[Ghostavo]

as i said in the prins, house cat is probibly a bad choice (though im convinced mine have some master plan in the works). ape/dolphin would be better as there has been some research into the self awareness of those species. mirror reaction tests, ability to follow human instructions, some apes have been able to learn sign language (to be fair all animals communicate, and im not sure what separates animal communication from actual language). i dont have sources, just things ive seen in documentaries on pbs/discovery/whatever, whos titles ive long forgotten. so id say science has a rough estimate of the number of neurons neccisary to count as sentient life (again speculation). it likely has lots to do with emergent complexity, chaos theory, fractals, etc. patterns from chaos, more neurons > more chaos > more patterns >  more sentience.

More neurons don't correlate to more sentience, unless you mean to say whales have some sort of super-sentience.

[Dragon]

There you go, imposing your morality through law. What the **** gives you the right to say "abortion is too wide-spread"?

Nothing. And in keeping with this I never said that. What I did say was that it is possible for it to become too widespread (note: nothing about likelihood of this happening) and that it's not a good thing. Basically, it should not replace other, safer methods. Here, I'm talking medical concerns (which are objective), not ethics. Granted, people do have their right to be reckless, but I've seen them exercise said right with a disturbing frequency.

Though maybe I'm not giving people enough credit. Maybe this should be indeed left to them, without any additional control measures (though it's not like the government couldn't use the extra money, and a control measure such as a tax could quiet down some detractors). Tax may indeed be a bit extreme suggestion, simply educating people might be enough.

[karajorma]

Yeah, it was mentioned in the thread I was posting in.  If I plugged for YEC in a thread on Global Warming, would you let that slide?

My point was that you brought it up and then complained about the topic. You brought up the topic. It's your fault! Don't try to pin the blame on HLP!

However, also, according to Pol's logic, anyone who has been in some sort of accident and requires life support ceases to be human, unless the fact that he had been human somehow propagates.  I'm talking in the case where the patient that became victim of said accident can actually recover, setting aside the issue of if they cannot recover.  This appears to be a logical contradiction, care to clarify?

And whose health is the guy from the accident risking just by existing? Who's forced to severe medical complications just cause the guy who had an accident continues to live?

[Mongoose]

Just to play devil's advocate in a topic that can't end any way but horribly, isn't there an opportunity to make a "choice" before the pregnancy even happens in the first place?  And no, I don't just mean abstinence.

And guess what. The same people who oppose abortion are generally the strongest advocates against teaching about this "choice"


Stupid isn't it?

Yes, absolutely; I won't deny that for a second.  I may have my own beliefs, but I'm certainly a realist...I don't really see casual sex outside of some sort of committed relationship to be a particularly wise choice, but it's going to happen.  If you want to have vaginal intercourse and don't want pregnancy to result, you should be using protection.  And if you want to absolutely avoid even the remotest chance of pregnancy, you should not be having vaginal sex.  There are other ways to express sexuality that don't involve that particular horizontal mambo.

[Mikes]

Just to play devil's advocate in a topic that can't end any way but horribly, isn't there an opportunity to make a "choice" before the pregnancy even happens in the first place?  And no, I don't just mean abstinence.

And guess what. The same people who oppose abortion are generally the strongest advocates against teaching about this "choice"


Stupid isn't it?

Yes, absolutely; I won't deny that for a second.  I may have my own beliefs, but I'm certainly a realist...I don't really see casual sex outside of some sort of committed relationship to be a particularly wise choice, but it's going to happen.  If you want to have vaginal intercourse and don't want pregnancy to result, you should be using protection.  And if you want to absolutely avoid even the remotest chance of pregnancy, you should not be having vaginal sex.  There are other ways to express sexuality that don't involve that particular horizontal mambo.

You should also avoid masturbating if you do not want to go blind.

Now back to reality, mm kay?


If a girl is really scared of pregnancy she can simply combine contraceptives, like the pill and condoms and make pregnancy statistically rather impropable.

[Mongoose]

You should also avoid masturbating if you do not want to go blind.

Now back to reality, mm kay?


If a girl is really scared of pregnancy she can simply combine contraceptives, like the pill and condoms and make pregnancy statistically rather impropable.

Um...in what way was what I said separated from reality?  My conclusion was the same as yours: if you want to make pregnancy very improbable, use protection.  And if you want to eliminate even that minuscule possibility, avoid vaginal sex.

