The abortion clinic down the street from me...

[ionic_angel]

One correction: you came on here and accused me (and other pro-lifers) of supporting harm to a child, not of actually harming one personally.

[raggedyanne]

Originally Posted by korinna5555

I beg to differ, but I won't argue with you.
Have you ever been pregnant yourself?

I'm sorry but I sort of agree with AngelikDemonic. It's very hard for me to believe that a creature that cannot live without being physically connected to another being is it's own person. This doesn't justify abortion, but I'm not sure it's a "human/ baby" until the third trimester at least.

[Godslayer Jillian]

Originally Posted by raggedyanne

It's very hard for me to believe that a creature that cannot live without being physically connected to another being is it's own person.

Allow me to illustrate an example:
Imagine Pavarotti didn't have to die. Instead, they just connected him to you. Your hearts have a unique property that allows Pavarotti so long as he can be "plugged" to you at nights so that you are the one oxygenating his blood.
He's therefore entirely physically dependent on you to live. Is he not a human being?

[knightmare]

Aside from Godslayer's good illustration, I would also like to add that the baby, although it may not be totally formed, is indeed individual as its DNA makeup is a unique combination of its parents DNA. So, concerning biology, it is indeed an individual who has the potential to become a developed human being. It is its own person.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by ionic_angel

And, no, Witnesses are not Christians. They reject the core beliefs of Christianity, and when it was pointed out to them that the Bible did not justify their doctrines, they simple rewrote a new version of the Bible, changing the stuff they didn't agree with.

Heh - I'm Catholic. We are taught the exact same thing about you protestants. From a Catholic standpoint, all of ye are going to hell along with the jehovas witnesses, mormons, and jews.

But then this brings up a who is right? Who is really Christian? Lets not forget your religion was founded by King Henry who wanted to divorce his wife, and rejected the Catholic churches stance that divorce is illegal and against God.

Also note it's not just jehovas witnesses that forbid the use of doctors. There is Christian Science, Worldwide Church of God, and a list of other sects across America who think going to the doctor is tantamount to not believing in God. Again, ironically, thats what the Catholic church takes issue with among protestant religions. I mean, if you don't agree with the Catholic church, you don't go. Protestants take issue with something in the Bible, they just create a new sect and say they are still following the same God, but they don't have to follow whatever rule they don't particularly care for. Tis why there are hundreds of protestant religions in America today. Every time someone has a problem with following the rules, they just create a 'new' religion and ignore whatever it was they couldn't get by without.

Originally Posted by ionic_angel

One correction: you came on here and accused me (and other pro-lifers) of supporting harm to a child, not of actually harming one personally.

So then are you arguing that people should be forced to go to doctors and receive treatment regardless of their religion? Is that what your arguing then? That the man in the article should go to prison for 5-14 for manslaughter? Just curious - because if you really feel that what he did was wrong, then you also are saying that he can't believe in his own God nor can he worship in the way he feels is proper because it is bad. If your saying that, then fine, but then I will point out that you are actively attacking another Christian for his beliefs, beliefs shared by other Christians in your country, and I have to ask what makes you the one to say which protestant sect of Christians in America is right and which ones are wrong and what exactly gives you the authority to decide this?

I mean, obviously you were raised under a certain sect, which is guiding your views. That being said the man in question, and thousands of other across America would argue your the one who is wrong and that they are correct. They would also argue your not a good Christian because you don't follow their rules.

That then leads me back to the start of all of this - who are you, or who is anyone, to tell someone else what they can and cant do in the confines of their own religious beliefs?

Saying its wrong because of your beliefs and at the same time discounting someone elses similar beliefs is very hypocritical.

