Here is a Socratic Dialogue that I wrote for Gr 12 Philosophy. Please take the time to read it long as it may be, it is in a simple format and shouldnt take toomuch time. Then feel free to unleash your many thoughts upon me via comments or the forum here.

Other: I just found out that I am pregnant.

Socrates: Oh! That is good news! … But why then do you look so troubled?

O: I am thinking about getting an abortion.

S: Why would you even want to consider abortion as an option?

O: Well, I was planning to go to college next year, and I will not have the time, or the money to raise a child at the same time. Also the father refuses to take on his responsibility, and it would be too much of a burden to raise a child on my own.

S: Although these may seem to be valid reasons, do they justify getting an abortion?

O: I don't see the problem. It is not like I am harming anyone; in fact, I am relieving a lot of pressure from my life and making it better by allowing myself to get an education.

S: You do know what an abortion is, right?

O: Yes, of course. It is the termination of an unwanted pregnancy.

S: By that definition you mean that it is up to the parents desire to determine whether or not a child is worthy of being born?

O: Yes, I mean that it's the parent's choice, but there is no harm being done to any child in an abortion.

S: But did you not say that an abortion was the termination of a pregnancy?

O: Yes, I did.

S: Well, what does it mean to be pregnant?

O: It is to have a child developing in the womb.

S: By that definition is abortion not the termination of a developing child?

O: There is a difference between a developing child and a child that has been born. Most abortions take place early on in the pregnancy, during the first trimester when the fetus cant exist outside of the mother. At this point it is only a clump of cells, and thus not at all a human being.

S: What is the distinct difference between the fetus during the first trimester, and the child at birth?

O: The difference is that the fetus is not yet a person. It has not yet developed into a human; it is unable to live independent of the mother and does not have the characteristics that can define it as human.

S: What characteristics is it lacking that it cannot be considered to be a human?

O: It cannot interact with its environment; it cannot live independent of its mother and has not developed into a human yet.

S: Doesn't mothers sometimes feel her baby move inside her? And don't ultrasounds show them moving in the womb?

O: Well, yes that is true. The baby does move in the womb.

S: Then is that not the baby interacting with its environment?

O: Yes, I suppose that it is interacting within the limits of its environment.

S: And you say that it cannot survive without its mother?

O: Right. It can't survive apart from its mother.

S: Isn't that similar to young children, who rely on their parents to feed and protect them?

O: Yes, they can't do this on their own; they need their parents to do this for them.

S: And I thought that the fetus has the same genetic code of a human.

O: I think that it does.

S: Then the fetus is not lacking any characteristics that define it as human?

O: The fetus cannot reason.

S: But isn't the age of reason around seven years old?

O: Yes.

S: Then all children under the age of seven do not have the characteristics to qualify them as human?

O: Well, no. Children younger than seven are still human. But the fetus is still not fully a human. A young child may need help to survive from it's parents, but is not dependant upon them, it has the ability to do it on its own.

S: What do you mean that it is still not "fully human"?

O: The fetus is still developing and is in a state of becoming a human. At best we can claim that it is potentially a human.

S: So you are saying it is not actually human, but potentially human?

O: Yes, exactly.

S: But doesn't the fetus 'actually' exist?

O: Yes, it does.

S: So what is the 'actualized fetus' in a state of becoming?

O: It is becoming a human.

S: Does it then have the potential to 'become' anything other than a human?

O: Of course it doesn't!

S: Is it not true that something cannot become something other than what its substance will allow?

O: Yes, a piece of wood cannot become something other than what can be made out of wood. It cannot become a steel chair, but it can become a wooden chair.

S: Doesn't this principal also apply to the human fetus?

O: I would have to say that it does. The human fetus cannot become anything other than a human.

S: So, if the human fetus is actualized, and it is becoming a human and cannot become anything other than a human, is it not actually a human?

O: I would say that it is actually a 'human fetus', but it is still in a state of becoming thus it is not yet fully human.

S: But are not all "full humans" also in a state of becoming, or a state of change?

O: No, because they are already fully human.

S: I mean, are they becoming in the sense that a child becomes a teenager, who then proceeds to become an adult and so on?

O: Well then it is true that humans are always becoming, a medical student is becoming a doctor.

S: So then you mean that, in the same sense, a human fetus is becoming a human infant, as a human child is becoming a human teenager?

O: Yes, they follow the same logic.

S: Then is a human fetus actually human, and not merely potentially human?

O: Yes, I have to agree that it is. However the human fetus is still part of the mother's body, because it is in her womb. And if it is part of the mother than it is the mothers choice whether or not she will have an abortion. After all, the mother has the right to control her own body.

S: But you just concluded that it is a fully actualized human being, and if that were so then would it not necessarily follow that the mother is two fully actualized humans?

O: No, I just mean that the developing fetus is part of the mother, but not that the mother is two people.

S: If the fetus is part of the mother then wouldn't everything that is part of it, also be part of the mother? Its arms, its legs etc.

O: That would have to mean that what is part of the fetus is also part of the mother yes.

S: So is the fetus an individual being, or a part of the mother, like an organ?

O: It would have to be an individual being, or else its feet would also be its mother's feet. The mother cannot be two people at once.

S: So then if the human fetus is an individual human, and not part of the mother, then does she still have control over whether or not it should be aborted?

O: The decision is still the mother's responsibility.

S: But the act includes both the mother and the unborn child, so doesn't it affect both of them and not only the mother?

O: Yes, the choice includes both of them.

S: How can you then ask a mother to take responsibility for their child's life and decide if they live or die?

