thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,21:26    We've been having a lively debate about when life begins. I made the statement that "life begins at conception" and several forumites disagreed and declared the opposite.  They stated that "life does not begin at conception." Since we were speaking in the context of abortion, both constrasting statements can be further defined as; Human life begins at conception. and Human life does not begin at conception. But we also need to go further and define "conception."  The general meaning of conception is a "beginning."  The opposing statements would then read; Human life begins at the beginning. and Human life does not begin at the beginning. The more specified meaning of conception in the context of abortion is the fusion of the egg and sperm cell to form a new human organism. I will assume this second definition as the one that is being used as it is clear that the first definition makes the statement "human life does not begin at the beginning" self-evidently false. Unfortunately, the second definition of "conception" leads one to make very unusual assumptions and once we get through all the silliness about fundies and wing-nuts, it's seem only logical to assume that human life does indeed begin at conception. Human life does not begin a conception (doesn't begin with the fusion of egg and sperm to form a new human organism). This can mean only 3 things: 1. Human life began before conception. 2. Human life began after conception. 3. Or, human life had no beginning. ------------ No. 3 can most easily be discarded because it leaves us with only 2 possibilities; Human life is eternal, or Human life came from non-life, Hence, human life is either the very concept that many scientists seek to extinguish, namely, a supernatural being, OR Human life did not begin with the fusion of a egg and sperm because both sperm and egg are "alive" and human life began from non-life. The is ZERO evidence for either of these stances. ------------ No. 1 also poses problems.  If the argument states that human life began before conception then consciousness no longer becomes a defining feature of human life because no one suggests a sperm or egg has consciouness. Next, if the argument is that "life comes from life" (hence, life began before conception) and therefore "conception" merely represents a continuation of ordinary life (but not the beginning of human life) then one must trace his/her beginning all the way back to the OOL.  Essentially, this "conception" that brings forth a new human organism is nothing more than an outgrowth of one very old entity.  We only have the illusion of individuality and independence.  Our "life that came from life" came from the OOL.  To discard a zygote or to die an early death is nothing more than the equivalent of this billion-year-old living entity shaving his beard or cutting his toenails. Clearly these ideas seem ludicrous because we never become human life under this scenario because only one liveform exists and it's the one to be found at the OOL. ------------ No. 2 seems the mostly likely conclusion given by those that state "life does not begin at conception." So does human life begin after conception?  Well, if one discounts No. 1 and 3 and believes "human life does not begin at conception" then No. 2 is the only possible conclusion.  But what is the evidence? What makes something a human life if not "conception" itself? A. Some suggest the emergence of consciousness as that which defines human life after conception. B. Some suggest that a CNS helps define a human life after conception. C. Some suggest the birth itself defines human life after conception. As for A, there is no evidence of when consciousness emerges and therefore no need to assume it emerges anywhere other than at conception. As for B, there is no evidence that the CNS spontaneously develops or that consciousness spontaneously emerges.  It seems reasonable that as the CNS develops so does a greater degree of consciousness.  This is clearly evident in constrasting the consciousness between a zygote versus a newborn versus an adult.  Again, there seems no reason to assume that the development of the CNS and the associative degree of consciousness that goes with it began anywhere other than at conception. As for C, the best we can say is that a newborn has a developing CNS.  But, we have no reason to assume that the CNS began developing at any time other than at conception.  With this information the best we can say is that the newborn either has NO consciouness or a very low degree of consciousness that corresponds with its developing CNS.  But the actual birth TELLS US NOTHING about whether this newborn in fact represents human life after conception.   In fact, no DIRECT evidence exists for a conscious newborn.  No newborn has ever asserted his/her consciouness.  Again, we ONLY assume a conscious newborn lest we treat is like a disposable zygote.  The evidence is inconclusive at best and non-existent at worst. In conclusion, I see no rationale and no evidence to assume that human life begins anywhere other that at its conception.

hehe Posts: 59 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,21:39    But this is just semantics. It doesn't matter if the "human life", whatever it is, begins at conception. It is obvious that a zygote is not equivalent to, say, even a newborn, whether it is "human life" or not, it can be safely disposed of, if needed.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,21:52    Thordaddy said: Quote In fact, no DIRECT evidence exists for a conscious newborn.  No newborn has ever asserted his/her consciouness.  Again, we ONLY assume a conscious newborn lest we treat is like a disposable zygote.  The evidence is inconclusive at best and non-existent at worst. Are you serious? You claim to be a father, have you held a newborn? How much evidence for consciousness do you need?

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 30 2006,23:41    Stephen Elliot, I've held two newborns and I can say they looked no more conscious than Terri Schiavo.  Consciouness is self-awareness and not simply reacting to one's environment.  If consciousness was simply a case of reacting to external stimuli then, yes, a newborn would be conscious but so would a sperm, egg, zygote, embryo, fetus and Terry Schiavo.   But the point is that DIRECT evidence of consciousness HAS TO BE asserted by the conscious entity itself.  Direct evidence of newborn consciousness has to be the newborn declaring self-awareness.  No such evidence exists and birth signifies NOTHING as to how we define human life. You can say a newborn is conscious and clearly I would agree if I thought consciousness began at conception.  The point is that a newborn may or may not be conscious at birth and since we are uncertain about the emergence of consciousness then why should we assume that consciousness begins anywhere other than at the time of conception?   You would agree that a newborn, if we concede consciousness, is still developing his/her CNS and his/her consciousness is developing right along with it?  And if the mechanisms for consciousness are developing and hence consciousness is developing along with it then what evidence are you relying upon to assume this development didn't begin at conception?

jeannot Posts: 1201 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,00:08    I'm sorry Steven; I have to agree with Thordaddy here: consciousness cannot be inferred to a new born. The only way one can infer consciousness is comparison (which is not very scientific): “I am a conscious human being, you are a human being who behave roughly the same as I do, therefore you should be conscious.” This comparison cannot be made with a new born because you can’t begin with “I am a conscious new born”.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,02:00    Well surprisingly enough we will have to first establish what we mean by "consciousness". It apears to have no exact definition. There are quite few papers here. Not all the links work, but there are several woks that do. I am happy to go-along with Thordaddy's definition of "self-aware", indeed that was the definition I was using. From my observation, newborns certainly apear to be conscious. The simple fact that they can cry and show signs of discomfort infers consciouness to me. Include the obvious observable distinction of them sleeping and being awake and (to me) consciousness seems conclusive. From memory I certainly know that I was conscious within a few days of being born. Admitedly I thought in a much different way to now. Presently I tend to think in English. Back then I thought in pictures. Renier, if a conscious entity has to state it is conscious to be so, then you would probably have to consider animals such as dogs, cats, dolphins etc. as not possesing consciousnes (many people do just that). I would be uncomfortable with such a claim. Lots of creatures show signs of memory and I would think that consciousnes is required before memory can function  in a biological entity. However, those are just my opinions. Science doesn't seem to have a definitive description of consciousness at the moment.

Jay Ray Posts: 92 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,02:57    I'm not sure if this is a good definition or not, but I consider conciousness the recognition of the difference between SELF and OTHER.  This probably occurs right about the time that a being learns that it can intentionally manipulate its enironment. Consider an average newborn baby waking up in a quiet daylit room.  It is at this point a perfect receiver.  A cloud drifts past a window.   The baby's body blinks its eyes at the light, but the baby doesn't do this on purpose.  It doesn't know the difference between the light from the sun and its own senses.   Noises burble from behind a closed door, and the baby hears them.  The baby's body coos quietly in the mellow room.  The baby doesn't distinguish between its own voice and the noises in the world.  Everything is one thing.  The baby itself is part of the everything else.   I reckon this state only lasts a few weeks tops for your average baby.  Very soon the baby starts to learn that it has some control over things.  The baby's brain is primed for knowledge, and ever since it left the womb the brain begins to build connections based on the baby's experiences.  The people around the baby respond to it, and interact with it in  intentional ways.  The brain starts building neuronal pathways as a response to this flood of information.  The baby begins to get a limited realization that it is somewhat autonomous.  Before you know it, the baby starts doing things intentionally to effect its environment.   Of course, it still shits all over itself, but hey.  You've got to start somewhere. That's conciousness to me.  Intentional interaction.

Jay Ray Posts: 92 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,03:23    Oh, yes.  Life of course does not begin at conception, and does not rely on conciousness.  Life began in the deep past and has continued in an unbroken chain since that time.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,03:45    Why do you suppose Thordude is avoiding the "fire in the fertility clinic" test? It's obviously not for lack of time. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

improvius Posts: 807 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,03:55    Clearly this is a question about semantics.  As TD himself demonstrates, there are multiple "correct" answers to the question.  It all boils down to how you want to define your terms. -------------- 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.

Jay Ray Posts: 92 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,04:02    For much the same reason why he won't answer this question. Quote TD:  I digress, science, by your own implication, cannot give us an answer on issues of OOL.  Now who should we look to for the answer?  Science is out of the game. Me:  Who should we look to, then? In either case, he'd be forced to address something he is painfully trying to ignore.  Maybe for different reasons, but ultimately it goes back to the same source.

Arden Chatfield Posts: 6657 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,04:41    WTF? Is this like the fourth thread here devoted to Thordaddy? ? ? -------------- "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

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,05:39    If conciousness is defined as purposeful interaction with ones enviroment... Then I was under the impression that fetuses exhibit at least some purposeful interaction with their enviroment. I do not think I would compare Terry Schiavo to a new-born.  The main difference being that newborn babies have incredibly underdeveloped senses(not in the biological sense, but in the cognitive sense..they havent really been using those eyes to interpret complex visuals in the womb).  They do more than react to stimuli, they purposefully engage stimuli.  When you see a newborn moving around, it is actively seeking stimuli.  I dont believe I have ever seen someone who is in a vegetative state reach out looking for something to touch. I would also accept the ability of an organism to 'learn' as an important capacity for conciousness.  A baby, while still in the womb, will actually gather rudimentary information.  It, for example, learns the sounds of its mother's voice. I know this link is from a Catholic news agency...but it actually refers to peer-reviewed studies. Cognitive Capacity of fetuses The thing you need to realize Thordaddy is that we could have several points of genesis. When does anything truly "become". When does a seed become a plant? When does a house become a house? obviously as soon as they lay a foundation, we are building a house, and that foundation will become a house...but is it a house yet?  Obviously it becomes a house well before the  painters take care of the interior.   Its also important to note that a house has major developments in its construction. The foundation is important.  The framing is important.  putting the roof on is important.  closing the walls is important.  Its all important, but their isnt a single point of  "creation' for a house...its a process

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,05:46    I have to say, this must be a first. I don't think I've ever heard anyone claim consciousness for a fertilized human ovum, but deny it for a newborn. (Actually, this is the second time Thordaddy has made the same argument.) I guess it's really true when they say pro-lifers believe life begins at conception and ends at birth. But what do we really expect from a guy who expounds logical gems like this: given three possibilities, we can most easily dispense with the third one, because that leaves only two. -------------- 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: Mar. 31 2006,06:12    Another example of how weak Thordaddy's reasoning is: Quote Since we were speaking in the context of abortion, both constrasting statements can be further defined as; Human life begins at conception. and Human life does not begin at conception. But we also need to go further and define "conception."  The general meaning of conception is a "beginning."  The opposing statements would then read; Human life begins at the beginning. and Human life does not begin at the beginning. No, Thordaddy, in this context, conception is not synonymous with "beginning." You're assuming what you're trying to prove. In this context, the term "conception" has a technical definition, i.e., the moment when egg and sperm (both of which, as has been pointed out to you ad nasueum, are already "alive") fuse. You're no further along proving your point (which is irrelevant in any case) than you were to begin with. -------------- 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

MidnightVoice Posts: 380 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,06:15    Going back to the original post, obviously life exists with or without conception.  But some (please note - some) biologists consider pregnancy begins at implantation of the embryo.  This is spatially and temporally distinct from fertilization. If human consciousness were to start at fertilization, then we would surely have to do something about all those fertilized eggs that are NOT successfully implanted by mother nature. -------------- If I fly the coop some time And take nothing but a grip With the few good books that really count It's a necessary trip I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,06:20    Around we go again. The question isn't when life starts, the question is when a person legally exists. This isn't a genetic question, it's a legal question. And so I repeat: When slaves were property, they were legally NOT PEOPLE. Their genes didn't matter. Didn't matter that they were conscious, self-aware, intelligent, educated, or anything else. Legally, they were not people. Their owners could legally kill them at any time. Abortion is the same thing. A fetus is by law not a legal person. Unless this discussion focuses on the law, it misses the entire point.

Jay Ray Posts: 92 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,06:25    Legal Schmegal.  We just like to watch TD squirm.

avocationist Posts: 173 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,06:35    Thordaddy, my guess is you are male. I just want you to know that in my opinion men have no authority whatsoever on the topic of abortion. Perhaps there is an ethical debate to be had, but it isn't your debate. Newborns do have consciousness. Self versus other are not required. The baby is in a highly aware state shortly after birth. Also, just to drive you all mad, my daughter spoke to me from the womb a week before she was born.

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,06:36    If anything productive comes from this thread...and that is a huge IF...I hope we can at least guide thordaddy towards logical reasoning skills.   Right now, he has more logical fallacies in his arguments than should be legally allowed.  Now, this doesn't mean that his thoughts on the subject are valid/invalid...it just means that his arguments suck from a logical perspective. Also, if we can get him to understand logic...maybe after that we can get him to understand that even if your reasons for a belief are incorrect, the thing you believe in can still exist and be correct. Finally, I hope we can convince him that several terms are  impossible to absolutely define, such as: life and consciousness

Jay Ray Posts: 92 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,06:37    Quote Also, just to drive you all mad, my daughter spoke to me from the womb a week before she was born. /me runs naked and screaming into the street.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,07:49    PuckSR made an interesting analogy that has the added benefit of showing exactly why Thordaddy's whole line of reasoning is irrelevant (not that he hasn't be told that before): Quote When does a house become a house? obviously as soon as they lay a foundation, we are building a house, and that foundation will become a house...but is it a house yet?  Obviously it becomes a house well before the  painters take care of the interior.   Its also important to note that a house has major developments in its construction. The foundation is important.  The framing is important.  putting the roof on is important.  closing the walls is important.  Its all important, but their isnt a single point of  "creation' for a house...its a process As it happens, I have some familiarity with construction law. There are certain milestones in the construction of, say, a single-family dwelling (otherwise known as a "house"). One of these milestones is, as PuckSR pointed out, the pouring of the foundation. Interestingly, the pouring of the foundation is relatively insignificant legally. It's about as signficant legally as fertilization is (at least, for the moment; and if fertilization ever really does become important legally, it will be really fun watching how the medical profession becomes tasked with determining the exact moment of fertilization). Another important milestone is the condition of weathertightness. At this point in the construction process, the exterior structure of the building is completed to the point where the interior is protected from the elements, and interior finishing can begin. In many instances, a condition of weathertightness still looks very unfinished to the untrained eye. Another milestone is the point of substantial completion. At this point, the house is essentially finished, with just few minor punch-list items (missing outlet covers, a few nicks in the paint, missing light fixtures). Often, but not always, substantial completion is the point when the owner has beneficial occupancy of the house. The point is, the owner's and contractor's legal rights and responsibilities differ at different points in this process. Kinda like what happens between conception and birth. Any reasonable person (a category that evidently does not include Thordaddy) understands that the legal rights of a fertilized egg are different from the legal rights of a third-trimester fetus. I think it's the ultimate in straw-man arguments to try to limit the possibilities for drawing the line dividing full human rights from lesser rights at either conception or birth. There's nine months' worth of development in between those points, where enormous changes occur. It's the same kind of illogic that led to the Iraq war. The straw-man there was, either we invade and occupy Iraq, or we do nothing at all. -------------- 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

cogzoid Posts: 234 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,07:52    Quote Also, just to drive you all mad, my daughter spoke to me from the womb a week before she was born. What did she say?

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,08:06    Quote I've held two newborns and I can say they looked no more conscious than Terri Schiavo. WHAT You're comparing your newborn child to a person in PVS? You are a liar, thordaddy. You either lie about having children, or you lie about your children, which is worse. Either way, I'm through wasting my time with you. Stupid of me not to do so before. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,08:10    Quote Any reasonable person (a category that evidently does not include Thordaddy) understands that the legal rights of a fertilized egg are different from the legal rights of a third-trimester fetus. I hope any reasonable person can see that this is not necessarily the case. Laws are essentially arbitrary. We can attempt to make them reasonable, but they have no requirement to be reasonable beyond the fact that if they cannot be enforced, they are nugatory. In the US, as I understand it, the legal rights of the fetus do not change from conception to birth. They change only at birth itself. But at least, we've recognized that we are talking about legal constructs here.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,08:31    Quote (Flint @ Mar. 31 2006,14:10) Quote Any reasonable person (a category that evidently does not include Thordaddy) understands that the legal rights of a fertilized egg are different from the legal rights of a third-trimester fetus. I hope any reasonable person can see that this is not necessarily the case. Laws are essentially arbitrary. We can attempt to make them reasonable, but they have no requirement to be reasonable beyond the fact that if they cannot be enforced, they are nugatory. In the US, as I understand it, the legal rights of the fetus do not change from conception to birth. They change only at birth itself. But at least, we've recognized that we are talking about legal constructs here. Actually, the rights of a fetus do change at various points between conception and birth in many states. Late-term abortion laws, also known as "partial-birth" abortion laws, confer different rights on fetuses at different stages of pregnancy. A fertilized egg, as far as I know, has no rights in any state. Given that a fertilized (but not yet implanted) egg is difficult even to detect, this is probably unavoidable. My point, Flint, is not that the law itself is reasonable (which after all is a matter of opinion), but that any reasonable (or at least knowledgeable) person understands that the rights of a fertilized egg are different from the rights of a third-trimester fetus. This is a matter of fact, not opinion. An least some of us are aware that we're talking legal, and not scientific, concepts here. -------------- 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: Mar. 31 2006,11:10    What I have not said, A zygote is conscious. A newborn is unconscious. What I have said, There is NO DIRECT evidence of newborn consciousness. There is NO DIRECT evidence to suggest that human consciousness DOES NOT begin at conception. Now, unless one believes we are simply conscious outgrowths of ONE billions of years old entity then it can be assumed OUR life DID NOT begin before conception. Next, unless one believes OUR individual lives had NO  BEGINNING and hence we are ETERNAL or came from NONLIFE then it can be assumed WE ALL HAVE A BEGINNING. Lastly, if OUR HUMAN LIFE did not begin at conception, but after conception, what's the evidence that it didn't start right after conception?

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,11:13    Quote any reasonable (or at least knowledgeable) person understands that the rights of a fertilized egg are different from the rights of a third-trimester fetus. This is a matter of fact, not opinion. Didn't you just get through saying that this is a matter of law, which varies from state to state? That what you claim is a fact is only true in some places, but not true in others? Once again, to the best of my knowledge, in at least some states the rights of the egg and the rights of the fetus the day before birth are equally zero.

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,11:17    thordaddy: Quote Lastly, if OUR HUMAN LIFE did not begin at conception, but after conception, what's the evidence that it didn't start right after conception? Hello, anyone home? Your human life started at conception. Your status as a legal person with legal rights started at birth.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,11:26    ericmurphyopines, Quote My point, Flint, is not that the law itself is reasonable (which after all is a matter of opinion), but that any reasonable (or at least knowledgeable) person understands that the rights of a fertilized egg are different from the rights of a third-trimester fetus. This is a matter of fact, not opinion. We know that there are different legal rights for a fertilized egg and a third-trimester fetus. What we don't know is WHY? WHY, ericmurphy? The law certainly doesn't seem to be based on any science, does it?  If so, what's the science behind the difference in "rights?"

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,11:31    Flint opines, Quote Your human life started at conception. Your status as a legal person with legal rights started at birth. I don't disagree.  I have already stated that my life began at conception.  I was told though that human life DOES NOT begin at conception.  I was searching for the evidence of why.   You say it's a matter of law, but it makes one wonder where all the biologists (those who study LIFE) are in arguing against a law that has no sound basis in science?

cogzoid Posts: 234 Joined: Sep. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,11:37    Why do you think laws can or should follow science?

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,11:38    Thordaddy, Can we agree that some-time between conception and birth, a fetus develops a brain and a central nervous system? Notice, I am not claiming that either the brain or cns does not continue to grow after birth. I am just claiming that sometime between fertilisation and birth a cns and brain is developed.

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,11:38    Quote You say it's a matter of law, but it makes one wonder where all the biologists (those who study LIFE) are in arguing against a law that has no sound basis in science? This might be interesting...im sure you could find more if you looked: Wikipedia article on defining life Debate over Definition(in relation to biology and Philosophy) yet another article complaining about the difficulty of defining "living" You never answered my question Thordaddy.... when does a house become a house?

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,11:53    Stephen Elliot opines, Quote Can we agree that some-time between conception and birth, a fetus develops a brain and a central nervous system? Notice, I am not claiming that either the brain or cns does not continue to grow after birth. I am just claiming that sometime between fertilisation and birth a cns and brain is developed. I can agree with that, but it just poses a problem in claiming that this development doesn't start with conception. We know that a newborn has a developing CNS and the equivalent consciousness that goes with it.  But this just means that the development ALREADY began at an earlier time. The question is what evidence LEADS YOU AWAY from assuming this development DID NOT start at conception?  I say there is none!

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,12:00    avocationists opines, Quote Thordaddy, my guess is you are male. I just want you to know that in my opinion men have no authority whatsoever on the topic of abortion. Perhaps there is an ethical debate to be had, but it isn't your debate. Newborns do have consciousness. Self versus other are not required. The baby is in a highly aware state shortly after birth. