So, Abortion.

[Grad Duchy of Luxembourg]

So you agree that people suffering from multiple personality disorder should not be treated and treating them with pharmaceuticals is a high price to pay for one of the consciousness to survive.

Well... considering that given time, the separate consciousness will be completely independent of the original organism, I cannot say those are comparable, on the basis that with multi-personality disorder, there is no chance the other consciousness will be able to leave without destroying the other.

It could leave with appropriate medication. You apparently can't read. My post you are quoting seems to indicate that clearly.

[Dakini]

Can we all just agree on one thing:

The fact that MTV created a show about underage parents is disgusting.

Yeah. That's pretty fucked up.

[Grad Duchy of Luxembourg]

If you can't add something of substance, kindly fuck off.

Well aren't you polite? Putting kindly in front of fuck off like the gentleman you are.

I asked you nicely. Now is the time for you to go.

[Asuiop]

So they went through a difficult decision....So?
I could have gone through a difficult decision and eventually decided to become a drug dealer... still illegal.
Lets say my wife found out I commited fraud and decided to turn me in. I went through a tough decision and eventually decided to murder her and hid the body rather than go to jail for the rest of my life. Still illegal, horrible, and killing a human being.
Saying we should make something legal because they make a hard decision to do it makes no sense.

And stop it with the rape and incest arguements, I think(hope) that everyone here is fine with rape/incest abortions.

You dismiss and minimize the decision women have to make by equating it with ridiculous alternatives. Try again. And the rape/incest point is fair to make, even if all the anti-choice people here have been so magnanimous as to allow it.

Choosing between going to jail and killing your wife is about the same size, if not bigger of a decision than whether to have an abortion or not. I'm not dismissing the decision, I'm simply saying that the fact that their decision is large doesn't make the abortion okay.

[Zweite Alaje]

Ok, and the organism responds to the environment according to how it's DNA is structured. Also there is Epigenetics too.

So you're admitting that DNA isn't a blueprint for fetal development?

I'd said nothing of the sort.

Except not. Have you heard of epigenetics?

Of course he hasn't. When was the last time a Nature, Science, Cell publication was made in Indonesia? Human Genome Project? Did Indonesia take part in it? No.

Yes, I know what Epigenetics is. That goes along with DNA, it is a factor in gene expression.

BTW, I will tell once and only once, I am not Indonesian. I don't know what your deal is with that, but it is very childish. If you have a fetish, take it elsewhere.

[Dakini]

How is that politically incorrect? Masturbation has its attractions, certainly (it can be much cheaper), and while I don't approve of using abortion as a birth control method, it needs to be available for times when regular birth control methods fail or in the instances of rape and incest. Ultimately, though, neither the State nor you have any interest in intruding yourselves into women's decisions about pregnancy. Anti-choice people also seem to assume that no one else is involved the decision-making or that the decision is made without anguish and pain. At least, that's how you come across. That's simply not true. Then again, a great many anti-choice people are men and it's probably difficult for them to put themselves mentally into a situation they'll never experience.

So they went through a difficult decision....So?
I could have gone through a difficult decision and eventually decided to become a drug dealer... still illegal.
Lets say my wife found out I commited fraud and decided to turn me in. I went through a tough decision and eventually decided to murder her and hid the body rather than go to jail for the rest of my life. Still illegal, horrible, and killing a human being.
Saying we should make something legal because they make a hard decision to do it makes no sense.

And stop it with the rape and incest arguements, I think(hope) that everyone here is fine with rape/incest abortions.

Wait, wasn't your argument that the "baby" shouldn't have to pay for its mother's "mistakes"? Using that logic, why should it have to pay for its father's misdoings?

Being opposed to abortion resulting from consensual sex and in favour of it for rape is basically doing a "punish the sluts with a baby!" thing.

[Crumlark]

Well... considering that given time, the separate consciousness will be completely independent of the original organism, I cannot say those are comparable, on the basis that with multi-personality disorder, there is no chance the other consciousness will be able to leave without destroying the other.

It could leave with appropriate medication. You apparently can't read. My post you are quoting seems to indicate that clearly.

You misread. I mean to say that if one was leave, it would simply no longer be, and would be 'dead', so to speak. So the two are incomparable, because with multi-personality disorder, there is no separate body that can carry the consciousness, while with a child, once the baby is born, it can be removed from the original organism, and continue with a happy orphan life.

[Mavorpen]

So you're admitting that DNA isn't a blueprint for fetal development?

I'd said nothing of the sort.

So you still don't understand basic embryology. I'll allow Dawkins to explain this:

A recipe in a cookery book is not, in any sense, a blueprint for the cake that will finally emerge from the oven…. a recipe is not a scale model, not a description of a finished cake, not in any sense a point-for-point representation. It is a set of instructions which, if obeyed in the right order, will result in a cake.

