Abortion

Originally posted by leonheartmm
a levels is the BRITISH a level, from cambridge. its an international school and its the same degree. pakistan has a crappy matriculation system which no1 can really get ahead in outside pakistan and even inside, it still sucks.

So, the A-levels thing IS British for you? That's what you're talking about, right? I apologize if I seem dense about this, but the only A-Levels I'm aware of would be British...any other A-level type education systems, I'm completely unfamiliar with.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
atro physics is also what ive been studying as a wee laddy, its more interesting to a kid than quantum mechanics, and the books usually have laquered pages and pretty pictures.

That's sort of what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about library books for children. I am actually talking about college level math, books, etc. I read them as a child and worked out the math until I had an excellent grasp of Newtonian physics and some of the more basic advanced physics. I got pretty good, on my own. As long as one adds these concepts in an order that one can understand each successive addition, I see no reason why most people can't be working on college level work at 14 or younger.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
computer software is more my sister's thing, i never took the subject as it applies to creating programs but i hear its tough with little room for error. i DO though, know enough about algrythms and about degenerating orbit calculations, WHY did you do that by hand?!?!?! a certain friend of mine once did a thesis on non newtonian fluid drag by hand and ................ ur crazy/an idiot, probably both.

I had no choice. It is part of the course. I am in what most consider to be the best Cyber Security program in the nation. So, we are held to a much higher standard in the work we do as we will literally be the top security professionals at organizations such as the NSA, CIA, and FBI. I plan to stay in the commercial sector as there is more money to make there and I can make a greater impact there.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
many schools are as good as MIT in their specific coarses, better actually, however, an MIT degree is worth more to an employer.

Indeed. Some people don't realize this and consider places like MIT to intangible distant pipe dreams. Not the case. In fact, some of the graduates from my program go to MIT for post-grad degrees and they write back to the Cyber Security lead that it is easier there than here (where I am).

Originally posted by leonheartmm
its been a while since youve been out of the colledge circuit isnt it. they changed it to 2400 a while ago. and the bastard got a perfect 2400.

No, I've been going to college for quite some time now. I never took the SAT. Never had to.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
lol, yea, but well, if its PHD, than its only your thesis and not where you get it checked/submitted that matters. a phd anywhere{other than pat robertson's colledge} is still as likely to have come from an intelligent person. ofcourse, there are exceptions to this.

I'm confused on what you just said there.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
actually, not at all, you have a close enough example in homozygous twins, and we learn that despite similarities, nurture is the thing which defines them as individuals,

There's also uterine maturation - which creates minor differences (both physical, emotional, etc.) even among identical twins -

Originally posted by leonheartmm
i beleieve there are quite a few case studies of twins seperated at birth and growing up in different enviornments, who have little quirks of similarity but mostly, are as different as two people can be and are defined as two different individuals. and you are going to have to be more specific exactly WHICH paradigm shift you are referring to concerning cloning because there are many to consider.

The paradigm shift is in the ethics regarding cloning, stem cell research, etc. People in America are still touchy about those things. If everyone had a perception change, we could end up in a much better place as far as research and development goes.

I want to full control over our nucleotide sequence. I want to be able to fill out a computer template of 25,000+ variables that can be adjusted for a human, and then have that baby "carried" full term and blossom into the superhuman we designed it to be.

And here's how it fits into the discussion:

Would not an abortion for anything other than medical reasons be closer to unethical at that point? That DNA set has more potential than those creating it, making it's potential worth more than the parent's. Surely destroying cargo like that before it is given a chance to speak for itself would be more unethical than now.

I dunno, I am probably still not thinking objectively, as inimalist likes to point out. I think the closer to organic perfection an organism comes, the more precious it is. I think squid are quite facinating, roaches, and many other animals whose genetics allot them virtual perfection in their respective environments.

I was thinking that, in the future, DNA would be more important.

If a process was designed to perfectly mature that potential life in an exo-uterine environment, then the mother who does not want it could satisfy ethics while preserving their own freedoms. In fact, one step further, that same mother could still abort, but store the complete DNA set, and re-sequence at a later date, if so desired. However, that last one is probably wishful thinking as they may never want the offspring from the partner that allowed it to happen in the first place.

I also said this before...