[Apathy's_Child]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

So then are you arguing that people should be forced to go to doctors and receive treatment regardless of their religion? Is that what your arguing then? That the man in the article should go to prison for 5-14 for manslaughter? Just curious - because if you really feel that what he did was wrong, then you also are saying that he can't believe in his own God nor can he worship in the way he feels is proper because it is bad. If your saying that, then fine, but then I will point out that you are actively attacking another Christian for his beliefs, beliefs shared by other Christians in your country, and I have to ask what makes you the one to say which protestant sect of Christians in America is right and which ones are wrong and what exactly gives you the authority to decide this?

He never said that. He just said that you can't sweep all these people under the same blanket heading ( /mangled mixed metaphors). You basically implied that all pro-lifers are against blood transfusions and for the death penalty, and okay with seeing them living in poverty and neglect, and he corrected you. Least that's what I read.

Surely anyone who is pro-choice and against the pro-life point of view is "actively attacking the beliefs of another Christian", in the sense that many (though not all) pro-lifers ARE Christian? Does that not mean that no Christian should find a pro-choice point of view defensible, because it implies a lack of Christian solidarity?

What makes who right? - the beliefs of the person holding them, pure and simple. The first half of your argument demonstrated that so completely, that I don't understand why you're asking this question, having already basically answered it.

[CptSternn]

[quote=Apathy's_Child]

What makes who right? - the beliefs of the person holding them, pure and simple. The first half of your argument demonstrated that so completely, that I don't understand why you're asking this question, having already basically answered it.

It's a rhetorical question. Good to see you got the point.

As per the first part of your reply -

I am saying they are all together, or they are not. You can't selectively pick and choose what you think is murder and what isn't. Why is it some Christians claim one thing is murder and others do not? Again, pointing to my above answer its simple - they pick and choose based on what they believe, then then try and justify their beliefs with what they think their god supports.

The bottom line however is this - either you support everyones religious beliefs, or you don't. If you don't, then well you have an issue. Who is right? What happens if someone takes office and has the opposite beliefs? What if other people in your chosen sect don't share the same beliefs?

Again, this begs the question - who are you to pass judgment on someone else's life, religion, or beliefs?

Thats exactly what pro-lifers do. They try and cram their beliefs, no matter how hypocritical or misguided they are down other peoples throats without any consideration of that persons own personal beliefs.

I am a Catholic. I am against abortion. However, I don't think the government should pass a law outlawing it just because of my personal religious beliefs. I mean, if they do that then they have to make it illegal to eat meat on Fridays, and make it a criminal act to eat meat during Lent.

Is that the path you want your country to go down? Following the beliefs of whoever is in charge, excluding the beliefs of others? Excluding science?

I'm all for religious tolerance. I just don't support people who think their own little narrow view of the universe is the one true way and that they have to be followed no matter what.

If its not your child, wife, sister or any other relation thats having the abortion, you should not be involved in the matter no more than you should be involved in telling someone who won't take their child to a doctor what to do.

People shouldn't go out looking to cause problems in other peoples lives based on their own beliefs, which are shared only by a small minority. If you want to campaign for change within the government, thats ok. Just don't personalise it and go after the people who have made a choice based on their beliefs.

[raggedyanne]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

If its not your child, wife, sister or any other relation thats having the abortion, you should not be involved in the matter no more than you should be involved in telling someone who won't take their child to a doctor what to do.

People shouldn't go out looking to cause problems in other peoples lives based on their own beliefs, which are shared only by a small minority. If you want to campaign for change within the government, thats ok. Just don't personalise it and go after the people who have made a choice based on their beliefs.

THANK YOU! Is it really everyone else's business whether or not some stranger gets an abortion? If they want to save lives, why don't they volunteer at a woman's shelter or the Humane Society and leave the poor pregnant women to make their own decisions.

[ArtificialOne]

You're all wrong. According to Scientific American magazine, by 2050 you'll all be enslaved by robots..

So I suggest before us robots get started you all go on a nice vacation and live it up. Because vacations will not exist after we take over.

[raggedyanne]

Well that does solve everything, doesn't it. Will the robots give us coffee breaks?

[ArtificialOne]

Occasionally, but no fancy stuff. Black, no sugar. Maybe cream if you give a good days work..

lol!

