NationStates

United Muscovite Nations wrote:

Crysuko wrote:by the virtue of a full human is capable of interacting with people and adding to the world, an unwanted zygote or embryo cannot.

Many things are capable of interacting with people, but we don't accord them the rights of humans. And there are many fully-grown humans who don't add any material benefits to the world, such as the severely disabled.

Lady Scylla wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:What is it made out of, Mr. Materialist?

Holy crap, a wild Parkus.

Crysuko wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:What is it made out of, Mr. Materialist?

by the virtue of a full human is capable of interacting with people and adding to the world, an unwanted zygote or embryo cannot.

Crysuko wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Many things are capable of interacting with people, but we don't accord them the rights of humans. And there are many fully-grown humans who don't add any material benefits to the world, such as the severely disabled.

they can still feel pain, and may well have people who would be happier than if they were dead. On the other hand, it may provide relief to the carrier of the embryo to know that it no longer burdens them.

Crysuko wrote:

The Parkus Empire wrote:What is it made out of, Mr. Materialist?

by the virtue of a full human is capable of interacting with people and adding to the world, an unwanted zygote or embryo cannot.

Hakons wrote:

Crysuko wrote:by the virtue of a full human is capable of interacting with people and adding to the world, an unwanted zygote or embryo cannot.

Once again, however much a fetus is desired or undesired is irrelevant to human worth. What other undesirables do you want to purge?

Crysuko wrote:

United Muscovite Nations wrote:Many things are capable of interacting with people, but we don't accord them the rights of humans. And there are many fully-grown humans who don't add any material benefits to the world, such as the severely disabled.

they can still feel pain, and may well have people who would be happier than if they were dead. On the other hand, it may provide relief to the carrier of the embryo to know that it no longer burdens them.

Crysuko wrote:

Hakons wrote:
Once again, however much a fetus is desired or undesired is irrelevant to human worth. What other undesirables do you want to purge?

only the clusters of unthinking, unfeeling stem cells that burden those who carry them.

Hakons wrote:

Crysuko wrote:they can still feel pain, and may well have people who would be happier than if they were dead. On the other hand, it may provide relief to the carrier of the embryo to know that it no longer burdens them.

"Relief" is not a common emotion in women who just had an abortion.

Crysuko wrote:

Hakons wrote:
"Relief" is not a common emotion in women who just had an abortion.

because of people piling on the sob stories and fake morality, combined with how invasive the procedure is, lifestyle factors and so on then it's no wonder many are stressed by it. but don't tell me that if a woman's life is threatened by a pregnancy, a small part of her feels releived to have it gone and know that her own life is saved.

Hakons wrote:

Crysuko wrote:because of people piling on the sob stories and fake morality, combined with how invasive the procedure is, lifestyle factors and so on then it's no wonder many are stressed by it. but don't tell me that if a woman's life is threatened by a pregnancy, a small part of her feels releived to have it gone and know that her own life is saved.

Almost no pro-lifers are for banning abortions that are meant to save a life. Unfortunately, most abortions are not life preserving operations. They are most often quiet the opposite.

Crysuko wrote:

Hakons wrote:
"Relief" is not a common emotion in women who just had an abortion.

because of people piling on the sob stories and fake morality, combined with how invasive the procedure is, lifestyle factors and so on then it's no wonder many are stressed by it. but don't tell me that if a woman's life is threatened by a pregnancy, a small part of her feels releived to have it gone and know that her own life is saved. And perhaps I should clarify, not all those in the womb are a burden, only those which are either dangerous to carry, or for whatever reason, are unwanted.

Crysuko wrote:

Hakons wrote:
Almost no pro-lifers are for banning abortions that are meant to save a life. Unfortunately, most abortions are not life preserving operations. They are most often quiet the opposite.

Then consider the quality of life factor, if a woman cannot afford to have a child and cannot take worthwhile care of them, then is a life born into destitution from day one worth living? also, adoption isn;t any better due to how overcrowded the system is. no disrespect to those with adoptive parents, but there are many who grow up an empty shell due to having no true mother or father figure to guide them.

Crysuko wrote:1.Then consider the quality of life factor, if a woman cannot afford to have a child and cannot take worthwhile care of them, then is a life born into destitution from day one worth living?

2.also, adoption isn;t any better due to how overcrowded the system is. no disrespect to those with adoptive parents, but there are many who grow up an empty shell due to having no true mother or father figure to guide them.

