RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   
  Topic: Is Defining Human Life Within the Realm of Science< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,18:22   

I have been told repeatedly that science has no role in defining human life as it pertains to the abortion phenomenon.

Is this really the case?  This seems preposterous on its face.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,19:03   

Well....you apparently missed the whole conversation Thor.

What exactly do you want science to define as life?
Things living?
Ok....so when do humans start living?
Well they come from life(sperm and ovum)...so does human life start when life becomes human(ceases not being human) or when non-living things create living things?

What makes life human?

Does human life start when a living independent organism exists with human DNA?

When you say independent...do you mean self-sustaining or do you mean single-celled?

So...answer these questions...and only these questions...and i will help you out

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,19:05   

PuckSR,

You must first answer whether defining human life is within the realm of science.  Yes or no?

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,19:13   

two part question?

is defining life within the realm of science?  Possibly
is defining human within the realm of science? possibly

it really depends on how you are defining science...
Scinece analyzes empirical data.  We have empirical data for life, we have empirical data for humans...

So I imagine it is within the realm of science to define life and define human.

However you said
Quote
I have been told repeatedly that science has no role in defining human life as it pertains to the abortion phenomenon.


Which would seem to be asking if it is within the realm of science to define when life becomes human life.....in which case...I believe it is within the realm of philosophy.  Your asking science to assign a title to your "point of the start of human life"....

This is much like getting into a debate over when does a hand become a flipper.  Science can define a flipper, and it can define a hand....but it cannot tell you when a hand becomes a flipper, nor does it imply that a hand cannot be a flipper.  

Science has a difficult time with assigning particular definition.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,19:23   

PuckSR,

Then how can science call evolution a "fact?"

By saying that science has no say when "life becomes human life" then this must necessarily be held for ALL forms of life.  Then what is biology?  The supposed study of life?

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,19:29   

Quote
By saying that science has no say when "life becomes human life" then this must necessarily be held for ALL forms of life.  Then what is biology?  The supposed study of life?


Absolutely...but i think your confusing biology with taxonomy

You can study life without being able to define when life becomes a human.

When we look at early hominids....it becomes apparent rather quickly that its a tricky subject. Humans came from apes...but you cannot tell me where the ape ends and the human begins...and perhaps that is best...since we are still an ape(maybe)

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,19:43   

PuckSR,

If you can study life without knowing when it becomes human life then how do we know we are human life?

Oh, I see you said,

Quote
...and perhaps that is best...since we are still an ape(maybe)


Is this the "truth" of science?  Ambiguity?  This is another prejudice duly discarded.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,19:47   

LOL

you still didnt tell me when that boat becomes a new boat....

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 05 2006,20:46   

PuckSR asks,

Quote
you still didnt tell me when that boat becomes a new boat....


According to your stance, never.  There is nothing to define it.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,06:08   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 06 2006,00<!--emo&:0)
PuckSR,

You must first answer whether defining human life is within the realm of science.  Yes or no?

As usual, Thordaddy, you're asking the wrong question. Can science define human life? Sure, as we've pointed out a million times already.

The question you should be asking is, "Can science define human life for me in a way I will find acceptable?"

The answer to that question is definitely no.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,06:12   

Good grief.

How many anti-abortion threads does Thordaddy want?

  
C.J.O'Brien



Posts: 395
Joined: Aug. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,09:11   

The real question here is one of the validity of absolutism.

The naive human intuition insists that every object, every concept, must be an example of a specific "kind" of thing, must, in short, be amenable to definition.

That the universe doesn't care about our intuitions is a tough pill to swallow for those with an anti-scientific worldview.

--------------
The is the beauty of being me- anything that any man does I can understand.
--Joe G

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,09:13   

Quote (C.J.O'Brien @ April 06 2006,14:11)
The real question here is one of the validity of absolutism.

If there's one thing Thordaddy has made absolutely clear through all his posts, it's this: he simply cannot abide ambiguity.

Unfortunately for him, most of the universe is pretty ambiguous.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,11:37   

When will that boat become a new boat?

Quote
According to your stance, never.  There is nothing to define it.


Au contraire....

I already told you...it is a new boat when all of the parts are replaced, it is an old boat when none of the parts are replaced.  It becomes a new boat sometime between no new parts and all new parts....

C.J. O'Brien already gave you a very good explanation of your problems answering this question when you are dealing in absolutes.

I am telling you that there is no "point" where it becomes a new boat....only a "section of points".  You, however, realize the nature of this question and refuse to provide any answer...if you ever answer this question truthfully, you will already have your answer for the scientific view of abortion.

Let me propose another question...perhaps this one will get an answer?
What is your definition for life?(Your personal definition)

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,17:53   

PuckSR opines,

Quote
Au contraire....

I already told you...it is a new boat when all of the parts are replaced, it is an old boat when none of the parts are replaced.  It becomes a new boat sometime between no new parts and all new parts....


You gave to different answers for when it became a "new boat."  I've highlighted above.

Quote
C.J. O'Brien already gave you a very good explanation of your problems answering this question when you are dealing in absolutes.


But who are you..., undefinable entity that calls itself PuckSR?

How can you define anything when you remain undefined?  Only an intelligent human being can understand this conversation.

Quote
I am telling you that there is no "point" where it becomes a new boat....only a "section of points".  You, however, realize the nature of this question and refuse to provide any answer...if you ever answer this question truthfully, you will already have your answer for the scientific view of abortion.


The new boat becomes a new boat whenever someone decides it's a new boat?  This is your stance?  Forgive me if I don't see something very wrong with this ambiguity when it comes to "new human life."  And since science has reveled in this ambiguity, are we to leave it alone and stop requesting more advanced and rigorous science?

Quote
Let me propose another question...perhaps this one will get an answer?
What is your definition for life?(Your personal definition)


ME!  And I started at conception.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 06 2006,18:54   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 06 2006,22:53)
PuckSR opines,

Quote
Au contraire....

I already told you...it is a new boat when all of the parts are replaced, it is an old boat when none of the parts are replaced.  It becomes a new boat sometime between no new parts and all new parts....


You gave to different answers for when it became a "new boat."  I've highlighted above.

No. Two different answers were not given. Once again you refuse to read what was written.

Try again!

