a lot about the hot button issue of abortion so far.  Perhaps this is because both major candidates, Hillary and Trump, have both already gone on the record that they are personally pro choice.
> 
> As for analyzing the issue of abortion itself, you must first decide which forum you intend to study it from and pronounce your sentence upon it in accordance with -- whether that be philosophical, or scientific, or religious, or Constitutional, or political.  Each of these forums (fora  in Latin) is completely different.
> 
> Ergo if you desire to analyze the topic philosophically you must choose a criterion such as the greater good to weigh the pro- and anti- arguments with.  Is the greater good benefitted or hurt by abortion?  Most likely according to this criterion the greater good is benefitted by abortion.
> 
> Scientifically there are no data (note that data is a plural word, and datum is the singular) which tell us either way if an unborn fetus is a conscious living being or not.  From science we draw a blank.
> 
> From religion if you are Catholic or one of its derivative Christian offshoots, abortion has been pronounced by the Pope and other religious leadership as anathema.  The Pope is presumably Christ's representative on Earth, unless you are anti-Catholic in which case he is Lucifer's.
> 
> Constitutionally the Burger Court in 1973 decided in Roe v. Wade in a 7 to 2 decision that women (not men) had an inherent right to choose whether to abort a pregnancy or not.  White and Rehnquist were the dissenters, with Burger and the other justices concurring, who favored Ms. Roe.
> 
> I suppose any time that there is a dissent on the SCOTUS it means the case could have gone either way.  A 7 to 2 decision suggests the overwhelming majority of the court agreed however.  Today if the decision were rendered it would be closer to 4 to 4 at the moment most likely.
> 
> Politically this is and always has been a hot button issue.  There are emotional arguments on both sides which tend to lend sway to either point of view.
> 
> My personal view is that no one should tell someone else what to do.
> 
> Of course if someday we establish contact with a prenatal fetus and he/she tells us please don't murder her/him, we might all change our minds about extending Constitutional rights to fetuses (feti in Latin).
> 
> In the meantime there will always be those on the far left and the far right who will argue emotionally (not logically nor scientifically nor philosophically) that their own view, whether pro- or anti- abortion, should be forced upon the rest of the Nation.
> 
> Q.E.D.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Everyone is opposed to abortion, everyone wishes to see the practice end.
> 
> That’s not the source of the conflict.
> 
> ...
Click to expand...



Wrong


----------



## The Pipe

Unkotare said:


> Get off the drugs kid, they're not doing you any good.


Son, I gots dingle berries older than you. Drugs are good, self-loathing homosexuals are bad. Bad. Bad for the gene pool.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

PK1 said:


> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Scientifically there are no data which tell us either way if an unborn fetus is a conscious living being or not.  From science we draw a blank.
> 
> 
> 
> Philosophies of Mind and Science provide us conceptual contexts in data interpretation.
> In science, conceptual definitions are related to operational definitions that data represent.
> Scientists, both bio & psych, can associate "consciousness" with patterns of brain activity.
> 
> Consciousness has many aspects; many neural patterns.
> It's highly likely (inductive & deductive reasoning) that fetuses, and especially embryos, human or other, have *primitive*/sensory "consciousness", *if any*.
Click to expand...

And that’s the genius of privacy rights jurisprudence, acknowledging the Framers’ original intent that government be prohibited from engaging in unwarranted interference with citizens’ decisions concerning personal, private matters – such as whom to marry, with whom to be intimate, and whether to have a child or not.