[karajorma]

What most pro-life people forget is that most pro-choice people desperately want to reduce the number of abortions too. Abortion absolutely should be the last resort. Use of contraception is the most practical method of cutting down pregnancies (reliance on abstinence only actually increases pregnancy rates!)

So it's a crying shame that people insist on preventing proper sexual education. Especially given that doctors actually recommend that women take the pill at some point in their life regardless of whether or not they are actually having sex due to the protection it gives against ovarian cancer.

[Nuke]

as i said in the prins, house cat is probibly a bad choice (though im convinced mine have some master plan in the works). ape/dolphin would be better as there has been some research into the self awareness of those species. mirror reaction tests, ability to follow human instructions, some apes have been able to learn sign language (to be fair all animals communicate, and im not sure what separates animal communication from actual language). i dont have sources, just things ive seen in documentaries on pbs/discovery/whatever, whos titles ive long forgotten. so id say science has a rough estimate of the number of neurons neccisary to count as sentient life (again speculation). it likely has lots to do with emergent complexity, chaos theory, fractals, etc. patterns from chaos, more neurons > more chaos > more patterns >  more sentience.

More neurons don't correlate to more sentience, unless you mean to say whales have some sort of super-sentience.

not directly, no. whales likely need more grey matter just to control the hardware, so to speak. more sensory input, larger muscles to control, things like that. it is the cerebral cortex that gives us most of our smarts. so neuron count in that particular part of the brain are what counts. im also not sure what kind of whales have been tested for sentience. i think orcas and dolphins have passed self awareness tests. other whales, especially the larger ones, makes doing this test problematic. mainly because all tests have been carried out on captive specimens. so we really dont have a whole lot of data to go by.

what defines sentience is not well defined. but i can imagine science refining our understanding enough so that we have a reasonable guideline for when abortions are acceptable.

[Ghostavo]

as i said in the prins, house cat is probibly a bad choice (though im convinced mine have some master plan in the works). ape/dolphin would be better as there has been some research into the self awareness of those species. mirror reaction tests, ability to follow human instructions, some apes have been able to learn sign language (to be fair all animals communicate, and im not sure what separates animal communication from actual language). i dont have sources, just things ive seen in documentaries on pbs/discovery/whatever, whos titles ive long forgotten. so id say science has a rough estimate of the number of neurons neccisary to count as sentient life (again speculation). it likely has lots to do with emergent complexity, chaos theory, fractals, etc. patterns from chaos, more neurons > more chaos > more patterns >  more sentience.

More neurons don't correlate to more sentience, unless you mean to say whales have some sort of super-sentience.

not directly, no. whales likely need more grey matter just to control the hardware, so to speak. more sensory input, larger muscles to control, things like that. it is the cerebral cortex that gives us most of our smarts. so neuron count in that particular part of the brain are what counts. im also not sure what kind of whales have been tested for sentience. i think orcas and dolphins have passed self awareness tests. other whales, especially the larger ones, makes doing this test problematic. mainly because all tests have been carried out on captive specimens. so we really dont have a whole lot of data to go by.

what defines sentience is not well defined. but i can imagine science refining our understanding enough so that we have a reasonable guideline for when abortions are acceptable.

I don't doubt there are some factors of the brain that contribute for intelligence, it's just that any metric that we come up with is flawed.

Average surface area of the human cerebral cortex = 2,500 cm^2
Average surface area of the African elephant cerebral cortex = 6,300 cm^2

And if you try to adjust for size or weight, suddenly the tree shrew and some birds have higher ratios than us... it's just not worth the effort to try to justify based solely on weight, size, quantity, whatever.

[Nuke]

yea, more research into the area is neccisary. im pretty certain science will hammer down an equation for sentience at some point. it probibly has more to do with the connection count than the actual neuron count. having more neurons is not going to do much good if their connections are limited. just need to look at more brains under the microscope is all.

[SypheDMar]

... And of course, there are rape victims or just plain ol' drunken/drugged sex, though in the latter case the woman (and the man too) should know better than to get themselves drunk/drugged to such degree.

I know I'm late to the party, but I'm calling bull**** on this. If a woman was drugged (or drunk) and was then taken advantage of, then it is rape. While I do believe that everyone should be careful, to say that it's the woman's fault and that she was asking for it, that she deserved it, or that she should've expected it is crap.

This thread reminded me why I hate the Theocratic Wingnuts Party.

[Scotty]

I'm gonna call overreaction on that.  He said "should know better" than to get in such a state to be taken advantage of.  Nowhere did he say it was the woman's fault, or she was asking for it, or she deserved it, or should have expected it.  Nowhere.