There should be a device given to every young lady (or man, if they can figure it out) at a certain age that prevents them from getting pregnant and the only way to get pregnant is when they sign a release and go through an evaluation (free of charge, of course). This would be another increase in the size of the state, but it would function as population control and, say, gay couples who are every bit as capable as any other, would get the change to have babies should they desire. (This last part is an aside...but I think it is important.)

That last idea would prevent unnecessary births and function as population control at the same time. Just someone flipping a switch would allow for one to have a baby.

That is rather controlling of me to think of that, but I am smarter than everyone else around me and, therefore, they should conform to my standards because they are obviously too stupid to do it on their own. 😐 (Yes, I'm joking...but there is truth in that. People are stupid.)

And now, I'm just rambling.

With technology, something like abortion shouldn't exist...but it will because of "naturalists" who like to avoid technologies. Oh well. They won't be living in my Utopia, that's for sure.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
you cant honestly beleive i meant that. i wudnt exploit any1's family problems, i was just making a crack, i hope him and his family all the best, a moron online, hardly qualifies a moron in family life.............. well ok, there are still limites but avoiding philosophical arguments against free will isnt one of them. and for god's sake, i was kidding about his daughter, probably just wanting to see how serious he was about the "baby rape fun/laugh at the death of known people" facade he projects. im too cheesy in that department to actively make a joke about sumthing like that.

I know it was a joke. But I think it was in poor taste. No matter how much someone pisses you off, you don't bring their innocent family into things and make gross jokes about their 4 year-old children. There needs to be a line. Sure, you, Robtard, Bardock, and I can slug it out all do long, figuratively, and literally, but we should be gentleman about certain things and draw a line on how far we'll take it.

Originally posted by leonheartmm

you cant honestly beleive i meant that. i wudnt exploit any1's family problems, i was just making a crack, i hope him and his family all the best, a moron online, hardly qualifies a moron in family life.............. well ok, there are still limites but avoiding philosophical arguments against free will isnt one of them. and for god's sake, i was kidding about his daughter, probably just wanting to see how serious he was about the "baby rape fun/laugh at the death of known people" facade he projects. im too cheesy in that department to actively make a joke about sumthing like that.

Again, that makes no sense, considering I've never said (or projected) "lol, baby rape" or "I'm laughing at the death of *known person*", you seriously have problems, friend. I'd also do some serious soul searching for that desperate sickness to prove yourself [superior] to others, that's just not healthy, even online.

Tell me, do you feel like you're a huge disappointment to your father or other male role-model(s)?

Originally posted by dadudemon
So, the A-levels thing IS British for you? That's what you're talking about, right? I apologize if I seem dense about this, but the only A-Levels I'm aware of would be British...any other A-level type education systems, I'm completely unfamiliar with.

That's sort of what I'm talking about. I'm not talking about library books for children. I am actually talking about college level math, books, etc. I read them as a child and worked out the math until I had an excellent grasp of Newtonian physics and some of the more basic advanced physics. I got pretty good, on my own. As long as one adds these concepts in an order that one can understand each successive addition, I see no reason why most people can't be working on college level work at 14 or younger.

I had no choice. It is part of the course. I am in what most consider to be the best Cyber Security program in the nation. So, we are held to a much higher standard in the work we do as we will literally be the top security professionals at organizations such as the NSA, CIA, and FBI. I plan to stay in the commercial sector as there is more money to make there and I can make a greater impact there.

Indeed. Some people don't realize this and consider places like MIT to intangible distant pipe dreams. Not the case. In fact, some of the graduates from my program go to MIT for post-grad degrees and they write back to the Cyber Security lead that it is easier there than here (where I am).

No, I've been going to college for quite some time now. I never took the SAT. Never had to.

I'm confused on what you just said there.

There's also uterine maturation - which creates minor differences (both physical, emotional, etc.) even among identical twins -

The paradigm shift is in the ethics regarding cloning, stem cell research, etc. People in America are still touchy about those things. If everyone had a perception change, we could end up in a much better place as far as research and development goes.

I want to full control over our nucleotide sequence. I want to be able to fill out a computer template of 25,000+ variables that can be adjusted for a human, and then have that baby "carried" full term and blossom into the superhuman we designed it to be.

And here's how it fits into the discussion:

Would not an abortion for anything other than medical reasons be closer to unethical at that point? That DNA set has more potential than those creating it, making it's potential worth more than the parent's. Surely destroying cargo like that before it is given a chance to speak for itself would be more unethical than now.

