Abortion

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

They all work. It's only your and my respective bias that color our interpretations. Abortion is not only a unique situation unto itself, but it entails a very broad and heterogeneous aggregate of unique situations. So there is no exact analogy for it except to say that there are other scenarios in human society in which innocent lives are taken without rendering the judgement of murder.

You're right. There is no "exact analogy".
Edit: I'd also like to ask, in response to your comment about it entailing a "broad and heterogeneous aggregate of unique situations", if you believe there would be some situations where it would be wrong for a woman to have an abortion?

Aedes wrote:

Doing a c-section is a deliberate and unnatural delivery against the will of the baby. Do you object to that, too?

If not, then your objection is not against the deliberate, the unnatural, or the against-its-will points and ONLY against the ending of a life point.

My whole point is that it was active taking of a life, not passive. So passive euthanasia is not a legitimate analogy at all.

Aedes wrote:

Why MUST that be the case?

It's not the case now, nor could it ever be, and it's not what I'm asking for at all. The point is that in this case I think the current status quo is completely off base. You wouldn't assume any more than I do something is automatically right just because the majority of a society condones it.

Let's redirect here a bit. When do you think a child should be given the normal human rights of society? I assume that with all your calls for me to see that this isn't a "black & white" issue, you won't just pick something as arbitrarilly black & white as birth.

Also, I'm wondering how you feel about women feel pressured into an abortion, yet carry the regret and guilt for the rest of their lives? What do you think should be done about this? (And please don't just blame the pro-lifers for those feelings. They, at least to a large degree, are natural parental and human feelings that could result from a miscaraige or killing another person for whatever reasons.)

1 Reply

@NeitherExtreme,

NeitherExtreme wrote:

You're right. There is no "exact analogy".
Edit: I'd also like to ask, in response to your comment about it entailing a "broad and heterogeneous aggregate of unique situations", if you believe there would be some situations where it would be wrong for a woman to have an abortion?

Yes, I DO believe it would be wrong in some situations. Even for MOST medical circumstances that threaten the mother, I would not condone an abortion at any time after around 22 weeks gestation, which is about midway through the second trimester. This is because there is no possibility of ex-utero physiologic viability at this point even with maximal life support, due to the fetus' extreme physical immaturity. Even with life threatening complications, like severe eclampsia, HELLP syndrome, etc, it's possible to just deliver the baby at ~23 weeks gestation and hope for the best. (23 weekers tend to do quite badly, but some do survive to become healthy, happy kids without many complications). So if the issue is simply medical situations, abortion for medical purposes is a non-issue at 23 or 24 weeks when the baby might be viable. Before 23 weeks, then abortion might be the only option to save the mother's life, and delivering the baby would be MORE cruel to the baby considering it would die either way -- but by suffocation if it were delivered.

For elective abortion, I'd probably pick some time earlier than the above, though I can't think of a specific or obvious cutoff point. There's no biological threshold that makes it clear.

For children with severe congenital abnormalities or genetic diseases, my estimation (having cared for these kids post-natally) is it is far more cruel to bring such children into the world than it would be to abort the pregnancy at whatever point. I've taken care of kids with anencephaly -- they have no brain other than a brainstem, so they basically have to be ventilated and artificially fed for the year or two until they die. What is the point of that? It's a horrible situation, and if a family learns of that at 26 or 30 weeks gestation, then I'd STILL deem abortion acceptable. There are probably some ways of performing abortions that can truly minimize pain to the fetus.

Quote:

My whole point is that it was active taking of a life, not passive. So passive euthanasia is not a legitimate analogy at all.

It's largely technical and semantic. Passive euthanasia requires an active decision. There can be passive murder just as there can be active murder (these aren't legal terms, but if someone withholds lifesaving medicine or food from an intended victim then it is still murder).

Quote:

You wouldn't assume any more than I do something is automatically right just because the majority of a society condones it.

Or automatically wrong. Can't we both be authentic and yet have differing views?

Quote:

I assume that with all your calls for me to see that this isn't a "black & white" issue, you won't just pick something as arbitrarilly black & white as birth.

Correct, though considering that you can't get a birth certificate, a passport, a social security number, a name, an address, or a dependant care tax break until a baby has been born, society overall DOES view birth as a cutoff. Except in a social sense (i.e. to the parents), our society does not even acknowledge the existence of an unborn child except in medical circumstances or when the pregnant mother has been a victim of a violent crime.