Hakons wrote:

Crysuko wrote:Then consider the quality of life factor, if a woman cannot afford to have a child and cannot take worthwhile care of them, then is a life born into destitution from day one worth living? also, adoption isn;t any better due to how overcrowded the system is. no disrespect to those with adoptive parents, but there are many who grow up an empty shell due to having no true mother or father figure to guide them.

There are many people who experience "low" quality of life. Unlike you, I recognize that rounding up the poor and throwing them into a gas chamber is not a solution to poverty. Yes, I'm being hyperbolic, but killing fetuses based on their perceived economic prosperity is essentially killing them because they might be poor.

Crysuko wrote:

Hakons wrote:
There are many people who experience "low" quality of life. Unlike you, I recognize that rounding up the poor and throwing them into a gas chamber is not a solution to poverty. Yes, I'm being hyperbolic, but killing fetuses based on their perceived economic prosperity is essentially killing them because they might be poor.

and if that perception is right? I tend to take the utilitarian approach to things on a large scale. That is, try and reduce the amount of people suffering in the world. That does not mean kill the poor, but instead allow a woman to make the choice to not add to it. I am not saying kill all fetuses of poor women, but give them the option at least to end it if they deem it justifiable themselves.

Crysuko wrote:

Hakons wrote:
There are many people who experience "low" quality of life. Unlike you, I recognize that rounding up the poor and throwing them into a gas chamber is not a solution to poverty. Yes, I'm being hyperbolic, but killing fetuses based on their perceived economic prosperity is essentially killing them because they might be poor.

and if that perception is right? I tend to take the utilitarian approach to things on a large scale. That is, try and reduce the amount of people suffering in the world. That does not mean kill the poor, but instead allow a woman to make the choice to not add to it. I am not saying kill all fetuses of poor women, but give them the option at least to end it if they deem it justifiable themselves.

Hakons wrote:

Crysuko wrote:and if that perception is right? I tend to take the utilitarian approach to things on a large scale. That is, try and reduce the amount of people suffering in the world. That does not mean kill the poor, but instead allow a woman to make the choice to not add to it. I am not saying kill all fetuses of poor women, but give them the option at least to end it if they deem it justifiable themselves.

Your "reduce the amount of people suffering in the world" comes down to terminating the future poor and sterilizing the impoverished. How noble and just.

History, and Pinochet’s fascination with it, featured heavily in our talks. He expressed his admiration for Napoleon and for the Romans, and we also discussed Fidel Castro, whom he seemed to respect for standing up for his beliefs, and for being a “nationalist.” When it came to Mao, too, he seemed curiously uncritical. He described a visit to Mao’s tomb, and his voice fell into a dramatic hush: “They took me to a large temple, immense, how can I tell you? Like the American Congress building. Where, every day, thousands of people take flowers to Mao. I went to that temple, but Mao isn’t there. Mao is in a second temple further on, where all the walls are of black marble. In the middle is Mao’s catafalque. What a monument!—of silence. Dark . . . half-light, and the catafalque.”

United Muscovite Nations wrote:On a completely unrelated topic, I just want to remind everyone that Pinochet liked Mao and even went to Mao's tomb to pay his respects.

History, and Pinochet’s fascination with it, featured heavily in our talks. He expressed his admiration for Napoleon and for the Romans, and we also discussed Fidel Castro, whom he seemed to respect for standing up for his beliefs, and for being a “nationalist.” When it came to Mao, too, he seemed curiously uncritical. He described a visit to Mao’s tomb, and his voice fell into a dramatic hush: “They took me to a large temple, immense, how can I tell you? Like the American Congress building. Where, every day, thousands of people take flowers to Mao. I went to that temple, but Mao isn’t there. Mao is in a second temple further on, where all the walls are of black marble. In the middle is Mao’s catafalque. What a monument!—of silence. Dark . . . half-light, and the catafalque.”

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1998 ... dictator-2

Hakons wrote:

Crysuko wrote:and if that perception is right? I tend to take the utilitarian approach to things on a large scale. That is, try and reduce the amount of people suffering in the world. That does not mean kill the poor, but instead allow a woman to make the choice to not add to it. I am not saying kill all fetuses of poor women, but give them the option at least to end it if they deem it justifiable themselves.

Your "reduce the amount of people suffering in the world" comes down to terminating the future poor and sterilizing the impoverished. How noble and just.

Genivaria wrote:

The East Marches II wrote:
>Not using robots and genetically grown super soldiers

The future is now old man

Played alot of Stellaris I see.

Albrenia wrote:Just a quick question, if I may.

If the mind is non-material, why can memory, intelligence, personality, emotion and perception all be drastically effected by material things done to the brain?