Ultra, I pose the same question to you. You do know what sentient means right?
~Rico
Brain waves of the unborn baby have been detected as early as six weeks after conception. So it can be fair to assume that mental sentience, if you will, begins there.
However, what of the spiritual side? What of the soul of the child, unique from any other? Who knows...because under law, souls don't really count do they?
I personally like this line from C.S. Lewis; we are not bodies with souls...we are souls with bodies.
Brain waves of the unborn baby have been detected as early as six weeks after conception.
So? Termites have brainwaves.
However, what of the spiritual side? What of the soul of the child, unique from any other? Who knows...because under law, souls don't really count do they?
That's because souls aren't real.
Quote:
That's because souls aren't real.
*snickers* If you say so.
Well, what? You think laws should be written based on the assumption that people have souls?
Not at all. I was just snickering at the fact that you don't think souls exist, nothing more.
Dress Ultra. Dress.
In case you didn't get it, "Talking about my dress" was akin to "Going offtopic". Souls have nothing to do with laws. In the eyes of the law God doesn't exist and souls don't either.
~Rico
Ah. I thought it was something like that.
Good, next post goes back to topic. Mmmkay? 
Very well then. A hypothetical for everyone (building off of what Evalc said).
Although abortion is said to be a mercy to an unborn child, saving it from potential suffering, is it right to do so? As Evalc said, suffering and hardship can help define people and make them better as a result (can't make a sword without putting the metal into a furnace after all). Trial by fire and all that.
Is denying their right to life just to save them and other people from experiencing hardship right?
Quote:
Is denying their right to life just to save them and other people from experiencing hardship right?
Do we kill animals to make life easier for us?
~Rico
Quote:
Do we kill animals to make life easier for us?
We do so to feed ourselves and make clothes from their pelts. Are animals our offspring though? Do they somehow equal the value of an innocent human being?
Human's are sentient. Fetus's aren't.
~Rico
Now we're back at square one with the whole 'Are unborn children sentient or not?'. I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on that particular matter, since we've covered it already.
Already meaning a dozen times.
~Rico
Oh don't be wiidiculous.
Ba dum bum.
~Rico
I guess i did say "It's not that hard to raise a kid" ^^; well, i dont know what i meant, but i know it is hard. I still dont know how my dad does it with 4 kids. But honestly, i think what i meant was that its not hard in the sence that it wont ruin your life, just add something more to it that you have to work around with. Honestly, living with my dad and being 16 years older than the youngest twins makes me really NOT want a kid of my own, despite the fact that everyone says ide be a good parrent and blah blah blah. Just because your good, doesnt mean you still should do it.
Fex you know that in here people will hang on and write 50 pages on one sentence of yours just for the sake of epeen.
My argument boils down to it being better to err on the side of freedom than on the side of public relations. I just don't think making a law saying women MUST give birth is a good thing. Be kinda like saying men cannot ejaculate because they are killing the next potential Einstein.
~Rico (*wanders off to kill some Einstiens*)
lol, well then i guess we kill massive amounts of possible kids all the time =P men must be murdering fiends! and i guess some women are canabals?
*ROFFLE*
~Rico
Abortion, wars of religion/philosophy/ideology , and wars for expansionism are all evil. None care for the unborn or the living.
So wars for any other cause are alright?
Your philosophy on what is "evil" seems pretty selective to me.
Quote:
wars of religion/philosophy/ideology , and wars for expansionism are all evil.
Ideology is involved in any war. So according to your logic, all war is evil. And I would have to totally disagree with that.
War to eliminate tyranny is OK.
Thus, the 13 colonies, renamed The United States did OK in fighting against King George II of Great Britain.
Novo Hispanos (New Spainers-later known as Mexicans ) did the right thing to fisht Spain after 300 years of colonization.
They did the right thing in getting rid of Sata Ana and Porfirio Diaz, to Dictators for life.
Fighting to eliminate a tyrant is a matter of Ideology, and thus by your logic evil.
I'd make a statement here about getting back on topic, but I think the horse has been beaten into its individual atoms by now.
Quote:
Fighting to eliminate a tyrant is a matter of Ideology
Provided the tyrant has one or the killer has one.
In his younger days Saddam Hussein was a Baahtist, that is, a socialist leaning nationalist. But from 1989 and on, he just became a brutal dictator, to satisfy his ego. That's when many of his old supporters began to leave him.
Even if the United States had not intervened he would have been assassinated. The reason :brutality.
Julius Caesar went from a General in the Roman Empire to a taking power. He was assassinated by someone who believed in Republican ideals, not in Kingships. Reason: ideological.