Quote:

Also, I'm wondering how you feel about women feel pressured into an abortion, yet carry the regret and guilt for the rest of their lives?

There are a lot of decisions that people regret, what is so special about this one? Women can feel guilt and regret even if they are not pressured. And women can feel guilt and regret for being inadequate parents (or perceiving themselves as such). And women can feel guilt and regret for NOT having an abortion -- in fact I've met some who ended up having kids with bad congenital diseases that had been identified antenatally. And very often giving up a child for adoption creates feelings of guilt and regret. And all of the above situations can be met with no guilt or regret. So while I have sympathy, I don't think that one subset of people's reactions to this should inform policy when it's hardly universal.

I think that counselling services should be available for ALL women who are pregnant, and particularly women who seek an abortion (whether or not they get one in the end), because pregnancy, childbirth, and parenthood are extraordinarily stressful even in the BEST circumstances.

Quote:

What do you think should be done about this?

Stated above. But I do NOT think that abortion should be banned simply because of this consideration, unless you plan to ban everything else in life that might engender feelings of guilt and regret.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Why MUST that be the case? And give me a reason other than Ruth's echolalia about consistency, because it's far too easy to perseverate on consistency if you're willing to selectively ignore the vast majority of variables out there.(quote)

Good Point! Now, let's examine the concept of consistency and how it is the heart and soul of logical thought, as well as the established precedence of preceding legal and moral benchmarks derived from sequential adaptations that form the foundation of a Social Construct. The parameters of a Human Being is easily derived from empirical evidence, and represents the foremost unit of any recognized individual physical displacement that serves as the foundation FOR EVERY SINGLE LEGAL OR MORAL CONSIDERATION. The autonomous attribute of the defined Human Being is inherently upheld and consistently contained within the physical evidence of an actual individual. Any interjections that circumvent the initial recognized unit of human autonomy jeopardizes ALL preceding established accepted parameters, because of the easily defined accusation of careless inconsistency. The practical implication from inconsistency is the festering of social discontentment, and the related actions and behaviors of a populace that indulges without the tempering effects of personal accountability, because of the non-accountability of inconsistently invoked concepts of legal or moral constraints. Consistency is NOT easily attainable, but is an arduous process that constantly measures the imperative of cognitive credibility, and consequently only progresses forward with this self-evident mandate.

1 Reply

@Ruthless Logic,

The problem with consistency is one of resolution. You can lump things together in a way that looks consistent, but then split them apart in a way that belies consistency.

So you may lump any living thing that begins with a human zygote into your definition of "human" and uniformly apply a single moral standard to it. That would certainly be consistent.

However, another reasonable person may disagree that the concept of human as a moral entity must "consistently" encompass all these things, because of any number of differences we can list within that biological concept of the human. And the problem here is NOT that this person is being logically inconsistent -- the difference is that this person does not agree that the concept of human as you conceive it is sufficiently meaningful to receive a single uniform moral.

Furthermore, if you think about all the moral priorities people can hold, then other moral considerations can supervene your particular moral constancy vis a vis the concept of "humans". Someone's feelings about autonomy may be more important than their feelings about the rights of a fetus. And this supervenes the incidental biological fact that a human fetus is a kind of human.

1 Reply

@NeitherExtreme,

NeitherExtreme wrote:

Really? Is someone "asserted control over their own body" by pointing a gun at someone else and pulling a trigger? All of our rights, wether it be speech, religion, press, or physical control of our bodies, are not unlimited. If they interfere with the rights of others, then both parties must be accounted for.

This is what I am referring to. Even if we assume that this is a contest of rights (I still haven't noticed a decent argument for a fetus to hold rights), there still is no argument for the fetus.

The fetus is an unwanted intruder and the scenario you provide is not analogous.

Quote:

What if you found me uncounscious, brought me into your house, locked me in a room with your refrigerator, got angry when I eventually had to eat, then cut my throat as you tossed me out? That seems a more apropriate analogy, especially in the case of IDX.

I was simply trying to delineate the roles here. I wouldn't attempt to actually draw an analogy between an invader in your house and a pregnancy.

