Thread: ABORTION: Where do you stand?

Originally Posted by Mario92

better idea: you prove they were anything else.
False memory - Wikipedia
Occam's razor. False memories are common and well understood. Having a memory of an event before you have a central nervous system is quite ridiculous. Burden of proof and whatnot.

I merely claimed that I had memories of being in the womb, so the central nervous system would have developed at that point. Scientists have confirmed that fetuses develop short term memories at 30 weeks, and long term memories at 34 weeks. They will also open their eyes and respond to light at around 30 weeks...which specifically corresponds to one of my memories.

I recovered these memories using the same method to recover several memories from being an infant/toddler that I have been able to confirm their validity with my mother. Taking that into consideration, and applying Occam's razor, I have absolutely no reason to believe the womb memories would be false.

Originally Posted by Pan

I merely claimed that I had memories of being in the womb, so the central nervous system would have developed at that point. Scientists have confirmed that fetuses develop short term memories at 30 weeks, and long term memories at 34 weeks. They will also open their eyes and respond to light at around 30 weeks...which specifically corresponds to one of my memories.

I recovered these memories using the same method to recover several memories from being an infant/toddler that I have been able to confirm their validity with my mother. Taking that into consideration, and applying Occam's razor, I have absolutely no reason to believe the womb memories would be false.

Nor have you any reason to believe they are true. The human mind will believe what it wants to, and will falsify memories to do so. Factor into that the fact that the more you remember an event, the worse the accuracy of that memory becomes, and you have a nice mental soup capable of just about anything.

Originally Posted by Mario92

Nor have you any reason to believe they are true. The human mind will believe what it wants to, and will falsify memories to do so. Factor into that the fact that the more you remember an event, the worse the accuracy of that memory becomes, and you have a nice mental soup capable of just about anything.

But I do have reason to believe they are true...because as I said...the other memories that I recovered have been validated. It seems more reasonable to assume the womb memories are not false (one of which has also been validated), since the memories from infancy recovered at the same time and by the same method are not false.

I understand that false memories are common, and I would be skeptical of someone who claimed to have womb memories. But I have absolutely no reason to create false memories, and it wouldn't really make sense that I would uncover accurate memories from infancy and then, for whatever reason, just make up some memories of being in the womb. It serves no purpose.

But of course you are entitled to your disbelief, it is not my intention to change your mind.

edit: buriedmonsters, it's not about bias...anyone who tells another to go kill themselves gets infracted and/or banned

Originally Posted by Pan

But I do have reason to believe they are true...because as I said...the other memories that I recovered have been validated. It seems more reasonable to assume the womb memories are not false (one of which has also been validated), since the memories from infancy recovered at the same time and by the same method are not false.

I understand that false memories are common, and I would be skeptical of someone who claimed to have womb memories. But I have absolutely no reason to create false memories, and it wouldn't really make sense that I would uncover accurate memories from infancy and then, for whatever reason, just make up some memories of being in the womb. It serves no purpose.

But of course you are entitled to your disbelief, it is not my intention to change your mind.

edit: buriedmonsters, it's not about bias...anyone who tells another to go kill themselves gets infracted and/or banned

how do you validate that? How different can womb experiences be? It's warm and dark and maybe a bit wet and perhaps you kick or something. It's not all that complex, and I wouldn't put it past your brain to suddenly "remember" additional details after you "validated" your memories to make them fit better.

But whatever, believe what makes you happy.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Now that she's gone, can we legalize infanticide?

Oh you..

I realize that this is pretty much pointless to post now, but I already had it typed up. Besides, it didn't really feel like much attention was payed before OP left, so.

Originally Posted by buriedmonsters

This is really very simple. If you have no soul, you were not created with purpose, and were simply born to die and rot that means you have no value.

If you "were not created with a purpose", then obviously you weren't born to die and rot. That would be a purpose.

Originally Posted by buriedmonsters

You are as worthwhile as the chicken I just ate for dinner.

Actually, there are many who would partially agree with that. They tend to be vegan.

Originally Posted by buriedmonsters

And if you are going to kill something that could possibly be a human life, you better make fucking sure you're 100% correct and be able to substantiate your claims with evidence. So far, you are not able to prove that a soul does not inhabit a fetus. Therefore, it is possible that by aborting a fetus, you may possibly be killing a soul.

So you're saying that when a body dies, the soul dies with it? What exactly is the point of this soul-thing?

Originally Posted by buriedmonsters

Plants don't have brains. Lets not argue about them please.

Neither does a newly conceived fetus. At that point it's literally a one-celled organism. One cell does not a brain make.

Originally Posted by Pan

People should really stop using the term "prove"...empirical science dictates that hypotheses can not be proven, only falsified. Your data can support your hypothesis or provide basis to reject it, but it can never prove anything. The notion that people constantly ask for proof, or to be proven right or wrong is fundamentally flawed. Unless you are using the mathematical definition or some philosophical definition of proof that I'm unfamiliar with.

I believe they mean "prove beyond a reasonable doubt". That's mostly what it means.