It is the old boat before any parts are replaced.
It is a new boat when all parts are replaced.
It becomes the new boat somewhere in the process, but there is no exact point when that happens.

  
qetzal



Posts: 311
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,04:09   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 06 2006,22:53)
Quote
Let me propose another question...perhaps this one will get an answer?
What is your definition for life?(Your personal definition)


ME!  And I started at conception.

Well, there we go. Life is defined as thordaddy, who began at conception.

By extension, it must therefore be completely moral and ethical to abort any other fetus at any time. It isn't thordaddy, so it's not life.

Similarly, there's nothing immoral about terminating the existence of babies, kids, or adults, as long as they aren't thordaddy. (I almost said there's nothing immoral about killing, but obviously that term doesn't apply to anything but thordaddy.)

That clears things up enormously. Plus, think of all the cash we can save after we reduce the police force, medical system, armed forces, etc. We only need enough to guard the human rights of thordaddy, right?

In case you miss the point of this sarcasm, thordaddy, (and judging from your posts, it wouldn't surprise me), it's really contemptible for you to bitch and whine that someone else's definition isn't acceptable to you, but refuse to give an honest definition of your own.

Grow up already.

(Also, look up the definitions of the verbs is and become. They don't mean the same thing. Once you figure that out, maybe you'll understand Stephen Elliott's analogy.)

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,06:05   

Quote
I have been told repeatedly that science has no role in defining human life as it pertains to the abortion phenomenon.

Never gets tired of the same lies, does he. He has been told endlessly that the legal declaration of a legal person with specific legal rights is not a scientific question. So far, thordaddy has seen the word "legal" about a hundred times, and has simply excised it every time he repeats the same misdirected question.

Perhaps others are muddying the waters here? Abortion is a LEGAL ISSUE. It has nothing to do with science. Nothing.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,06:48   

Quote (Flint @ April 07 2006,11:05)
Never gets tired of the same lies, does he.

To be fair, Thordaddy might not be actualy lying. It is possible that he is too stupid to realise his errors.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,07:06   

And now, having been told that science cannot necessarily decide a legal issue, Thordaddy has got it in his head that science has no definition for human life. Where he got that idea is anyone's guess.

It strikes me as faintly outrageous that anyone would have doubts as to the definition of a human being, but what do I know? I'm from San Francisco.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,07:26   

For the time being....let us leave abortion/human rights/ and all of that stuff that has cluttered the other threads out of this........

Quote

Let me propose another question...perhaps this one will get an answer?
What is your definition for life?(Your personal definition)


ME!  And I started at conception.

No...I want you to give me a definition of life.....
In other words....if i find something, I want you to give me a way to determine if that thing is alive or not alive.
It should be a fairly simple concept, it doesnt even need to be "scientific".  I just want you to tell me how I should decide if something is alive or not alive


Quote
Au contraire....

I already told you...it is a new boat when all of the parts are replaced, it is an old boat when none of the parts are replaced.  It becomes a new boat sometime between no new parts and all new parts....


Thordaddy....if you honestly believe that those two statements are contradictory....despite what everyone else has tried to explain to you...then I am fully convinced that you are an idiot.
Your basic misunderstanding of simple english sentences, and your complete inability to answer questions has me doubting either you sincerity or your intelligence.

Either you are purposefully attempting to twist and toy with everything everyone on this forum says....or you lack the ability to understand english...in which case, please tell us what language would be more appropriate, and we will try to assist you....

Im still waiting for your answers...since your last ones didnt exist

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,07:26   

Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 06 2006,23:54)
It is the old boat before any parts are replaced.
It is a new boat when all parts are replaced.
It becomes the new boat somewhere in the process, but there is no exact point when that happens.

Unless, of course, you define "new" as having more than 50% new parts.  Or 66%.  Or 75%.
In which case you can determine exactly when it becomes a "new" boat.
But that would only be because you've defined it as such.  which is why, as has been pointed out to td over and over, this is a question of semantics.

Once you define meaningful terms, science gives you the tools to evaluate.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,09:10   

I have only been in this argument about 2 years. Already my perception is under atack. It is almost impossible to distinguish irony/sarcasm/lies.

I wasn't even always on "this" side. Originaly I was an ID suporter. That is very embarasing.

I take my hat-off to people who have been doing this for 20+ years. It is already wearying me.

  
BWE



Posts: 1898
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,10:05   

Mr. Elliot,
If it is making you tired, you are taking it too seriously.

My advise? Go play frisbee with a dog for a while. It always seems to help.

--------------
Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered
When wished on the morning star
Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it
Look what it's done so far

The Daily Wingnut

   
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,10:05   

PuckSR stated,

Quote
...it is a new boat when all of the parts are replaced...,


Quote
It becomes a new boat sometime between no new parts and all new parts....


If this isn't stating 2 different (I didn't say contradictory)criteria for when a new boat becomes a new boat then please call me crazy because it would be meaningless.

You ask me a definition for life and then you don't accept it even though it IS MY ONLY DEFENITIVE EVIDENCE for human life.  But then again, why would it matter what my definition is because you've already stated human life is undefiable and doesn't start at conception?

  
jupiter



Posts: 97
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,10:05   

Jeez, how many threads is ThorDaddy going to start and then squat on? And why?

He'll never learn anything because he doesn't want to learn anything. I don't think he wants to bring people around to his point of view, either, since he just repeats the same dullardry over and over and over. He's not even a decent troll. GoP -- now, that's a troll. Every time one of his claims is smacked down, he comes up with another one that's even more manic and preposterous. A performance like that takes some effort, some skill, some... panache. Endless, unvarying repetition -- that's recess rhetoric.

Is it possible that ThorDaddy is a miserably unsuccessful Turing test, and the programmer just hasn't shut down the machine yet?

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,10:18   

I am simply amazed by this discussion.

Flint claims that abortion HAS NOTHING TO DO with science.  It's a purely legal issue.  Does this means that science plays no role in legal issues?  Especially those issues that should concern science, namely, legal questions pertaining to human life?  This is an evolutionary site and we are amongst biologists, no?