Privacy rights jurisprudence protects the liberty of each person to decide for himself such fundamental matters as when life begins in good faith and in good conscience, in accordance with his own religious, philosophical, and moral beliefs.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Unkotare said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back in 1974 the singing duo of Seals & Crofts released an album of songs including "Unborn Child" of which the title song was written by Jim Seals and Lana Bogan was a powerfully emotional appeal against abortion.  These are the lyrics:
> 
> "Oh little baby, you'll never cry, nor will you hear a sweet lullaby;
> Oh unborn child, if you only knew, just what your momma was planning to do;
> You're still a-clinging to the three of life, but soon you'll be cut off, before you get ripe;
> Oh unborn child, beginning to grow, inside your momma, but you'll never know;
> Oh tiny bud, that grows in the womb, only to be crushed, before you can bloom;
> Momma stop!  Turn around!  Go back!  Think it over! ... ."
> 
> In Philosophy any emotional argument is purely a fallacy which eludes logical thinking and rational analysis.
> 
> In Science which is the philosophy of the physical, natural world, data must first be gathered and analyzed before a logical conclusion can be inferred through inductive reasoning.
> 
> In Religion which is the doctrinal dogmatic pronouncement of an authoritarian council or leader pertaining to what Aristotle called "metaphysics" (meaning beyond physics), anything goes.  Emotional arguments are prized and very common in religion.
> 
> With 2016 being a national election year, we have not heard a lot about the hot button issue of abortion so far.  Perhaps this is because both major candidates, Hillary and Trump, have both already gone on the record that they are personally pro choice.
> 
> As for analyzing the issue of abortion itself, you must first decide which forum you intend to study it from and pronounce your sentence upon it in accordance with -- whether that be philosophical, or scientific, or religious, or Constitutional, or political.  Each of these forums (fora  in Latin) is completely different.
> 
> Ergo if you desire to analyze the topic philosophically you must choose a criterion such as the greater good to weigh the pro- and anti- arguments with.  Is the greater good benefitted or hurt by abortion?  Most likely according to this criterion the greater good is benefitted by abortion.
> 
> Scientifically there are no data (note that data is a plural word, and datum is the singular) which tell us either way if an unborn fetus is a conscious living being or not.  From science we draw a blank.
> 
> From religion if you are Catholic or one of its derivative Christian offshoots, abortion has been pronounced by the Pope and other religious leadership as anathema.  The Pope is presumably Christ's representative on Earth, unless you are anti-Catholic in which case he is Lucifer's.
> 
> Constitutionally the Burger Court in 1973 decided in Roe v. Wade in a 7 to 2 decision that women (not men) had an inherent right to choose whether to abort a pregnancy or not.  White and Rehnquist were the dissenters, with Burger and the other justices concurring, who favored Ms. Roe.
> 
> I suppose any time that there is a dissent on the SCOTUS it means the case could have gone either way.  A 7 to 2 decision suggests the overwhelming majority of the court agreed however.  Today if the decision were rendered it would be closer to 4 to 4 at the moment most likely.
> 
> Politically this is and always has been a hot button issue.  There are emotional arguments on both sides which tend to lend sway to either point of view.
> 
> My personal view is that no one should tell someone else what to do.
> 
> Of course if someday we establish contact with a prenatal fetus and he/she tells us please don't murder her/him, we might all change our minds about extending Constitutional rights to fetuses (feti in Latin).
> 
> In the meantime there will always be those on the far left and the far right who will argue emotionally (not logically nor scientifically nor philosophically) that their own view, whether pro- or anti- abortion, should be forced upon the rest of the Nation.
> 
> Q.E.D.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Everyone is opposed to abortion, everyone wishes to see the practice end.
> 
> That’s not the source of the conflict.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong
Click to expand...

No, this is wrong.

The conflict is solely how to end the practice – where in fact most on the right and social conservatives have no desire to bring an end to abortion, but to the keep this wedge/hot button issue alive and well for some perceived partisan gain.

Most on the right refuse to join others to find an actual, viable solution to the problem of abortion that comports with the Constitution and its case law.


----------



## Unkotare

The Pipe said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get off the drugs kid, they're not doing you any good.
> 
> 
> 
> Son, I gots dingle berries older than you. .....
Click to expand...



Unlikely, punk. Get off the drugs. You have no brain cells to spare.