Now, we don’t yet understand everything, or even most things, about how animals develop from fertilized eggs. Nevertheless, the indications are very strong that the genes are much more like a recipe than like a blueprint. Indeed, the recipe analogy is really rather a good one, while the blueprint analogy, although it is often unthinkingly used in elementary textbooks, especially recent ones, is wrong in almost every particular. Embryonic development is a process. It is an orderly sequence of events, like the procedure for making a cake…

The genes, taken together, can be seen as a set of instructions for carrying out a process, just as the words of a recipe, taken together, are a set of instructions for carrying out a process.

[Grad Duchy of Luxembourg]

Yes, I know what Epigenetics is. That goes along with DNA, it is a factor in gene expression.

You are again... wrong. So sad.

[Grad Duchy of Luxembourg]

It could leave with appropriate medication. You apparently can't read. My post you are quoting seems to indicate that clearly.

You misread. I mean to say that if one was leave, it would simply no longer be, and would be 'dead', so to speak. So the two are incomparable, because with multi-personality disorder, there is no separate body that can carry the consciousness, while with a child, once the baby is born, it can be removed from the original organism, and continue with a happy orphan life.

Who says there has to be a separate body that can carry the consciousness? You can force the poor sod to not take the medication. You can have all the personalities and consciousness in one alive body. Since you are making an argument that extinguishing a potential consciousness is a grave price to pay in case of abortion, I'd assume you are ok with barring multiple personalities and even schizophrenics from taking their meds.

[Asuiop]

So they went through a difficult decision....So?
I could have gone through a difficult decision and eventually decided to become a drug dealer... still illegal.
Lets say my wife found out I commited fraud and decided to turn me in. I went through a tough decision and eventually decided to murder her and hid the body rather than go to jail for the rest of my life. Still illegal, horrible, and killing a human being.
Saying we should make something legal because they make a hard decision to do it makes no sense.

And stop it with the rape and incest arguements, I think(hope) that everyone here is fine with rape/incest abortions.

Wait, wasn't your argument that the "baby" shouldn't have to pay for its mother's "mistakes"? Using that logic, why should it have to pay for its father's misdoings?

Being opposed to abortion resulting from consensual sex and in favour of it for rape is basically doing a "punish the sluts with a baby!" thing.

First of all, at that phrase, I need to put that in my sig!
Anyway, I'm not in favor of abortion when the woman is raped. I feel horrible for the woman, and she shouldn't have to raise a baby after being raped. I really don't know about what to do in that situation. I just say give her the choice, but I really don't know

[Zweite Alaje]

I'd said nothing of the sort.

So you still don't understand basic embryology. I'll allow Dawkins to explain this:

A recipe in a cookery book is not, in any sense, a blueprint for the cake that will finally emerge from the oven…. a recipe is not a scale model, not a description of a finished cake, not in any sense a point-for-point representation. It is a set of instructions which, if obeyed in the right order, will result in a cake.

Now, we don’t yet understand everything, or even most things, about how animals develop from fertilized eggs. Nevertheless, the indications are very strong that the genes are much more like a recipe than like a blueprint. Indeed, the recipe analogy is really rather a good one, while the blueprint analogy, although it is often unthinkingly used in elementary textbooks, especially recent ones, is wrong in almost every particular. Embryonic development is a process. It is an orderly sequence of events, like the procedure for making a cake…

The genes, taken together, can be seen as a set of instructions for carrying out a process, just as the words of a recipe, taken together, are a set of instructions for carrying out a process.

As much as I dislike Dawkins, he makes a good point.

Yes, I know what Epigenetics is. That goes along with DNA, it is a factor in gene expression.

You are again... wrong. So sad.

So something that deals with gene expression isn't connected to DNA, wow you're lost.

[Mavorpen]

As much as I dislike Dawkins, he makes a good point.

Of course he does. Because he's correct. DNA isn't a blueprint for fetal development.

[Grad Duchy of Luxembourg]

You are again... wrong. So sad.

So something that deals with gene expression isn't connected to DNA, wow you're lost.

Apparently, you are not very familiar with epigenetics. Have you heard of study of identical twins and their cancer rates?

[Asuiop]

As much as I dislike Dawkins, he makes a good point.

Of course he does. Because he's correct. DNA isn't a blueprint for fetal development.

Remind me, what you guys where debating about before the DNA flame-fest?

[Crumlark]

You misread. I mean to say that if one was leave, it would simply no longer be, and would be 'dead', so to speak. So the two are incomparable, because with multi-personality disorder, there is no separate body that can carry the consciousness, while with a child, once the baby is born, it can be removed from the original organism, and continue with a happy orphan life.