Improvius claims that we can define things as we choose but doesn't see that being ambiguous on the issue of human life/human being is a form of defining?  It's called the "I'm too ignorant to define" definition and so is science even though we defined "life" back to the OOL.  LOL!

ericmurphy says, "Of course we can define human life but we can't say when I began."  I always thought the most complete definition for the effect was the cause.  The closer we could define the cause the better we've defined the effect (human life).  You don't even know when you became a human life.  How do you know you are human life?  Consciousness...?  Dogs have that.  Are you a dog?  What defines you as human life?  I say your conception defines you?

  
improvius



Posts: 807
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,10:21   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 07 2006,15:05)
PuckSR stated,

Quote
...it is a new boat when all of the parts are replaced...,


Quote
It becomes a new boat sometime between no new parts and all new parts....


If this isn't stating 2 different (I didn't say contradictory)criteria for when a new boat becomes a new boat then please call me crazy because it would be meaningless.

You aren't crazy, you're just having trouble understanding English.

Here's a hint: in the English language, "is" and "becomes" are two different words with different meanings.

--------------
Quote (afdave @ Oct. 02 2006,18:37)
Many Jews were in comfortable oblivion about Hitler ... until it was too late.
Many scientists will persist in comfortable oblivion about their Creator ... until it is too late.

  
stevestory



Posts: 10127
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,10:29   

Quote


He'll never learn anything because he doesn't want to learn anything. I don't think he wants to bring people around to his point of view, either, since he just repeats the same dullardry over and over and over. He's not even a decent troll. GoP -- now, that's a troll. Every time one of his claims is smacked down, he comes up with another one that's even more manic and preposterous. A performance like that takes some effort, some skill, some... panache. Endless, unvarying repetition -- that's recess rhetoric.


GoP can think in complicated ways. He can make careful distinctions. His mental ability isn't the problem, his problem lies in enslaving that ability to the religious conclusion. He's using acrobatics to try to get to jesus.

On the other hand, and this is why you never see me argue with him, Thordaddy can't think clearly. Can't make careful distinctions. He always confuses points with similar points.

for example:
Quote
Cogzoid said:
Organisms with "bad mutations" can still pass their genes on.   Evolution doesn't require that only "good mutations" get passed on.
Quote
Thordaddy said:
cogzoid,

So natural selection is really a meaningless term?  And a genetic basis for "gayness" does nothing to inhibit one from being heterosexual?  

Notice the confusion. Cogzoid basically says natural selection isn't selection of the perfect, and thordaddy turns that into natural selection doesn't exist. Then Thordaddy says  
Quote

So homosexuality may have a genetic component but it plays no part in sexual orientation?
Which is a self-contradictory question, as homosexuality is a sexual orientation. If it is influenced by a genetic component, the genetic component plays a part in it.
  So while GoP has a decent brain but is trying to prove something false, Thordaddy simply doesn't know how to make or evaluate logical statements. That's why it's foolish to think you can talk any sense into him. You might feel there's some other reason for arguing with him, but if you're trying to convince him you're wasting your breath.

   
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,10:46   

Nice try, Thordaddy.

Quote

ericmurphy says, "Of course we can define human life but we can't say when I began."


You have, as usual, completely misconstrued what I said. What I did say is that the question is meaningless in the context of the abortion debate. Saying that a human life begins at conception is just as arbitrary as saying it begins at birth, or at age 18, or age 21, or whenever you want to say it begins. Some people say life begins at 40, for crying out loud.

Here's another Thordaddy gem:

Quote
Flint claims that abortion HAS NOTHING TO DO with science.  It's a purely legal issue.  Does this means that science plays no role in legal issues?


Can you get any more vacuous? Thordaddy, I'm going to say this very slowly, and I want you to repeat it back to me when I'm done: "The Fact That Science Has No Bearing On Some Legal Issues Does Not Mean It Has No Bearing On Any Legal Issues."

Are we clear on this yet? Will we ever be clear on this?

I know I'm wasting my time trying to point things like this out to you, but I have to admit, I think it's kind of fun anyway.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,10:58   

Quote
GoP can think in complicated ways. He can make careful distinctions. His mental ability isn't the problem, his problem lies in enslaving that ability to the religious conclusion. He's using acrobatics to try to get to jesus.

This is always deeply unsettling. Kind of like watching a potential decathlete having an epileptic fit - SO CLOSE to being truly excellent, and then suffering a debilitating flaw that no amount of training or dedication can overcome.

Nonetheless, the distinction between stupid and religion-addled can be danm hard to draw when the topic is religious in nature. I really couldn't say whether thordaddy's numbing inability to read what anyone says is stupidity or the kind of reality-lockout religion induces. I'm betting on religion; anyone THAT stupid generally couldn't use a computer in the first place.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,11:13   

Even though Thordaddy has an obvius genetic inability to see the color gray, it isn't really his intelligence that's so lacking. His stance is an emotional and unconsciously driven one.

Thor has stated that it is an absurd position to say that we are all part of one very old living entity, and yet that is precisely what I believe and what must be, at least in some sense, the case.

It is too much of a stretch to say that conception is no more important a milestone than turning 18. Conception is the contact between a specific sperm and egg which can potentially lead to a unique individual. But it isn't possible to dismiss the potential that lies in the sperm and the egg regardless of whether those particular two end up together. Before conception, there are many sperm hovering. Presumably, any one of several of them could have got in first and you'd have a different person. At the moment that the particular sperm that lead to your child was swimming upstream, it had the potential to become that very child. The eggs that became my children were in my womb before I was born, and those particular eggs had the potential to become my children. If they did not have that potential, then my children could never have been born. This can be taken back indefinitely to the very beginning of life.

Nature seems to work in such a way that altho there are crucial milestones, they do not stand alone in utter separation from prior events. Water goes along degree by degree until it hits 212 or 32, at which points it changes its properties. But it cannot get to 212 without traversing the space between.

It is obvious that if life comes from life, that all life has a beginning which never ends unless life ends. Whether you believe in common descent or special creation of each species, the life force is a continuous thing that passes from one body to the next.

If you believe in evolution all life is connected in this way, and if you believe that God made each species, then all life comes directly from God, so all life is connected just the same.

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,12:34   

-avo...

I completely agree with you....

except, I dont think that someone can be as "?blind?" as thordaddy simply because he is too emotional....