I dunno, I am probably still not thinking objectively, as inimalist likes to point out. I think the closer to organic perfection an organism comes, the more precious it is. I think squid are quite facinating, roaches, and many other animals whose genetics allot them virtual perfection in their respective environments.

I was thinking that, in the future, DNA would be more important.

If a process was designed to perfectly mature that potential life in an exo-uterine environment, then the mother who does not want it could satisfy ethics while preserving their own freedoms. In fact, one step further, that same mother could still abort, but store the complete DNA set, and re-sequence at a later date, if so desired. However, that last one is probably wishful thinking as they may never want the offspring from the partner that allowed it to happen in the first place.

I also said this before...

There should be a device given to every young lady (or man, if they can figure it out) at a certain age that prevents them from getting pregnant and the only way to get pregnant is when they sign a release and go through an evaluation (free of charge, of course). This would be another increase in the size of the state, but it would function as population control and, say, gay couples who are every bit as capable as any other, would get the change to have babies should they desire. (This last part is an aside...but I think it is important.)

That last idea would prevent unnecessary births and function as population control at the same time. Just someone flipping a switch would allow for one to have a baby.

That is rather controlling of me to think of that, but I am smarter than everyone else around me and, therefore, they should conform to my standards because they are obviously too stupid to do it on their own. 😐 (Yes, I'm joking...but there is truth in that. People are stupid.)

And now, I'm just rambling.

With technology, something like abortion shouldn't exist...but it will because of "naturalists" who like to avoid technologies. Oh well. They won't be living in my Utopia, that's for sure.

I know it was a joke. But I think it was in poor taste. No matter how much someone pisses you off, you don't bring their innocent family into things and make gross jokes about their 4 year-old children. There needs to be a line. Sure, you, Robtard, Bardock, and I can slug it out all do long, figuratively, and literally, but we should be gentleman about certain things and draw a line on how far we'll take it.

i think you are overestimating the place were in genetic research. sure we have MAPPED the human genome but we do not understand that significance of each individual gene as it effects the greater macophysical body as a whole. add to that not understanding the majority of the dna's function{so called junk dna} other than odd disorders appearing when its messed around with, and icing on the cake, many a time a single gene/alleale can be responsible for two or more phenotypic features and multiple genes can be responsible for singular feature etc etc etc. its not only going to take humoungous amounts of reasearch but amazing amounts of data processing to find all the possible combination/permutations and the hardest part wud be to corellate them with DYNAMIC features as they have significance in the body and society.

as for homozygous twins. youll note that i said close "enough". i know what you are referring to , but to me, their very similar genetic code is EVIDENCE that even if they did have the exact SAME genetic code, they can be two distinct individuals, and as always, it has to do with nurture.

as for the rest of your view.............. it IS controlling, a bit too recklessly forward thinking, and one might say, scratching the surface of eugenics{or rather, it wud encourage the world as a whole to discriminate against people with an average genetic predisposition}. for one, thing, if such a world were to exist, there would be rampant prejudice against the older generation born without these facilities, and without a communist/imperialist world government, the poor, the undesireables and the troubled third world nations would be denied such technology as demand would be high and market value of such procedures/tech would sky rocket, leaving it for the elite of the world to control. so again, there comes the problem of those who wont have children as perfect as others and discrimination. also, i assume our understanding of dna would continue to advance as well as phenotypic "strength" and ever new generation of designer babies would presumeably be superior{to society} than the last generation, again, favouring the prejudice.

there is also the problem of who gets to DECIDE what superior traits are. after all, traits which are considered superior in one enviornment wud be inferior in another. e.g. light skin vs dark skin, lean musculariy vs massive muscularity, body hair vs no body hair, etc etc. in such a controlling world, its inevitable that ultimate standards wud form and that wud prejudice one against certain traits, decreasing diversity.

i do agree sumwhat with your abortion point, but only going on the fact that us humans have a tendency to extrapolate the fact that we are alive NOW and have been in the near past, to, we must have always been alive in some way, somewhere, because to our minds, non existance is impossible to imagine and there is a basic contradiction with life coming from nothing. IF an exo uterine womb cud be developed, and the fetus tranferred to it without harm, then yes, it seems fine to not have abortions for any reason other than purely medical. but that still doesnt mean that the value of life shud be judged on dna, its still the conciosness that matters most. but its more for our own humanity than for the baby's.

as for the birth control device, i understand the reasoning behind it, but i beleive its not morally viable, since it steps on SO many of the things we consider freedoms inherently. that also includes the freedom to procreate. if such measures were taken, than the world wud end up sumthing like the most insanely nationalistic part/people of south korea who think it is their DUTY to produce children and then keep them at a distance, having no PERSONAL/HUMAN bond and encourage them at extremely young ages to live and die for their country/government/society and actively encourage social physical disciplining for their children and drafting in the army etc etc etc.