Who says there has to be a separate body that can carry the consciousness? You can force the poor sod to not take the medication. You can have all the personalities and consciousness in one alive body. Since you are making an argument that extinguishing a potential consciousness is a grave price to pay in case of abortion, I'd assume you are ok with barring multiple personalities and even schizophrenics from taking their meds.

But with those, there is no chance, or 'potential', of all the consciousnesses surviving uninhibited after a brief period with which in the case of a child, would be the act of being born, and thus would be independent.

[Grad Duchy of Luxembourg]

As much as I dislike Dawkins, he makes a good point.

Exactly why do you dislike Dawkins?

[Dakini]

Wait, wasn't your argument that the "baby" shouldn't have to pay for its mother's "mistakes"? Using that logic, why should it have to pay for its father's misdoings?

Being opposed to abortion resulting from consensual sex and in favour of it for rape is basically doing a "punish the sluts with a baby!" thing.

First of all, at that phrase, I need to put that in my sig!
Anyway, I'm not in favor of abortion when the woman is raped. I feel horrible for the woman, and she shouldn't have to raise a baby after being raped. I really don't know about what to do in that situation. I just say give her the choice, but I really don't know

So how is it different? In either case, the woman doesn't want to be pregnant and she has not chosen to become pregnant (unless you're going to suggest that using birth control while engaging in consenting sex is a choice to become pregnant, which is about as ridiculous as saying that using SCUBA equipment is consent to drowning). However, in one case (when a woman didn't consent to sex at all), you're fine with allowing her to have an abortion while in the other case (when a woman consented to sex, but did not consent to pregnancy) you want to force her to give birth against her will.

Please, tell me why two women who did not consent to pregnancy should get such different treatment.

[Mavorpen]

Of course he does. Because he's correct. DNA isn't a blueprint for fetal development.

Remind me, what you guys where debating about before the DNA flame-fest?

No. Go look yourself.

[Mavorpen]

As much as I dislike Dawkins, he makes a good point.

Exactly why do you dislike Dawkins?

...Not the thread for it.

[Grad Duchy of Luxembourg]

But with those, there is no chance, or 'potential', of all the consciousnesses surviving uninhibited after a brief period with which in the case of a child, would be the act of being born, and thus would be independent.

Of course there is. Don't treat the schizophrenics and multiple personalities. They will live as long as they can. And I would suggest that you don't ever say pregnancy is "brief".

[Asuiop]

First of all, at that phrase, I need to put that in my sig!
Anyway, I'm not in favor of abortion when the woman is raped. I feel horrible for the woman, and she shouldn't have to raise a baby after being raped. I really don't know about what to do in that situation. I just say give her the choice, but I really don't know

So how is it different? In either case, the woman doesn't want to be pregnant and she has not chosen to become pregnant (unless you're going to suggest that using birth control while engaging in consenting sex is a choice to become pregnant). However, in one case (when a woman didn't consent to sex at all), you're fine with allowing her to have an abortion while in the other case (when a woman consented to sex, but did not consent to pregnancy) you want to force her to give birth against her will.

Please, tell me why two women who did not consent to pregnancy should get such different treatment.

I don't believe that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy. The reason why they get different treatment is because consent to sex is consent to risk of pregnancy.

[Zweite Alaje]

Exactly why do you dislike Dawkins?

...Not the thread for it.

Seconded, lets not go there.

[Dakini]

So how is it different? In either case, the woman doesn't want to be pregnant and she has not chosen to become pregnant (unless you're going to suggest that using birth control while engaging in consenting sex is a choice to become pregnant). However, in one case (when a woman didn't consent to sex at all), you're fine with allowing her to have an abortion while in the other case (when a woman consented to sex, but did not consent to pregnancy) you want to force her to give birth against her will.

Please, tell me why two women who did not consent to pregnancy should get such different treatment.

I don't believe that consent to sex is consent to pregnancy. The reason why they get different treatment is because consent to sex is consent to risk of pregnancy.

So how is abortion not an acceptable way to deal with this outcome? Consent to sex is also consent to the risk of getting an STI, but that doesn't mean we keep people from getting some penicillin when they get the clap because they chose to take that risk.

If it's because life is important and every fetus has the right to become a baby, then the rape victim should also be forced to carry to term.

If it's about taking responsibility for your actions, then I ask how is an abortion not taking responsibility? It's not like it's something women do for fun.

[Vazdania]

Again, the many of you know my views on abortion.

I don't think that abortion should be legal accept for in cases of rape and if it will kill the mother if she gives birth to it.

A fetus is human, it may not be alive, but it's human and its developing into an individual. I think and believe that we should allow that human the opportunity to develop into an individual. I'm not anti-women, but I can't help but viewing abortion as negative if they so willfully committed an act which has large consequences to it.