Munk

How is there no right or wrong answer? This isn't preference we're debating, it's whether or not it should be allowed and why.

You and science, cutie. You and science.

Because you women don't like to argue.

Too bad you're still both wing-bats, eh?

It's an educated hypothesis based on brain and spinal development throughout the fetus' cycle. It's accepted within the medical world that something that only has a spiral cord and under-developed lower-brain material cannot perform upper-brain thoughts like comprehending one's mortality. Actually, the brain and spinal cord begin to develop as soon as 3 weeks. And I have no idea what "sensation of life" you're talking about. No, actually. The preservation of one's life isn't innate in creatures. The reflex to avoid pain is innate, but this is purely a lower-brain reflex meant to keep the creature from damaging itself. The comprehension of one's mortality and preservation of one's life is actually an upper-brain construct. Many animals do not even have upper-brains to speak of. Reptiles, fish, etc. You can't give what isn't alive the right to choose whether or not it wants to live. Opportunity has no role here. The only thing in this situation that has rights is the host of the fetus. I've had many pets. But you're associating pain with death, and you shouldn't. A dog's lower-brain is wired to reflexively avoid damage. But that doesn't mean the dog's upper-brain has pondered it's mortality [or even can], and decided it would like to continue to live. And as far as the brain dead thing goes, you're just being a dumbass. The heart is a muscle. A simple pump. It has nothing to do with the animal's personality, thoughts, wishes, etc. Once the brain dies, the animal you know is dead.

What do you mean how do I know a fetus, who's brain is not yet developed, has had no exposure to any emotional stimuli, and has no ability to comphrehend or make critical judgements, has no opinion as to whether or not it's alive? I'd say it's a damn good guess. It's brain structure suggests otherwise. It does actually, yeah.

Assuming she's a veggie, no, she's not sentient. That's exactly it. She's brain dead. Stop keeping her body alive with machines, please. Assuming she is sentient, but in "so much pain" [why is she not kept sedated in this fantasy hospital?] she can't express her wish to live or die... It's a toss up. Really depends on the individual case's circumstances. A fetus doesn't have an opinion, and just can't give it. It's null, and might as well be in a vegitative state.

But they have an opinion either way about their life ending. A fetus, a dog, and with further testing, even a newborn child probably doesn't.

I barely consider a born baby sentient.

;) 4 5 6 7 8

Post tits. >:C

I don't wanna' win. I want to enlighten. ;)

I'll never understand why, even when admitting that their opinion is wrong or baseless, that people still struggle to hold on to it. Drop the pride. >:C

If you can't explain why you have an opinion, why have it? Don't you think you should either try and explain it or dump it if it doesn't make sense?

I don't consider people who disagree with me ignorant. I consider people ignorant if the sum of their argument amounts to, "Eww."

Are you even reading this thread? Assuming something doesn't harm someone, it's automatically "right". There's no "wrong" unless it harms someone who doesn't want to be harmed. No one is harmed with two people [brothers or not] getting married. Saturn brought up two points. That it hurts the kids they have, and that it hurts their families who take the same ignorant "it's wrong" mentality you do. The first point makes no sense, since not everyone who gets married has to have kids, ie. gays. As well, not letting them marry doesn't stop them from having kids if the really want to, so why stop them at all? To punish them for loving each other so much that they want to be married? The second point didn't make sense either, since their marriage doesn't effect anyone but themselves. A bystander being offended by their union isn't effecting someone. The bystander [their families] can get to steppin' if they don't like it. Just as if they don't like me being naked in my front lawn, or playing music they don't like.

"You just don't." isn't a valid reason. There's not even any constructive logic behind that answer. >:C

Oh I get it, you mean because if people are married, they have to have kids. Man, all those gays marrying are in for a big disappointment, eh?

No it doesn't.

Can I explain why it's wrong? No I can't, and that's why I don't think it is. Can I explain why it should be tolerated? Because it makes them happy and it has no effect on anyone else.

Yeah, it is. Exactly the same. You're just weirded out by the thought, but can't explain it any deeper than, "Eww."

People had a similar objection to blacks marrying whites.

You're going to have to elaborate on "on right". Preferably without throwing a Bible at me.

It's not my bag either, but it's not "wrong".

Exactly. No reason at all to stop them.