Originally posted by Robtard
Again, that makes no sense, considering I've never said (or projected) "lol, baby rape" or "I'm laughing at the death of *known person*", you seriously have problems, friend. I'd also do some serious soul searching for that desperate sickness to prove yourself [superior] to others, that's just not healthy, even online.

Tell me, do you feel like you're a huge disappointment to your father or other male role-model(s)?

not at all.......... wheres this coming from? been reading freud again?

Originally posted by leonheartmm
not at all.......... wheres this coming from? been reading freud again?

You wouldn't be holding back now, would you? Wouldn't I have said 'mother' then?

^not necessarily.

na, Freud had as many father issues as he did mother

ha, castration anxiety

pro choice

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am always grateful to my mother.

Then don't you think that these HUMAN BEINGS not this human proteus bull shit should be able to feel the exact same way? You know how upset everyone was when that young couple left their baby in the car and it suffocated? Whats the difference between that and abortion except for the fact that abortion is killing the baby before it even had a life to begin with. And the fact that it hurts the mother to because it scars her eventaully afterwards that she killed her own baby. So tell me how killing a living thing (a HUMAN BEING) in a woman's stomach is any different than killing a baby outside of one? huh? Answer that one for me!

Originally posted by Nighty101
Then don't you think that these HUMAN BEINGS not this human proteus bull shit should be able to feel the exact same way?

Proteus? WTF are you talking about?

Originally posted by Nighty101
You know how upset everyone was when that young couple left their baby in the car and it suffocated? Whats the difference between that and abortion except for the fact that abortion is killing the baby before it even had a life to begin with. And the fact that it hurts the mother to because it scars her eventaully afterwards that she killed her own baby. So tell me how killing a living thing (a HUMAN BEING) in a woman's stomach is any different than killing a baby outside of one? huh? Answer that one for me!

Well the fetus in the womb didn't suffer horribly at the hands of a neglectful mother . . .

Actually that's a pretty good argument. Abotion = Less suffering

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Proteus? WTF are you talking about?

He's a Greek sea god, I googled "Proteus" and hit images as to post a pic, but the first thing that came up was:

Yes, interracial man-love, go figure.

Originally posted by Nighty101
So tell me how killing a living thing (a HUMAN BEING) in a woman's stomach is any different than killing a baby outside of one? huh? Answer that one for me!

It's easier?

Do you like Omelettes?

Originally posted by Nighty101
Then don't you think that these HUMAN BEINGS not this human proteus bull shit should be able to feel the exact same way?

organisms without a central nervous system do not feel anything. It is impossible, by definition.

Originally posted by Nighty101
You know how upset everyone was when that young couple left their baby in the car and it suffocated? Whats the difference between that and abortion except for the fact that abortion is killing the baby before it even had a life to begin with.

you answered your own question, it isn't a human life yet.

Also, you are ignoring the arguments of Robtard and myself, who believe abortion is the killing of a human, though see advantages to legal abortion that outweigh some moral imperative.

Originally posted by Nighty101
And the fact that it hurts the mother to because it scars her eventaully afterwards that she killed her own baby. So tell me how killing a living thing (a HUMAN BEING) in a woman's stomach is any different than killing a baby outside of one? huh? Answer that one for me!

I don't believe America has any abortion laws that allow the killing of a baby (something undeniably human) in the womb, with the exception of saving the mother's life.

The best reason why abortion, and not infanticide, should be legal is that black market abortion clinics are formed in the absence of government oversight. So, there will be no less abortions, and the ones that are carried out will cause far more harm to the mother, plus will overburden the current system with botched jobs, etc.

drop the morals, and the answer is almost entirely pragmatic. And besides, you have a moral stance against abortion. Laws don't change people's behaviour. By not providing safe abortions, the government tacitly accepts the consequences of people doing them illegally and without caution.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't believe America has any abortion laws that allow the killing of a baby (something undeniably human) in the womb, with the exception of saving the mother's life.