Anyways, I don't think that a pregnancy is analogous with bringing someone into ones house and locking them in a room. I don't believe sex is an invite to the fetus to enter the womb, and it seems much more accurate to describe the person as unwilling to leave. We could also add these to the scenario:

1) Your presence in my home makes me very ill.
2) You are always demanding and getting a piggy-back ride.
3) You cause me to be incontinent and gassy.
4) You cause me to experience massive weight gain.
5) You cause hormone changes that can completely alter my personality.
6) You threaten my body and life even if I am to peacefully wait for you to leave on your terms.
7) You generally alter every aspect of my life to account for your well-being.

Now we are closer.

Quote:

Call it "terminated" if you want to, but that doesn't change what happens. We all know full well that if they just pulled it out a few more inches it would have the same legal rights as any other baby. Just because they cut it's neck inside the body cavity of the woman doesn't make it her body that they are affecting.

Yes, I know about the controversy surrounding the word. You'll notice that I had it in quotes in the first place. If you would prefer to call it ellective IDX, or anything else, that's fine with me. Both sides reword things to make themselves sound better. I'm not interested in wording, I'm interested in the subject at hand.

I just wanted to establish that the woman is not "giving birth" the fetus is pulled out and the head is collapsed to greatly lower the risk posed by the woman. This is abortion, it is dilation of the cervix and extraction of the fetus as the medical community refers to it. It is not a "partial birth"; the woman is not giving birth, and there is a big difference between pulling the torso of a fetus out and pulling the entire thing out.

1 Reply

@Mr Fight the Power,

Aedes...

I think we've come pretty close to a workable understanding. Smile

Granted, I still lean one direction, while you lean another. But if your latest response to me was authentic, and I believe it was, then we seem to be in the same book, if not exactly on the same page... You mentioned that finding a cut-off point, especially for elective abortion, would be somewhat arbitrary, biologically speaking, which I tend to agree with. I think that such a cut-off point could still be researched and choosen, and possiblly re-evaluated later on. I would see this as something similar to the somewhat abitrary but necessary age limits on things like driving, sex, and drinking. Sure, they aren't exact science, and people might disagree, but it's a good thing for society to have some sort of rules. (Personally, I don't think that conception would be irrationally early, simply because a separate human life has begun at that point, but I don't see the sense in getting dogmatic about that if it ruins any hope of thoughtful discussion on the subject, as we have been having.)

Mr. Fight the Power...

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

(I still haven't noticed a decent argument for a fetus to hold rights)

I'm not quite sure what kind of argument you're looking for. Generally, the argument would be that it is human, therefore it has human rights. Other arguments have been made based on heart developement, brain developement, pain developement, or external viability as points at which the fetus deserves rights. What exactly would you consider a decent argument?

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

I don't believe sex is an invite to the fetus to enter the womb...

Physiologically speaking, I'd be interested to hear you back that up. I realize sex has some other functions as well, but it is primarily a reproductive act. You can "believe" that sex is not a reproductive act, but that's ignoring reality and the responsibility that comes with the action.

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

...and it seems much more accurate to describe the person as unwilling to leave.

Very interesting... Aperantly this fetus possesses enough consiousness and will for you to blame them (and with quite a bit of resentment apperantly), yet at the same time does not possess enough consiousness and will to be considered a human worth worrying about. Odd...

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

1) Your presence in my home makes me very ill.
2) ....

All this may be true, even if somewhat exagerated, but why is it that I should bear the responsibily for this situation by giving my life (even in situations when I could easily survive outside), when it was your own conscious decisions that created the situation?

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

...there is a big difference between pulling the torso of a fetus out and pulling the entire thing out.

Legally speaking only, and to me that is pure hypocrisy.

1 Reply

@NeitherExtreme,

NeitherExtreme wrote:

I'm not quite sure what kind of argument you're looking for. Generally, the argument would be that it is human, therefore it has human rights. Other arguments have been made based on heart developement, brain developement, pain developement, or external viability as points at which the fetus deserves rights. What exactly would you consider a decent argument?

I'll know it when I see it.

Quote:

Physiologically speaking, I'd be interested to hear you back that up. I realize sex has some other functions as well, but it is primarily a reproductive act. You can "believe" that sex is not a reproductive act, but that's ignoring reality and the responsibility that comes with the action.

Of course sex is a cause of pregnancy, but that does not mean that having sex equates to inviting or dragging someone in to your home.

I have had sex many times in my life where my partner and I did not wish for there to be a pregnancy, took measures to prevent a pregnancy, but still knew there was a chance of a pregnancy.

Quote:

Very interesting... Aperantly this fetus possesses enough consiousness and will for you to blame them (and with quite a bit of resentment apperantly), yet at the same time does not possess enough consiousness and will to be considered a human worth worrying about. Odd...

One can be unconscious and still not possess a will to leave.

The important thing is that the fetus is not being held against its will.

Anyway, you were quite ok with the analogy using a conscious individual one post ago, what gives?

Quote:

All this may be true, even if somewhat exagerated, but why is it that I should bear the responsibily for this situation by giving my life (even in situations when I could easily survive outside), when it was your own conscious decisions that created the situation?

Because allowing an egg to get fertilized is hardly sufficient cause for such a overwhelming obligation to be created.

EDIT: And what was exaggerated?

Quote:

Legally speaking only, and to me that is pure hypocrisy.

Extracting the shoulders and head is by the far the most dangerous and difficult part of childbirth.

1 Reply

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

I'll know it when I see it.

Maybe...

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

Of course sex is a cause of pregnancy, but that does not mean that having sex equates to inviting or dragging someone in to your home.

No, it's not an exact analogy. But it is enough that the people having sex are the cause of the situation, not the fetus, and there is no reason that the fetus should be responsible for it (even to the point of brutal death), while the people who caused the situation take no responsibility.

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

I have had sex many times in my life where my partner and I did not wish for there to be a pregnancy, took measures to prevent a pregnancy, but still knew there was a chance of a pregnancy.

My wife and I have been married for over 4 years, and we are still planning to wait a little while before having children. So obviously we've been using birth control, all the while knowing that there is a chance that she could become pregnant. But, we have always understood that if she became pregnant, it would be our responsibility to shape our lives around the child we created, regardless of how inconvinient a time it happened at. It's like any other action we take, if something doesn't go as planned we still need to take responsibility for what we've done.

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

Because allowing an egg to get fertilized is hardly sufficient cause for such a overwhelming obligation to be created.

Why is that? Eveyone involved knew the risks involved in the action.

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

EDIT: And what was exaggerated?

Mostly the way you ascribed will to the fetus' situation. But it's an imperfect analogy, so I guess we'll have that.

Mr. Fight the Power wrote:

Extracting the shoulders and head is by the far the most dangerous and difficult part of childbirth.

So, your argument is that IDX is easier for the mother? Ok, but I was talking about the child. When exactly does a child become someone you care about?

2 Replies

@NeitherExtreme,

Another situation, incidentally, which I dealt with a LOT when I was doing NICU rotations as a resident, is FAR more ethically difficult than abortion and probably more important too. Namely, if a baby is born at 23 weeks gestation, do you resuscitate it?

The likelihood of survival to discharge from the hospital without permanent complications is under 25%. It costs tens of thousands of dollars as well, which is not a trivial situation in a country where money for health care is all too scarce.

So this is a REAL and frequent debate in neonatology circles. Some neonatologists will always resuscitate such babies. Some will have a very frank discussion about the odds with the parents and encourage the parents NOT to seek resuscitation.

Again here there is no strict cutoff, except that 22 weekers are basically guaranteed to die whatever you do, so they are not even offered resuscitation. A 24 and certainly a 25 weeker has a better chance of survival (though not great, and still with great risks of complications), so they are usually resuscitated. But I can't tell you that it's correct to resuscitate a 23 weeker as opposed to just letting them die, which is the eventual outcome in many if not most of them anyway.

You think it's a hard ethical discussion about whether or not aborting a 10 week fetus should be permitted? How about whether or not to resuscitate a live-born 23 week baby? And that one isn't clear cut either.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Quote:

The problem with consistency is one of resolution. You can lump things together in a way that looks consistent, but then split them apart in a way that belies consistency.

Consistency is a Logical tool that most individuals recognize and cognitively respect and consequently submit to, because it offers a self-evident pattern of defined discipline that tends to transcend the issue itself, because of the multitude of supported sequential evidence that predicates the next obvious installment with the respectability of predicable efficacious reliability.

P.S. Consistency offers the most universal and accepted approach towards resolution, you just need the cognition of clarity for adherence.

2 Replies

@Ruthless Logic,

What is truly bewildering to me is how you can beat this drum so loudly and yet grossly contradict yourself again and again.

You are now the champion of consistency. Well, the only way to be TRULY consistent in moral decisionmaking is to be a pure deontologist, and have every moral judgement come from a first principle. Sit down with Plato, Kant, or the Pope if you'd like some ideas.

But no, you are NOT a deontologist because you love to talk about human evolution as being an endpoint that is compromised by abortion (which is a biologically unsound stance, but that's besides the point). And there dies your first principle, because your moral consideration revolves around an endpoint. A deontologist would not care about the endpoint, because the morality consists in the behavior itself.

Furthermore, on the subject of consistency, you repeatedly fail to recognize that you can be consistent about one principle and I can be consistent about a different one -- and therefore our views can come directly into conflict without either one of us being inconsistent.

So try examining your own cognitive grasp of these ideas, because denying your own self-contradictions and inconsistencies doesn't change reality.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Aedes wrote:

What is truly bewildering to me is how you can beat this drum so loudly and yet grossly contradict yourself again and again.

You are now the champion of consistency. Well, the only way to be TRULY consistent in moral decisionmaking is to be a pure deontologist, and have every moral judgement come from a first principle. Sit down with Plato, Kant, or the Pope if you'd like some ideas.

But no, you are NOT a deontologist because you love to talk about human evolution as being an endpoint that is compromised by abortion (which is a biologically unsound stance, but that's besides the point). And there dies your first principle, because your moral consideration revolves around an endpoint. A deontologist would not care about the endpoint, because the morality consists in the behavior itself.

Furthermore, on the subject of consistency, you repeatedly fail to recognize that you can be consistent about one principle and I can be consistent about a different one -- and therefore our views can come directly into conflict without either one of us being inconsistent.

So try examining your own cognitive grasp of these ideas, because denying your own self-contradictions and inconsistencies doesn't change reality.

What is truly amazing is the continuing revelation of carelessly concocted rationalizations! The concept that an end point (simplisitc adaptation) and the adoption of an underling moral principle are mutually exclusive clearly reflects an inherent cognitive constraint that belies any approachable attempt for understanding. Consistency is revealed in the wake of preceded decisions and is completely insulated from the otherwise undisciplined and Attention Deficit Ideals of sporadic moral mandates that clearly only pattern off the next immature emotional whim that washes over the undisciplined indulgent individual.

Remember! Credibility only comes from the evidential sequence of adopted reasoning, which provides the necessary intellectual evidence for the process of evaluation and the subsequent measurements of incorporated consistency.

1 Reply

@Ruthless Logic,

Ruthless Logic wrote:

What is truly amazing is the continuing revelation of carelessly concocted rationalizations!

I know, hence all my responses to you.

Quote:

The concept that an end point (simplisitc adaptation) and the adoption of an underling moral principle are mutually exclusive clearly reflects an inherent cognitive constraint that belies any approachable attempt for understanding.

Spoken like someone who has never picked up a copy of Mill or Kant. If you want to be consistent about a moral, then you can't let it flap around in the breeze of consequences, and if you want to be consistent about a given end point, then you have to drop your principles and endorse whatever method achieves that end.

Quote:

Remember! Credibility only comes from the evidential sequence of adopted reasoning

You're telling yourself this, right? Because your repeated self-contradictions show me that you're having trouble going from step 1 to step 2, let alone a longer "evidential" sequence. Oh, and evidential? You're still hung up on the idea that empirical experience can tell us how to weigh morals? That's self-contradictory unto itself.

0 Replies

@Aedes,

Aedes... I agree that there is no easy way around the issues involved. What I tend to react against is abortion being promoted for convinience, profit, political expediency, or just not wanting to take responsibility (on the part of either parent, or society in general). On the other hand, unfortunate situations where there seems to be no better medically alternative for those inolved are a whole different case. These situations have all the grey shades and complexity which you describe, and more.

I wish there could be some movement to acknowledge those valid situations, while recognizing the fetus as the human being it is, and the parents needs as well. To me those are not conflicting values, or even contradictory! I can't see why they aren't commonly held values that we can all rally behind and move forward... But here we sit behind entrenched battle lines and no one's willing to budge, while the numbers of victims, adult and child, male and female, add up year after year. Senseless.