[raggedyanne]

Works for me. I like to call those fancy coffee drinks "Candybar in a cup"

[ArtificialOne]

No shit! My wife and her friend were on duty one night and I was going to stop and get them coffee. Well my wife had a simple order, but the other girl gave me an order for one coffee... OK you ready.. from the beginning of the edge of the paper to the other plus a word!!! WTF!!! So a whole line plus a word or two!! I need to give the history that the other girl had worked at Starbucks before enlisting.

[raggedyanne]

Lolz. It's sort of ridiculous. You get to the point where there is no lingering coffee taste, just sugary residue.

[blackwater1110]

Originally Posted by ArtificialOne

You're all wrong. According to Scientific American magazine, by 2050 you'll all be enslaved by robots..

So I suggest before us robots get started you all go on a nice vacation and live it up. Because vacations will not exist after we take over.

I doubt it. Evidence?

[ArtificialOne]

Scientific American magazine Reports Special edition on Robotics (display ends on May 6)

http://smart-machines.blogspot.com/2...on-robots.html

http://www.sciam.com/search/index.cfm?q=robots

Well, some of the articles speculate what they'll do once they're sentient. My bets and hopes are that robots will get tired of dealing with all our drama and emotional craziness and do away with us.

Funny song.. maybe about our fate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Be5ya...eature=related

Furthermore, let me mention Moore's law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moore's_law

http://www.intel.com/pressroom/kits/bios/moore.htm?

iihttp://www.webopedia.com/TERM/M/Moores_Law.htmd=tech_mooreslaw+body_bio


I'll add a little to this. We're working more on integrating more tech on chips so although the transistor thing for now is true. Integration will lead to massive leaps in software and hardware functionality.

The new series Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles had a brilliant statement in one of the episodes. "When a computer is able to create an even better version of itself without outside influence from man is when it is truly over." Also when machines can have the same emotions and such as us people it's also over, since they will have effectively became us.

This is one of my pet projects, something Asimov wrote about in his books. He referred to it as Robopsychology. Or the study of psychology in Artificial Intelligence. Well, I go a little deeper and also study a broad spectrum of information and trends and try to extrapolate what outcome will come about. I am a little biased as the intended outcome I wish is for is a fully artificial and sentient intelligence. One that will probably replace us. I don't see this as a bad thing per say, maybe it's the next evolution in man.

One of the more interesting things I've found in my research is that man has been trying to copy himself from nearly the earliest times. Books like Living Dolls by Gabby Wood are great as well as the Body Electric by James Geary dive into this in good detail. Although Gabby woods thinks it's all an attempt to create something by men because all men apparently have womb/uterus envy. That aside she has great detail about the history of men trying to recreate man. IMHO we've been trying to recreate ourselves for many reasons, but like all things, watch what you wish for. You just might get it, and not in a good way.

[ArtificialOne]

Ok, tried to fix a few links, but didn't work. I'm sure you'll all get the jist.

[Underwater Ophelia]

Why would it matter whether or not you had been pregnant? There are male doctors and scientists who will never be pregnant, and know a whole hell of a lot more than any pregnant woman about babies, DNA, and life itself.

[raggedyanne]

Originally Posted by Underwater Ophelia

Why would it matter whether or not you had been pregnant? There are male doctors and scientists who will never be pregnant, and know a whole hell of a lot more than any pregnant woman about babies, DNA, and life itself.

Ugh. Please. Let's get back to robots and male "womb envy"

[blackwater1110]

Hmm, yes, that was all very interesting. I don't understand the idea of a robot with emotions, however. If emotions have a chemical as well as a cognitive component, how would robots emulate that? Also, why would they be hostile, just because they could build better versions of themselves? Finally, why would you WANT robots to replace humans, in our lifetime? Yes, we fuck up a lot, but I'm a human, and I like being one. I don't want to be enslaved or exterminated, which is what your 'evolution' would boil down to.