I have met a lot of very emotionally religious people, but I have yet to meet one who can just basically misunderstand common sentences.....
For example, when I asked Thor to define life...and he answered....ME...
Either he is attempting to make a profound statement(which given his track record I seriously doubt) or he didnt even bother to grasp the question in the first place...

I would have been more satisfied if he would have said..."an organism that is capable of reproducing" than "ME".
"ME" leaves us all standing with our mouths open...we cannot begin explaining things to him...we cannot try and communicate with him at all....

He is either a genius or an idiot, and if he is a genius, he needs to stop "playing" for awhile and speak to us in a normal tone....

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,14:08   

Quote
It is too much of a stretch to say that conception is no more important a milestone than turning 18.

But of course, nobody made this claim. The claim was that milestones (without ranking their relative importance along any particular scale) are legally arbitrary.Yes, an effort is made to make these milestones "reasonable". But what is reasonable? Basically, reasonable is a tradeoff. Changing any designation has ramifications, which society decides through political processes are good or bad ones.

Quote
Nature seems to work in such a way that altho there are crucial milestones, they do not stand alone in utter separation from prior events. Water goes along degree by degree until it hits 212 or 32

Yes, I suppose it can be argued that life also has phase changes. Conception is one, birth is one, death is one. There are no others. And conception is very hard to pinpoint.

And this leaves us with birth and death, the traditional start and end of a human person. When these occur is clear and unambiguous. Clear and unambiguous is important, because laws are impossible to enforce if they are based on maybe.

  
jupiter



Posts: 97
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,15:35   

Quote
GoP can think in complicated ways. He can make careful distinctions. His mental ability isn't the problem, his problem lies in enslaving that ability to the religious conclusion. He's using acrobatics to try to get to jesus.


Agreed. GoP adapts his thinking in response to new information and seeks out relevant supporting evidence -- up to a point. Eventually, inevitably, his belief systems collide and he can go no further. Which is too bad for him, but it does make for very interesting threads, especially for a non-scientist. (That said, he's also an annoying braggart, an arrogant little man with little to be arrogant about. And his Hulk cartoons crash my browser, which really peeves me.)

Quote
Thordaddy simply doesn't know how to make or evaluate logical statements. That's why it's foolish to think you can talk any sense into him. You might feel there's some other reason for arguing with him, but if you're trying to convince him you're wasting your breath.


Agreed to the nth power. I addressed a comment to him in the other thread, saying, in essence, "You're abusing this forum, please bugger off." No buggering-off ensued; instead, he opened another thread on virtually the same topic. I'm amazed and baffled that people still are deluding themselves that progress is possible. Worse (for me, anyway), there's absolutely no entertainment or educational value to be had in ThorDaddy's threads. The point of him escapes me.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,15:54   

But I think someone did make this claim:

Quote
Saying that a human life begins at conception is just as arbitrary as saying it begins at birth, or at age 18, or age 21, or whenever you want to say it begins.


And why do you say conception is hard to pinpoint? Sure the very moment goes unnoticed, but it can be suspected within days.

I said Thor has emotional reasons that are unconsciously managed. That is why some of his replies are so disconcerting. Apparently, when he said "me" he meant that he was an example of human life. It is odd not to make that distinction.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,15:58   

LOL?  This is what one sees as the problem with science.  Everything that questions it must be religious in nature.  Yet, where are MY religious arguments I wonder since I have little to no theological education.  I grew up in family almost completely devoid of politics and religion.

Improvius opines,

Quote
You aren't crazy, you're just having trouble understanding English.

Here's a hint: in the English language, "is" and "becomes" are two different words with different meanings.


Exactly...[b]and that is why I said PuckSR made 2 different statements about what constitutes a new boat.

stevestory opines,

Quote
Notice the confusion. Cogzoid basically says natural selection isn't selection of the perfect, and thordaddy turns that into natural selection doesn't exist.


Actually, I asked a question because it seems like everything can be chalked up to evolution.  Anything that is, is because of evolution.  But where is the evidence that evolution devised a "sexual orientation?"  What "sexual orientation" would evolution require other than an orientation towards reproduction?  So if natural selection chooses homosexuality, lesbianism, suicide, abortion, euthanasia and the like...did evolution devise a "self-destruct" gene?

Quote
So homosexuality may have a genetic component but it plays no part in sexual orientation?
Which is a self-contradictory question, as homosexuality is a sexual orientation. If it is influenced by a genetic component, the genetic component plays a part in it.


Why do you assume that evolution would devise a "sexual orientation," let alone one that defies evolution like homosexuality?

Quote
So while GoP has a decent brain but is trying to prove something false, Thordaddy simply doesn't know how to make or evaluate logical statements. That's why it's foolish to think you can talk any sense into him. You might feel there's some other reason for arguing with him, but if you're trying to convince him you're wasting your breath.


The problem is that the above is a sample of all you have to say.  What "sense" are you conveying concerning the topic at hand?

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,16:02   

Quote (avocationist @ April 07 2006,20:54)


And why do you say conception is hard to pinpoint? Sure the very moment goes unnoticed, but it can be suspected within days.


I'm not saying conception is hard to pinpoint (in principle—in practice, pinpointing the exact instant of conception is pretty much impossible outside of the lab). That's not my point. My point is that to claim, as Thordaddy has about a million times, that "life begins at conception" is as arbitrary as saying it begins at birth, or age 18, or age 40.

Quote
I said Thor has emotional reasons that are unconsciously managed. That is why some of his replies are so disconcerting. Apparently, when he said "me" he meant that he was an example of human life. It is odd not to make that distinction.


Thordaddy's responses often do seem to indicate some sort of cognitive dissonance, or possibly some developmental difficulties. But I'm not interested in addressing Thordaddy's state of mind; I'm interested in addressing his arguments. Kind of like shooting fish in a barrel, if the barrel was filled entirely with fish and no water.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,16:07   

avocationist opines,

Quote
It is too much of a stretch to say that conception is no more important a milestone than turning 18.


Except you need one to get to the other.  In fact, you need to one to get to ALL other milestones.  I think that alone gives it sufficient primacy.

Quote
Conception is the contact between a specific sperm and egg which can potentially lead to a unique individual.


Yet, you clearly use the world "potential" because the "unique individual" may be readily disposed of.  