----------



## Unkotare

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yiostheoy said:
> 
> 
> 
> Back in 1974 the singing duo of Seals & Crofts released an album of songs including "Unborn Child" of which the title song was written by Jim Seals and Lana Bogan was a powerfully emotional appeal against abortion.  These are the lyrics:
> 
> "Oh little baby, you'll never cry, nor will you hear a sweet lullaby;
> Oh unborn child, if you only knew, just what your momma was planning to do;
> You're still a-clinging to the three of life, but soon you'll be cut off, before you get ripe;
> Oh unborn child, beginning to grow, inside your momma, but you'll never know;
> Oh tiny bud, that grows in the womb, only to be crushed, before you can bloom;
> Momma stop!  Turn around!  Go back!  Think it over! ... ."
> 
> In Philosophy any emotional argument is purely a fallacy which eludes logical thinking and rational analysis.
> 
> In Science which is the philosophy of the physical, natural world, data must first be gathered and analyzed before a logical conclusion can be inferred through inductive reasoning.
> 
> In Religion which is the doctrinal dogmatic pronouncement of an authoritarian council or leader pertaining to what Aristotle called "metaphysics" (meaning beyond physics), anything goes.  Emotional arguments are prized and very common in religion.
> 
> With 2016 being a national election year, we have not heard a lot about the hot button issue of abortion so far.  Perhaps this is because both major candidates, Hillary and Trump, have both already gone on the record that they are personally pro choice.
> 
> As for analyzing the issue of abortion itself, you must first decide which forum you intend to study it from and pronounce your sentence upon it in accordance with -- whether that be philosophical, or scientific, or religious, or Constitutional, or political.  Each of these forums (fora  in Latin) is completely different.
> 
> Ergo if you desire to analyze the topic philosophically you must choose a criterion such as the greater good to weigh the pro- and anti- arguments with.  Is the greater good benefitted or hurt by abortion?  Most likely according to this criterion the greater good is benefitted by abortion.
> 
> Scientifically there are no data (note that data is a plural word, and datum is the singular) which tell us either way if an unborn fetus is a conscious living being or not.  From science we draw a blank.
> 
> From religion if you are Catholic or one of its derivative Christian offshoots, abortion has been pronounced by the Pope and other religious leadership as anathema.  The Pope is presumably Christ's representative on Earth, unless you are anti-Catholic in which case he is Lucifer's.
> 
> Constitutionally the Burger Court in 1973 decided in Roe v. Wade in a 7 to 2 decision that women (not men) had an inherent right to choose whether to abort a pregnancy or not.  White and Rehnquist were the dissenters, with Burger and the other justices concurring, who favored Ms. Roe.
> 
> I suppose any time that there is a dissent on the SCOTUS it means the case could have gone either way.  A 7 to 2 decision suggests the overwhelming majority of the court agreed however.  Today if the decision were rendered it would be closer to 4 to 4 at the moment most likely.
> 
> Politically this is and always has been a hot button issue.  There are emotional arguments on both sides which tend to lend sway to either point of view.
> 
> My personal view is that no one should tell someone else what to do.
> 
> Of course if someday we establish contact with a prenatal fetus and he/she tells us please don't murder her/him, we might all change our minds about extending Constitutional rights to fetuses (feti in Latin).
> 
> In the meantime there will always be those on the far left and the far right who will argue emotionally (not logically nor scientifically nor philosophically) that their own view, whether pro- or anti- abortion, should be forced upon the rest of the Nation.
> 
> Q.E.D.
> 
> 
> 
> Nonsense.
> 
> Everyone is opposed to abortion, everyone wishes to see the practice end.
> 
> That’s not the source of the conflict.
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, this is wrong.
> 
> The conflict is solely how to end the practice – .....
Click to expand...



Wrong. Obviously wrong. If you want to soothe your justifiably guilty conscience, stop serving death.


----------



## Dogmaphobe

The Pipe said:


> You have not explored your consciousness nor experienced the higher states available via LSD, marijuana, shrooms, and MDMA. .




Other than the MDMA, I have, but that doesn't keep me from noticing you are laughably sophomoric and totally full of shit.