And, to be honest, everyone should know better than to get blackout drunk without at least somebody to make sure **** like that doesn't happen.

[SypheDMar]

Everyone should but sometimes things just don't work out. Sometimes, people just aren't rational. I was mad that there was an apparent distinction of being drugged and other forms of rape when in fact there shouldn't be.

Also, how else can I interpret "should have known better" than "if you did it, then you're stupid and it's your fault"?


EDIT: One thing I'd like to clarify: I didn't mean to associate Dragon with Republicans. The abortion issue was what reminded me that I can't even stand what they're running on their platform.

[Black Wolf]

... And of course, there are rape victims or just plain ol' drunken/drugged sex, though in the latter case the woman (and the man too) should know better than to get themselves drunk/drugged to such degree.

I know I'm late to the party, but I'm calling bull**** on this. If a woman was drugged (or drunk) and was then taken advantage of, then it is rape.

Remember though, drunk, regrettable sex =/= rape.

[MP-Ryan]

... And of course, there are rape victims or just plain ol' drunken/drugged sex, though in the latter case the woman (and the man too) should know better than to get themselves drunk/drugged to such degree.

I know I'm late to the party, but I'm calling bull**** on this. If a woman was drugged (or drunk) and was then taken advantage of, then it is rape.

Remember though, drunk, regrettable sex =/= rape.

Although severely drunk, near-passed-out sex = unable to legally consent = rape.

[jr2]

Ah, but what if the guy was drunk too?

how does that matter, you ask?

Well, then who raped who??


Perhaps statistically, the guy is more likely to initiate, but, even saying the guy did initiate, when no one has the wits to know what they are doing, who is responsible (I mean for the actions taken while being drunk, not responsible for getting that drunk to begin with)?  Aha!  The DD should have been watching for this and stepped in!  Let's charge him with the rape!  EDIT: would have put a lol emoticon here, for the blaming the DD bit, but the topic is rape, which isn't funny.. :/

Just curious, not really making any serious points there, just playing with existing points from a different perspective.

[MP-Ryan]

Ah, but what if the guy was drunk too?

Well, then who raped who??

Rape isn't gender-specific.  If a sexual partner is mentally compromised due to intoxication, they are unable to consent to anything (legally).  Male or female is irrelevant.  Now, obviously cases where both partners are at that level of intoxication are prosecuted are extremely rare as neither party can actually consent, and in order to prosecute rape there must be evidence (i.e. testimony).

The fact that rape has an incredibly low reporting rate among women, and infinitely lower among men, means that most of these issues never actually see a courtroom.  But yeah - if one partner is impaired due to drugs or alcohol, they cannot legally consent to sex and a sober other partner is statutorily guilty of rape.

[jr2]

That sounds fair and just, IMHO.

[JCDNWarrior]

Returning back on topic (the 2012 elections) I wanted to share this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKNpNpPRZY0&feature=related

I have nothing else to add for the moment regarding this subject.

[MP-Ryan]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/worldview/texas-judge-warns-of-civil-war-if-obama-re-elected/article4504647/

In a nutshell, here’s what worries Judge Head, who also leads Lubbock’s emergency preparedness unit and must plan for everything from tornadoes to civil strife: Should President Barack Obama win another four years in the Oval Office, the president will “hand over sovereignty of the United Sates to the UN,” Judge Head explained in a televised interview. And like any forward-thinking emergency planner, Judge Head wants to be ready for the ensuing bloodbath.

“I’m thinking worst-case scenario – civil unrest, civil disobedience, civil war maybe,” as U.S. citizens rise up to defend the nation, the judge continued. “And we’re not talking just a few riots here and demonstrations. We’re talking Lexington, Concord, take up arms and get rid of the guy,” he added. At that point, in Judge Head’s scenario, the beleaguered president will “send in UN troops” to crush American (and Texan) patriots.

Which brings us back to the tax hike and the looming risk of armed confrontation on the outskirts of Lubbock.

“I don’t want them in Lubbock County,” Judge Head said of the foreign invaders. But nor does he want to face the blue-helmeted hordes alone. “I don’t want a bunch of rookies back there who have no training and little equipment. I want seasoned, veteran people who are trained that have got equipment,” which, he said, justifies the need for a sales tax hike.

Even the addition of some tough Texas lawmen may not be enough. “You know, we may have two or three hundred deputies facing maybe a thousand UN troops. We may have to call out the militia,” Judge Head warned.

Ladies and gentlemen, elected voices from the Republican party!