The best reason why abortion, and not infanticide, should be legal is that black market abortion clinics are formed in the absence of government oversight. So, there will be no less abortions, and the ones that are carried out will cause far more harm to the mother, plus will overburden the current system with botched jobs, etc.

drop the morals, and the answer is almost entirely pragmatic. And besides, you have a moral stance against abortion. Laws don't change people's behaviour. By not providing safe abortions, the government tacitly accepts the consequences of people doing them illegally and without caution.

This was a major deciding factor for me. It has to be pro choice with government regulations. If you've even read about some of the absurd witch doctor shit that goes on in Africa, it would turn your stomach. Very gross and results in many young mother's dying AND losing the baby. They are going to do it, regardless....so why force them into the corner of some idiots house or tent?

The mother is more useful to society without the baby, anyway. (Assuming she is single and in low to middle class income.) I don't see anything wrong with it, from my own religious standpoint, if they mother aborts it in the first few weeks. Meaning, if I were her Bishop in the Mormon Church, I wouldn't be upset with her and no excommunication, etc.

wow do you no what I'm gonna pray for you all because you need some serious help. SERIOUS help. And by the grace of God may you come to your senses.
"Heartless fools, they know not what they do."
-Kurt Wagner

Originally posted by Nighty101
wow do you no what I'm gonna pray for you all because you need some serious help. SERIOUS help. And by the grace of God may you come to your senses.
"Heartless fools, they know not what they do."
-Kurt Wagner

Tell you what, I won't force my religious beliefs on you if you don't force yours on me. Until then, I am quite sure you aren't going to heaven until us Mormons save you from your stupidty and lack of authority to act in God's name.

Mkay? 😐

Originally posted by Nighty101
wow do you no what I'm gonna pray for you all because you need some serious help. SERIOUS help. And by the grace of God may you come to your senses.
"Heartless fools, they know not what they do."
-Kurt Wagner

This coming from the guy who opposes personal freedom and wants to cause suffering . . .

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
This coming from the guy who opposes personal freedom and wants to cause suffering . . .

lulz

Better burn than mine. I'm not too awesome at witty come backs. I need to hang around British people more or something.

Originally posted by inimalist
The best reason why abortion, and not infanticide, should be legal is that black market abortion clinics are formed in the absence of government oversight. So, there will be no less abortions, and the ones that are carried out will cause far more harm to the mother, plus will overburden the current system with botched jobs, etc.

drop the morals, and the answer is almost entirely pragmatic. And besides, you have a moral stance against abortion. Laws don't change people's behaviour. By not providing safe abortions, the government tacitly accepts the consequences of people doing them illegally and without caution.

Personally, I'm for contraceptives, and condoms... preferably abstinence, but, well you know that's not going to happen more often than not. It's a too exciting and promoted taboo. Ofcourse people are going to go for it.

However, personally I think the main reason teens end up pregnant so often is the controversy over sex.

You have religious institutions, schools, and parents going way to strongly on abstinence (as in lying about condoms, saying using one is akin to playing russian roulette), which is counter-acted by the media's glorification of sex.

And in the end, you have confused teenagers who want sex, but are too afraid, or ignorant, to purchace condoms or go get birth-control. So when they do, it is usually without protection and almost never with a contraceptive. And they often end up pregnant... or with STD's... and everything spirals out of control.

Personally, I think we need to do abstinence-stressed sex ed. Inwhich Abstinence is prefered (untill marriage...I am a firm believer in the phraze "Unus materia pro vita" which means "One mate for life"...), but you aren't telling lies about condoms and contraceptives. And the media needs to get off this sex sells stuff, and try new and inventive ways to sell stuff... you know use their forgotten minds for a change... Frankly, sex as a sales pitch is getting old, it's time for someone to think of something else.

Originally posted by THE JLRTENJAC
Personally, I'm for contraceptives, and condoms... preferably abstinence, but, well you know that's not going to happen more often than not. It's a too exciting and promoted taboo. Ofcourse people are going to go for it.

However, personally I think the main reason teens end up pregnant so often is the controversy over sex.

oooorrrr....it could be the biological mechanisms programmed into humans to copulate (makin' babies, dude). 😄