If you want to believe that you are a mere individuated outgrowth of one very large and very old entity and your death represents nothing more than this entity clipping his toenails, believe it.  But you readily admit the even the most micrscopic change in those last billions of years and you would NOT EXIST.  One change in sperm or one changed egg going back million and billions of years.  Poof, your gone!

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,16:20   

PuckSR opines,

Quote
I have met a lot of very emotionally religious people, but I have yet to meet one who can just basically misunderstand common sentences.....
For example, when I asked Thor to define life...and he answered....ME...
Either he is attempting to make a profound statement(which given his track record I seriously doubt) or he didnt even bother to grasp the question in the first place...

I would have been more satisfied if he would have said..."an organism that is capable of reproducing" than "ME".


LOL!  Yet, that's exactly what I am... "an organism" that has reproduced.  Hence, thordaddy.  I thought you knew?


Quote
"ME" leaves us all standing with our mouths open...we cannot begin explaining things to him...we cannot try and communicate with him at all....

He is either a genius or an idiot, and if he is a genius, he needs to stop "playing" for awhile and speak to us in a normal tone....


Just like we can't assume a newborn to be conscious because not one has ever proclaimed, "I am newborn, I am conscious," I can only definitely say that I am life (human life to be exact).  ME!  I can assume a lot of things are alive, but as you've so eloquently argued, you can't even say when you became human life and so how can I be sure about any life other than my own?

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,16:33   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 07 2006,21<!--emo&:0)

Except you need one to get to the other.  In fact, you need to one to get to ALL other milestones.  I think that alone gives it sufficient primacy.


Except you need an unfertilized egg to get to a fertilized egg. And to get an unfertilized egg, you need to go back to your mom's ovaries before she was even born. And of course, to get to your mom's ovaries, you'd need to go back further, to the fertilized egg that eventually produced your mom's ovaries. Etc. Etc. Etc. It's your classic chicken/egg problem, Thordaddy. Except maybe this time it's a human/egg problem.

Quote
If you want to believe that you are a mere individuated outgrowth of one very large and very old entity and your death represents nothing more than this entity clipping his toenails, believe it.


How is this belief any more arbitrary than your own belief that you are somehow distinct from all the other life on the planet, Thordaddy? Let's face it: your own inevitable death is a lot more important to you than it is to the rest of the universe. By universe standards, your death is way, way less important than even a routine toenail-clipping.

Yep. The truth hurts.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,17:21   

ericmurphy opines,

Quote
Except you need an unfertilized egg to get to a fertilized egg. And to get an unfertilized egg, you need to go back to your mom's ovaries before she was even born. And of course, to get to your mom's ovaries, you'd need to go back further, to the fertilized egg that eventually produced your mom's ovaries. Etc. Etc. Etc. It's your classic chicken/egg problem, Thordaddy. Except maybe this time it's a human/egg problem.


So your life began billions of years ago...?  Tell me how random mutations and natural selection decided to choose you?

Next you say,

Quote
How is this belief any more arbitrary than your own belief that you are somehow distinct from all the other life on the planet, Thordaddy? Let's face it: your own inevitable death is a lot more important to you than it is to the rest of the universe. By universe standards, your death is way, way less important than even a routine toenail-clipping.


Yet, this is the whole point.  You're existentially agnostic and I am not nor am I for anyone I know.  I actually care.  Call me selfish if you like.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,17:31   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 07 2006,21:20)
...
Just like we can't assume a newborn to be conscious because not one has ever proclaimed, "I am newborn, I am conscious," ...

This is hogwash. A newborn reacts to stimuli, you can detect sleep/awake behaviour paterns. The fact that it has no language skill is irelevant.

By your definition nothing but humans are conscious and only humans that can speak. Even chimps that have been taught to communicate by humans would fall outside your requirements for being conscious.

BTW. Why would it be wrong to kill something that is not conscious?

Your arguments are inconsistent. In one post you will claim that a human zygote=a human adult. In another you state that newborns are not developed enough to be conscious. Ridiculous!

Sir, you are a liar!

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,17:38   

Stephen Elliot,

Can you state UNEQUIVOCALLY that a newborm is conscious?

Stephen says,

Quote
This is hogwash. A newborn reacts to stimuli, you can detect sleep/awake behaviour paterns. The fact that it has no language skill is irelevant


How does this differ from a zygote?  Or Terri Schiavo?  If that is your definition of consciousness then a flower is conscious and you are right.

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,17:55   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 07 2006,22:38)
Stephen Elliot,

Can you state UNEQUIVOCALLY that a newborm is conscious?

Stephen says,

Quote
This is hogwash. A newborn reacts to stimuli, you can detect sleep/awake behaviour paterns. The fact that it has no language skill is irelevant


How does this differ from a zygote?  Or Terri Schiavo?  If that is your definition of consciousness then a flower is conscious and you are right.

Yes I can state that a newborn is conscious. UNEQUIVICALLY is impossible while you exist.

Now lets hang you by your own petard.

Tell me why you think a newborn is no more conscious than someone brain-dead.

Then go-on to explain why abortion is wrong.

BTW. I doubt I will get a reasonable response from you. So I throw the question out to anyone.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,19:08   

Quote
That's not my point. My point is that to claim, as Thordaddy has about a million times, that "life begins at conception" is as arbitrary as saying it begins at birth, or age 18, or age 40.
Conception is a unique and funamental milestone without which you could not have your specific set of genetics, and it is the event which starts a body to forming out of the potential contained in the sperm and the egg. Your 18th birthday is a day that follows other days and it could pass unnoticed. I'm not sure why you would think there's no difference between conception and turning 40.

Quote

Yet, you clearly use the world "potential" because the "unique individual" may be readily disposed of.
that's only one reason. It could be miscarried. Also, I do see the fundamental nature of the conception event, but I d o not think of things as separately existing without reference to other things, and all things unfold as processses within larger processes. If there is a soul we do not know when that soul inhabits the body, and the zygote does not have a mind or awareness, unless it be a spiritual awareness. If there is a soul then that soul could inhabit a different body, and I just don't think it is a good idea for people to have unwanted children that they are not prepared to care for. I do not think that an unformed albeit potential human has all rights when it has no responsibilities. I do not think it has the right to demand of the mother that it's life, which is not yet formed, should take precedence over hers. A life form which cannot even breathe on its own or metabolize its own nutrients cannot demand the use of someone else's body. This should be given graciously not under duress. I'm against late abortions but I don't think early abortions cause any suffering. It is silly to insist that a woman have a child at the wrong time because that almost certainly means that she will not have another child later that she could care for better and with less stress. I think that unwanted children brought forth under stress is a main cause of unhappiness and spiritual problems in this world.

None of this means that it is to be taken lightly, and I have never met a woman who did. For those few 'low-life' women  who have taken it lightly and had multiple abortions, we should be very thankful that they are doing so.
Quote

If you want to believe that you are a mere individuated outgrowth of one very large and very old entity and your death represents nothing more than this entity clipping his toenails, believe it.  But you readily admit the even the most micrscopic change in those last billions of years and you would NOT EXIST.  One change in sperm or one changed egg going back million and billions of years.
Well I think exactly that - there is one all-encompassing being and it is alive, and within that being are many individuals, just as there are cells in your body that have individual existence and a life-span. Except in our case we have awareness, so we aren't toenails. But you seem to confuse the material with the spiritual. If you are a materialist, then I suppose it is sad to contemplate a death, but why not also be sad about all those potential humans who will never be born? Every change in a sperm or egg throughout all our past has meant that untold people, wonderful people some of them, have never seen the light of day. Your existence has negated the existence of others.  .
I don't assume a newborn is conscious, I see its consciousness. consciousness can perceive consdiousness.

Eric Murphy is right that there is no one moment when human life becomes human life, because it is an unending flame that passes from body to body, but conception is certainly the moment when the materials to create an individuated human get started.

I don't understand where the consciousness thing fits in with your arguments. but I think it is because most people agree infanticide is wrong, and you hope to persuade people that a newborn isn't conscious, yet it's wrong to kill it.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,19:34   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 07 2006,22:21)
So your life began billions of years ago...?  Tell me how random mutations and natural selection decided to choose you?


Why do you keep asking me the same questions, Thordaddy, when I've already answered them a dozen or so times? Could it be because…you don't listen?

But on a side note: evolution didn't "decide to choose" me. A statement like that indicates a complete, utter, dumbfounding cluelessness about what "natural selection" means that would be difficult to top.



Quote
Yet, this is the whole point.  You're existentially agnostic and I am not nor am I for anyone I know.  I actually care.  Call me selfish if you like.


"Agnostic" means I don't claim to know. (Not sure what this has to do with the relative importance of your or my death, but never mind.) If you don't consider yourself to be agnostic, that means you think you do know.

Believe me. You don't.

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,19:43   

Quote (avocationist @ April 08 2006,00<!--emo&:0)
Conception is a unique and funamental milestone without which you could not have your specific set of genetics, and it is the event which starts a body to forming out of the potential contained in the sperm and the egg. Your 18th birthday is a day that follows other days and it could pass unnoticed. I'm not sure why you would think there's no difference between conception and turning 40.


If your point is to say that some events are more important than others, you won't get an argument from me. But they're all points on a continuum. There isn't one point that's head-and-shoulders more important than any other one, although many people would probably argue that the two most important ones are birth, and death. But I guess Thordaddy would say "conception, and death." His position is at least as arbitrary as anyone else's.


Quote
I don't understand where the consciousness thing fits in with your arguments. but I think it is because most people agree infanticide is wrong, and you hope to persuade people that a newborn isn't conscious, yet it's wrong to kill it.


Which, of course, is about the silliest thing Thordaddy has said so far. Aside from his claim that a zygote is conscious, and an infant isn't.

I don't think you'll ever live that one down, Thordaddy. But I'm not sure you even understand how comical such a position is. I can see you sitting there, saying, "What?!"

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,19:54   

Quote
Just like we can't assume a newborn to be conscious because not one has ever proclaimed, "I am newborn, I am conscious," I can only definitely say that I am life (human life to be exact).  ME!  I can assume a lot of things are alive, but as you've so eloquently argued, you can't even say when you became human life and so how can I be sure about any life other than my own?


LOL...but you cannot definately say that you are human life?
You can definately say that you think...but you cannot claim you are an example of life....unless you define life only as things that think....
I think you did say that you define human life as "thinking" life...or maybe just conscious life...

Maybe you could take a break from all of this...and tell us all what "conscious" is....define it for us....

I didnt ask you to define human life though, I asked you to define life...and life definately does not require consciousness.  Flowers are alive, but they do not think, nor do they involve consciousness....

So please....define life.
define consciousness

And please explain how you twisted a brilliant argument about only being able to recognize your own ability to think...into a twisted version of defining life???

Thor....I hope that the flesh comes back again...I fear you might have flayed them for the last time

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2006,12:55   

avocationist opines,

Quote
that's only one reason. It could be miscarried.


Yes, but this is a natural process that no one denies.  Abortion is no such animal.  Abortion is an purposeful action that specifically decides an individual's "potential."  Unfortunately, it's a life/death decision.

Quote
Also, I do see the fundamental nature of the conception event, but I d o not think of things as separately existing without reference to other things, and all things unfold as processses within larger processes. If there is a soul we do not know when that soul inhabits the body, and the zygote does not have a mind or awareness, unless it be a spiritual awareness.


Yet, if a zygote had a spiritual awareness (volition to live, perhaps) what could be a higher awareness than that?  We know that an awareness of oneself develops over time.  I see no reason to assume that that development doesn't START at conception.  Do you?

Quote
If there is a soul then that soul could inhabit a different body, and I just don't think it is a good idea for people to have unwanted children that they are not prepared to care for. I do not think that an unformed albeit potential human has all rights when it has no responsibilities.


Since when do we attach responsibilities to zygotes, embryos, newborns and infants?  An unwanted child is nothing more than the momentary thinking of that child's mother.  What child has only ever been wanted by his mother?  What of fathers, brothers, sisters, grandma's and grandpa's?  Their "want" plays no role?

Quote
I do not think it has the right to demand of the mother that it's life, which is not yet formed, should take precedence over hers. A life form which cannot even breathe on its own or metabolize its own nutrients cannot demand the use of someone else's body. This should be given graciously not under duress.


And now a zygote that lacks awareness is making "demands?"  How about, it's trying to live to see its potential?

Quote
I'm against late abortions but I don't think early abortions cause any suffering. It is silly to insist that a woman have a child at the wrong time because that almost certainly means that she will not have another child later that she could care for better and with less stress. I think that unwanted children brought forth under stress is a main cause of unhappiness and spiritual problems in this world.


There is NO "right" time to have children.  If there is, can you articulate this objective criteria?

Quote
None of this means that it is to be taken lightly, and I have never met a woman who did. For those few 'low-life' women  who have taken it lightly and had multiple abortions, we should be very thankful that they are doing so.


How can one be serious when all they are doing is excising a "bunch of cells" and exercising their "pro-choice" position?

Quote
I don't understand where the consciousness thing fits in with your arguments. but I think it is because most people agree infanticide is wrong, and you hope to persuade people that a newborn isn't conscious, yet it's wrong to kill it.


Consciousness develops.  A newborn has a very low degree of consciousness (so much so that NO newborm has declared his/her OWN consciousness) but it didn't emerge with its birth.  It was already developing BEFORE its  birth.  But when did consciousness start developing?  I say there is no evidence to suggest it started anywhere other that at ONE's conception.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2006,14:31   

Eric I think you contrdict yourself. You agree that some milestones are more important than others, but not very much so. Yet in that case it is hard not to back off from the idea that one's 18th birthday is as important as the one moment in which the genes that are required to form the unique individual that you are came together so that the process of forming your body could start. I also disagree with giving birth an equal status. Or perhaps it is just a very different status. The question Thor is asking is, what is the most important event in the causal chain that allowed your unique self to be manufactured? It is difficult not to answer, conception. At your birth, you were already formed.
Quote

Yet, if a zygote had a spiritual awareness (volition to live, perhaps) what could be a higher awareness than that?  We know that an awareness of oneself develops over time.  I see no reason to assume that that development doesn't START at conception.  Do you?
The volition to live is instinctive and I wouldn't call it a spiritual awareness. Everything has a volition to live! All those millions of sperm that get wasted an untold number of times in your life. My poor, hopeful eggs waiting in vain that I might allow it to meet up with a sperm. Did you never hear the famous phrase coined by somebody or other that menstruation is the weeping of a disappointed uterus? Nature everywhere overcreates seeds and even overcreates young. Witness the poor sea turtles.

Awareness of self does seem to develop slowly, and that appears to have to do with brain development and experience. The potential for it certainly begins at conception, but is there much self awareness in a conceptus of less than 12 weeks gestation? I doubt it.

I do not think that the soul or consciousness is dependent upon a body.
Quote

Since when do we attach responsibilities to zygotes, embryos, newborns and infants?
Rights and responsibilities are usually tied together.
Quote
What child has only ever been wanted by his mother?  What of fathers, brothers, sisters, grandma's and grandpa's?  Their "want" plays no role?
They do play a role, but not a primary one. They cannot or should not try to force her to have a baby, but their loving support would no doubt influence her opinion, probably very strongly.
Quote

There is NO "right" time to have children.  If there is, can you articulate this objective criteria?
The right time is when the mother wants to have it and is willing.
What with the world population, only wanted children should be born.
Quote

How can one be serious when all they are doing is excising a "bunch of cells" and exercising their "pro-choice" position?
Just because you may read something to that effect in the media does not mean that is how women feel about it. Having an abortion is not easy or pleasant.

I don't agree that a newborn has a low degree of consciousness. It does have a low degree of self-consciousness and concepts, but its awareness is very high, if not in some ways higher simply becauser of the lack of language and thoughts that will come later. Of course, the awareness level of a baby shortly before birth is high as well.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2006,16:41   

Quote (avocationist @ April 08 2006,19:31)
Eric I think you contrdict yourself. You agree that some milestones are more important than others, but not very much so. Yet in that case it is hard not to back off from the idea that one's 18th birthday is as important as the one moment in which the genes that are required to form the unique individual that you are came together so that the process of forming your body could start. I also disagree with giving birth an equal status. Or perhaps it is just a very different status.



I'm not sure how arguing that some milestones are more important than others contradicts a statement that some milestones are more important than others…but regardless. I think I've established, at this point, that there are many essentially arbitrary points where one can say a human life begins, conception being one of them (and probably the hardest one to pintpoint).  

But I think even arguing that conception is the most important one isn't so easy. At the moment of conception, I was indistinguishable from billions of other zygotes using anything other than DNA analysis. At birth, I probably looked and behaved like millions of other babies. In my own life, I can point to innumerable occurrences that are vastly more significant to who I am now than anything that happened at the moment of conception.

You could argue that none of that could have happened without my conception. Sure, but I could argue that my conception couldn't have happened unless a) my parents met in the first place (which in my case was a pretty unlikely occurrence); b) they decided they liked each other (which didn't look likely at first); c) they decided to get married, and d) they decided to have children. All of those things had to happen (and what were the odds?) before conception could even happen. So what makes the conception so significant? I frankly don't see it. In my own life, virtually everything has been more important.

As usual, Thordaddy is asking for a digital solution to an analog problem. He seems to believe that there is one instant in time, from the beginning of life on earth until an individual's death, that is so much more important than all the others that he can draw a line in the sand (or, more literally, in a woman's womb) on one side of which everything changes. Everything changes all the time. There's probably more difference in who I am between now and ten years ago than there was between conception and birth. As a person, as opposed to some meaningless abstraction, there's simply no comparison.

Quote
The question Thor is asking is, what is the most important event in the causal chain that allowed your unique self to be manufactured? It is difficult not to answer, conception. At your birth, you were already formed


What Thordaddy is asking is way less important than why he's asking it. The answer to Thordaddy's question is essentially irrelevant, except that if he can make it as long before birth as possible, he can make the case that any abortion, for whatever reason (even to save the life of the mother) is wrong (you should have heard him expressing admiration for the woman who gives her own life to save the life of her unborn child, heedless of the very real possibility that the death of the mother will cause the death of the fetus).

Why do you think Thordaddy has been beating this issue to death over four threads? Do you think he's really that interested in hearing our opinions about when human life begins? He wants to get science to prove for him that any abortion, for any reason, is tantamount to murder, and should therefore be forbidden. Given that Thordaddy will never be pregnant, will never have to carry a fetus to term, will never be forced to have a child he neither wants nor can care for, I think his opinion on the issue is pretty irrelevant (his apparent belief that women who have abortions don't think it's any more significant than, say, taking a couple of aspirin, gives you some idea of what his opinion on the subject is worth).

If Thordaddy doesn't like abortions, he can not get one. How difficult do you think that will be for him?

--------------
2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity

"Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

  
Arden Chatfield



Posts: 6657
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2006,11:32   

Now, how did I know that when I saw the phrase 'human life' and 'Thordaddy' on this thread it inevitably was going to be about abortion? When wingnut loons like TD talk about 'human life' they're never referring to anyone who's been born, unless they're in a vegetative coma. Funny, that.

--------------
"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,12:16   

avocationist opined,

Quote
The volition to live is instinctive and I wouldn't call it a spiritual awareness. Everything has a volition to live!


Really?  What of suicide?  What of abortion?  Is the will to die or kill instinctive, too?  But are you readily admitting that abortion is the purposeful killing of a human organism striving to live?  The "might make right," ethos?

Quote
All those millions of sperm that get wasted an untold number of times in your life. My poor, hopeful eggs waiting in vain that I might allow it to meet up with a sperm. Did you never hear the famous phrase coined by somebody or other that menstruation is the weeping of a disappointed uterus? Nature everywhere overcreates seeds and even overcreates young. Witness the poor sea turtles.


But we aren't talking about sea turtles, but instead YOUR future son or daughter.  You are either giving more credence to egg and sperm or you are giving them less.  If it's the former then HOW can the zygote be more unworthy and if it's the latter then WHY don't you give the zygote more worth?

Quote
Awareness of self does seem to develop slowly, and that appears to have to do with brain development and experience. The potential for it certainly begins at conception, but is there much self awareness in a conceptus of less than 12 weeks gestation? I doubt it.


So your "doubt" can be the deciding factor in someone's life or death?  I look for more objective criteria when deciding issues of life and death.  I must assume that consciousness starts with conception.  There isn't any evidence to assume otherwise.

Quote
I do not think that the soul or consciousness is dependent upon a body.
 

This is your best argument for consciousness at conception.

Quote
Rights and responsibilities are usually tied together.


Fill in the blank.

The "right" to live requires the responsibility to __.

Quote
They do play a role, but not a primary one. They cannot or should not try to force her to have a baby, but their loving support would no doubt influence her opinion, probably very strongly.


But now you've changed the premise.  You said we don't want anymore "unwanted" children.  But now, you are saying that "wanted" children must still submit to their mother's "might makes right" ethos because the "want" by others is subordinate to the "want" of the mother.

Quote
The right time is when the mother wants to have it and is willing.
What with the world population, only wanted children should be born.


The "right" time is now defined as the will of the individual mother.  And only mothers can "want" their children?  Why don't you just say that a mother can terminate her child anytime she pleases?  It's much more understandable because it's much more truthful.

Quote
Just because you may read something to that effect in the media does not mean that is how women feel about it. Having an abortion is not easy or pleasant.


I don't believe that having an abortion is "easy or pleasant."  But, I do believe many women and men are detached from the real meaning of abortion when they chant meaningless phrases like "pro-choice" and "reproductive rights."  How many times do we have to hear, " I would never have an abortion, but if ... that's their business."

Quote
I don't agree that a newborn has a low degree of consciousness. It does have a low degree of self-consciousness and concepts, but its awareness is very high, if not in some ways higher simply becauser of the lack of language and thoughts that will come later. Of course, the awareness level of a baby shortly before birth is high as well.


Ok, so if consciousness is emerging even before birth than an abortion is the killing of a human being, no?  In fact, isn't consciousness emerging right from conception?  If not, what evidence are you relying upon to assume it doesn't?

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,20:38   

Quote
Ok, so if consciousness is emerging even before birth than an abortion is the killing of a human being, no?  In fact, isn't consciousness emerging right from conception?  If not, what evidence are you relying upon to assume it doesn't?


The other day I yanked a zygote out...and i performed some tests...
First, I flashed it with a bright light, no response....maybe this lil guy isnt bothered by lights. I then tried talking to him....no response..well maybe he was a deaf zygote.  I poked him...but he didnt respond at all.  
Now, this particular zygote must have decided to be particularly rude, or maybe he was just hungry.  I offered him my chicken sandwich....he did not accept.
Now, what thinking entity would refuse a fresh chicken sandwich?
Maybe he didnt like chicken, so I offered him a candy bar, same response.  No response...
Now, what child doesnt want a candy bar?
I must tell you, he was the strangest child I had ever met.

I decided that even though he must be a very rude child, perhaps if I read him some Descartes he could tell me if he was conscious....no help there...

Now, I must point out...I couldnt tell you if he was male or female...he didnt have any genitalia, or cells for that matter.  He was just a single cell.

Now the sperm on the other hand, was quite the life of the party.  He moved around, and seemed to have a goal(reaching his ovum friend).  He was active, and responded to stimuli.  His friend the ovum, she was somewhat of a dead fish though.  She just floated along, acting just like that zygote.

I must conclude, that based on our current information that the sperm is the beginning of consciousness and life.  He acts like a living animal, then he meets up with his ovum friend, and then she kills him.  That zygote doesnt even start moving again for quite some time.  So, if we are going to define the beginning of consciousness and life, we need to start with the sperm.  Its ok to kill eggs...they are just cells, but sperm....they are active, thinking, conscious little fellas.....

Do you agree thordaddy?

  
Henry J



Posts: 4565
Joined: Mar. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,09:53   

Re "but sperm....they are active, thinking, conscious little fellas....."

Maybe, but my impression is that they've got reeeeally single tracked "minds"... ;)

  
PuckSR



Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,14:31   

well what do you expect....
sperm are obviously the males of the species....

most males have single track minds ;)

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1754
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,19:18   

Quote (PuckSR @ April 11 2006,19:31)
...

most males have single track minds ;)

Life is simpler that way. :D  Probably more fun as well.

  
sir_toejam



Posts: 846
Joined: April 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,19:35   

Quote
He acts like a living animal, then he meets up with his ovum friend, and then she kills him.


don't tell me; let me guess...

you're married, right?

  
  58 replies since April 05 2006,18:22 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (2) < [1] 2 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]