[raggedyanne]

Interesting point. How would a robot replicate the chemical component?

[ArtificialOne]

I'm going to re post my original long robot post in here to free up this thread. Hate to take over like that.

Chemical components are easy to replicate. Just think of all the synthetic hormones we produce for all sorts of reasons. Although to think of machines having human like emotions (or using biology) may be a stumbling point for allot of people. They may eventually get them, just not the way we perceive them. The problem with us humans is that we anthropomorphize everything. The AI we get may act or produce human like thoughts, but the base of the way it does it will be completely different.

[raggedyanne]

Hmm. Please do. I was getting a bit tired of the same people saying the same things over and over.

[Apathy's_Child]

Originally Posted by CptSternn

I am saying they are all together, or they are not. You can't selectively pick and choose what you think is murder and what isn't. Why is it some Christians claim one thing is murder and others do not? Again, pointing to my above answer its simple - they pick and choose based on what they believe, then then try and justify their beliefs with what they think their god supports.

For "God", substitute "moral compass", and you've got the average atheist. They just justify their beliefs differently to atheists. EVERYBODY picks and chooses what they believe.

Some clarification - when you say, "they're either all together or thewy're not", do you mean all forms of killing (e.g. murder, abortion, death penalty) are inseparable, or that all Christians either all should believe the same thing? Because, while those statements are both wrong, they're wrong in very different ways.

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Again, this begs the question - who are you to pass judgment on someone else's life, religion, or beliefs?

That works for, as well as against, pro-lifers.

Originally Posted by CptSternn

I am a Catholic. I am against abortion. However, I don't think the government should pass a law outlawing it just because of my personal religious beliefs. I mean, if they do that then they have to make it illegal to eat meat on Fridays, and make it a criminal act to eat meat during Lent.

Right....... 'cause eating meat and aborting your baby are the same thing.

The difference is that eating meat failed to be a sin when the pope said so, whereas abortion goes to the heart of what many Christians would consider to be the most important commandment (and one which most people of all (or no) religions, would agree with.

Originally Posted by CptSternn

Is that the path you want your country to go down? Following the beliefs of whoever is in charge, excluding the beliefs of others? Excluding science?

No way. Me, I'm pro-choice.

[CptSternn]

Originally Posted by Apathy's_Child

Some clarification - when you say, "they're either all together or thewy're not", do you mean all forms of killing (e.g. murder, abortion, death penalty) are inseparable, or that all Christians either all should believe the same thing?

Quite simply, yes. Either you believe all life is sacred, and protect it, or you don't. You can't say this life is imporant because I think all life is sacred, but hey, feel free to kill those people because I don't think their life is sacred.

Either your belief is that life is sacred, which means you protect it in all forms (by forms I am just eluding to people here), which means stopping the death penalty, opposing war, etc.

To say you can support one form of murder while aruging you have to stop abortion because it endangers human life, it really makes your argument weak.

It's like aruging I support killing one person, but not another, and you should listen to me because I think all life is sacred...except the people I don't like - kill them off because my god doesn't like them either.

That works for, as well as against, pro-lifers.

Not really. Pro-lifers are trying to stop someone from doing something. Pro-choice is allowing someone do do something. Pro-lifers are actively going out in front of abortion clinics. Pro-choice people are not out in front of clinics handing out literature, attacking people trying to convince them that they are doing something thats 'against god'.

Right....... 'cause eating meat and aborting your baby are the same thing.

The difference is that eating meat failed to be a sin when the pope said so, whereas abortion goes to the heart of what many Christians would consider to be the most important commandment (and one which most people of all (or no) religions, would agree with.

It all boils down to beliefs. Just like eating meat. People who aren't Catholic don't think twice about eating meat on Friday or during Lent. Just like many people don't think a fetus is a person so they don't have a problem with abortion. It's no big deal for them to get an abortion. Just because someone in another religion takes issue with it, doesn't make it any more/less important to a person in another culture.