1 Reply

@NeitherExtreme,

Spoken like someone who has never picked up a copy of Mill or Kant. If you want to be consistent about a moral, then you can't let it flap around in the breeze of consequences, and if you want to be consistent about a given end point, then you have to drop your principles and endorse whatever method achieves that end.(quote)

Your propensities for coattail riding and name dropping for desperately needed credibility is the only empirically measurable mandate you consistently adopt. Here is a new idea, stand on YOUR OWN two feet and provide a coherent illustration that defines the requirement of an all-encompassing moral mandate, before any supposed ancillary principles can be applied with only the evidential sequence of empirically measured adaptations thoroughly derived from only one constant adherence; consistency. Provide the example, so I can literally destroy your careless concepts of subjective affirmations.

1 Reply

@Ruthless Logic,

Ruthless Logic;23385 wrote:

Your propensities for coattail riding and name dropping for desperately needed credibility is the only empirically measurable mandate you consistently adopt.

:flowers:

That's a very insecure and rather naive accusation. The fact of the matter is that moral philosophy goes back at least 2400 years in the Western tradition, and when we're discussing the methodology or metaphysics of ethics, we do not need to reinvent the wheel. It creates the perpetual awkwardness, inarticulateness, and inconsistencies that I keep pointing out to you in your own posts, which contain some rudimentary ideas that you repeatedly fail to refine and develop. Some attention to the way ethical philosophy has been addressed in the past might provide you with insight as to how you can make a contribution to it, or at least frame your points within the world's broader understanding of ethics. I mean do you think of yourself as the first and last authority on how an ethical judgement is made? Do you find it even significant that you're making broad philosophical statements that have been addressed and rebuffed time and again through history? And do you have the patience (or at least reading comprehension) to see that I'm not merely name dropping? One difference between you and me here is I'm simply not using my own ideas as the only measure against which I'm weighing your answers -- I'm using the history of western ethical philosophy, which is something that I've studied academically and is truly worth applying to this debate.

As for coattail riding, don't forget that YOU are the one who offered us a middle school level restatement of reproduction and evolution as evidence for the empirically verifiable basis of your argument. Fancy that YOU are not the one who was in there doing the experiments, writing the papers, writing the texts. In other words, you are riding the coattails of every scientist who contributed to the scientific domains you've cited.

Finally, don't forget that this is a philosophy forum, and there have indeed been philosophers to live before us and to offer us a philosophical context. If you want to go have maddening debates in a place where it's just one opinion versus another, with no reference to any historical precedents, then you've come to the wrong forum. In the meantime, I'd strongly suggest that you give yourself a reading assignment and pick up Utilitarianism by Mill, Groundings... by Kant, and Gorgias by Plato -- heck, throw on the Myth of Sisyphus by Camus while you're at it. Maybe then you won't feel so affronted when someone actually cites a source.

0 Replies

@NeitherExtreme,

NeitherExtreme wrote:

Why is that? Eveyone involved knew the risks involved in the action.

The problem with saying that is that your argument rests on the risks you are trying to argue for. If I am correct these risks do not actually exist.

Pregnancy lies somewhere between dragging an unconscious person into your house and growing a plant in your house.

What risks and obligations exist with dragging an unconscious person into your house do not necessarily exist in causing a pregnancy.

So, I have to ask you, what causes these obligations to be created?

Quote:

So, your argument is that IDX is easier for the mother? Ok, but I was talking about the child. When exactly does a child become someone you care about?

Don't know.

1 Reply

@Ruthless Logic,

Ruthless Logic wrote:

you just need the cognition of clarity

Would I have to go through wizard training?

2 Replies

@Mr Fight the Power,

Mr. Fight the Power;23407 wrote:

Would I have to go through wizard training?

By "cognition of clarity", I'm pretty sure he actually means "clarity of cognition". Some irony in that, isn't there.

1 Reply

@Aedes,

Finally, don't forget that this is a philosophy forum, and there have indeed been philosophers to live before us and to offer us a philosophical context. If you want to go have maddening debates in a place where it's just one opinion versus another, with no reference to any historical precedents, then you've come to the wrong forum. (quote)

Gather the courage to test your own beliefs, otherwise continue your approachments comprised from the credulous affirmations of naiveness.

P.S. I am truly becoming quite bored.

3 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know