----------



## The Pipe

Dogmaphobe said:


> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not explored your consciousness nor experienced the higher states available via LSD, marijuana, shrooms, and MDMA. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other than the MDMA, I have, but that doesn't keep me from noticing you are laughably sophomoric and totally full of shit.
Click to expand...


But I _smoke _you guys.
_You are dust after I'm through with you._
All you can hurl are school-teacher insults.
Face it, my ideas about death & life have taken root in your minds. Can't un-plant them, babies.
They is gonna grow and fester in the dark recesses.
And hey, next time you are in pain, guess what you're gonna think about? You're gonna think about how this life is destined and how you are the author, how you are the cause of every shred of pain in your life---even if someone else assaults you.

I _smoke _you guys.


----------



## Coyote

*Man.  Talk about a total thread trainwreck and derailment.*

*Time to get back to the topic.  The rest of the stuff - take it to the Flame Zone.*


----------



## PK1

The Pipe said:


> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PK1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Pipe said:
> 
> 
> 
> All living mortal entities are thinking-feeling creatures---from the lowliest microbe and human being to the tallest redwood and biggest whale. All earthly creatures eat the bodies of living and once living creatures. Humans prefer to believe there is a hierarchy of living creatures---that non-humans are lesser beings, that killing a potato is less heinous than killing a cow, that stepping on a snail is less ugly than running over a human...but we are all perfectly equal and equally perfect as living consciousness. So yes, a fetus is a living, conscious entity. But in the grand scheme of things, killing a fetus is no more heinous than killing the fish you are gonna eat tonight. All living mortal beings are thinking-feeling creatures. Each was created by their spiritual self. The fetus knew its fate before incarnating as a fetus.
> 
> 
> 
> An example of non-scientific fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And where do you live? You live on a grain of sand in the middle of outer space. You actually & factually have no idea when you will die, where you will die, nor how you will die. You could actually die in the next couple of minutes. So, you live a temporary life on a temporary grain of sand in the middle of temporary outer space and you don't know when you will die or be killed---you live in a Mystery where you seriously don't know how physical life originated nor do you know if consciousness both precedes mortal birth and continues after mortal death, and you sit there in your glaring, throbbing state of existential ignorance and try to bust my balls about scientific fantasy? Science hasn't helped you or mankind address any of these issues and will never be able to as long as it insists on empirical evidence. You have to be able to take a leap of faith in your mind that the Truth has been intentionally hidden by us so this world would seem like the only one we have ever experienced. It is obvious that the Answer/Truth is behind the door of death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Truth" is whatever you want to believe, it seems. And what a concern about death you have!
> It's clear you don't understand what "consciousness" is from an objective perspective, and that's why you resort to fantasy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Fact is, and you can verify this for yourself instantly, the philosophical/spiritual Truth can never be proven empirically. There is no empirical way to prove what the answers are. There is no scientific test you can conduct whose answers won't be relative to subjective interpretation. The philosophical/spiritual Truth is absolutely and unequivocally whatever you believe it is. Now, what is the value of belief? The only benefit of a belief lies in whether or not it lifts you or soothes you or relieves you or empowers you emotionally.
> 
> I can tell by your comments you have never seriously contemplated the idea that death is eternal oblivion. You have not contemplated the idea of eternity. You have not explored your consciousness nor experienced the higher states available via LSD, marijuana, shrooms, and MDMA. You know only what your school books tell you about consciousness and mortal life itself.
Click to expand...

Do you know why I would agree with your statement:
_"philosophical/spiritual Truth can never be proven empirically"_?
It's because YOUR subjective thoughts, fantasies, and hallucinations cannot be observed.
Especially if you cannot define what your concepts & operational variables are.
How do you know we live on _a "grain of sand in the middle of outer space"?_
Did you imagine that, or did someone you trust *observe* that?

For what it's worth, i have experimented with marijuana & LSD, and my experiences were illuminating with regard to conscious perceptions & emotional responses. However, i have not found the need to alter my natural states of consciousness regularly.


----------