O: That is true, not mother would want to put their own child's life at risk and decide their fate. But in a case where the mother's life is at risk, and by aborting the child her life can be saved.

S: Even in that scenario there are still two lives involved. Who then is to say that the mother's life is more important then the child's?

O: The mother has contributed more to society. She can provide for herself and others and is thus more useful.

S: So is one to be judged based on how useful they are? Aren't the elderly less useful to society than a young worker?

O: It is true that those who work are more useful to society and can contribute through things like taxes. But also the elderly have worked in the past and were useful to society.

S: But you have tried to establish a monetary value for a human life. Thus are children less valuable to society because they do not contribute to society in this way?

O: Hmm, I see what you are saying, and since a child will potentially contribute to society and a fetus is potentially a child they cannot be said to be worthless. Otherwise a child would have to be considered worthless as well.

S: So is a mother's life more valuable, and more worthy of saving than an unborn child?

O: No, a mother's life is not more valuable than the unborn child's.

S: So what ought a doctor do in this case?

O: I would say that the doctor ought to try and save both, since neither can be considered more important. But there is still a more serious case where abortion is an acceptable solution.

S: What could possibly make abortion acceptable?

O: If the woman was raped, she had not choice in the matter, and since she did not choose to become pregnant, she should not have to bear the responsibility of raising the child.

S: I see, so in this scenario, who holds the responsibility?

O: The person who raped thee woman is responsible for getting her pregnant, and casing any psychological and emotional trauma.

S: Isn't the one responsible for the crime the one who ought to be punished for it?

O: Yes that is how it ought to be.

S: Can you remind me again what an abortion is?

O: The termination of a fetus.

S: And the fetus is actually a human child?

O: Yes.

S: But then in an abortion isn't it the unborn child who is being punished for the crime and not the one who committed it?

O: Oh, I see what you mean. It is not just at all to punish the unborn child when he was not involved at all in the crime. To punish the child for the crime would be like punishing the mother for it, for she is not responsible for the crime either.

S: So then abortion is not an acceptable solution to rape?

O: Right, it would be totally unjust to do so.

S: So what should the mother do rather than get an abortion?

O: I guess putting the child up for adoption is always an option.

S: So, the fetus is in fact an unborn human child, and abortion is morally wrong in all situations, even the most serious ones?

O: Yes, the fetus is actually an unborn child, and an abortion is thus the killing of a human child, so it is wrong in all situations.

I'm writing this in response to Jsmoke03's blog post "Will killzone 2 reverse the ps3's fortune?" I didn't want to leave it in a comment, because it is quite long. If you haven't read his blog, you may want to prior to mine, but that is up to you.

So the initial question is will Killzone 2 be the Play Station 3's savior in 2009, or will it have no impact at all?

Well it seems that many of the big hit, main attractions for the Xbox 360 are its FPS games, like Halo and Gears, and the Play Station 3 doesn't really have any big, successful 'exclusive' online shooters (or any exclusives in general for that matter). I think that Killzone 2 is a game that will appeal to the general 360 fan, and might grasp their curiosity. In that respect it has great potential to draw some "fence sitters", and 360 owners over to buy a PS3, saving it from the bowels of console hell... But I wouldn't get my hopes up.

I don't know if we should go as far as to say that Killzone 2 can save Sony from many bad mistakes. At least not single handedly. I think it is quite clear that 2009 will be a phenomenal year for the PS3, and maybe that this year we might see the PS3 give its competitors a run for their money... or at least a second look at it. With games Uncharted 2, Heavy Rain, God of War III, Infamous, DC Universe Online and Killzone 2 scheduled for release in 2009 (or 2010 for some) the PS3's line up is boasting some of the most anticipated, and "destined for greatness" of any console titles coming out this year.

We all know about the mistakes Sony made early in the console's release: 3 to 4 different builds each with different functionality (20gb, 40gb, 60gb, 80gb), then removing two of them (20gb and 60gb), replacing the 80gb with another 80gb with different backwards compatibility [I don't know if that was exactly the case?] now there is a 120gb? In addition only the 80gb has backwards compatibility, but does not support every game. Seriously Sony, what were you thinking!? On top of all that nonsensical confusion the PS3 is price much too high, an astounding $499. But hey, people bought them. I did. So what does Sony, or the Play Station 3, have to worry about?

That should be immediately obvious when you compare it to its adversaries the Xbox 360 and the Nintendo Wii, who's sales continue to over shadow the puny PS3.

The question becomes, will thePS3's line up of superb games out weigh its hefty price? That is hard to determine, but my opinion is that the PS3's sales will increase this year, (but a price cut never hurts). Those few people out there who have yet to choose a 'nextgen' console have plenty of good reasons to buy a PS3, and those who already own a Wii and 360 have the same reasons to keep their lonely consoles company with a PS3.

And remember, if nothing else appeals to you about the PS3 (particularly the 80gb), it can double as a heater for your room during the bitter cold winter months. Seriously, I leave that thing running for a couple hours and I'm turning down the heat, or opening a window.

Is $499 really all that bad when you're getting a gaming console, a BluRay player, digital media storage, web browser (and all that crap), and a personal heater all bundled into one? Hmmm… I don't think so. (Well, yes I do, but it's still great… Well MGS4 is… And its 09 releases have to be).

Here is a link to my friend's band's myspace. They're a small Canadian band, playing in small bars, town events and school concerts. Check them out and you might just love them.

For small bands just starting out, any support can help them flourish, so have a listen, leave a comment and spread it to your friends.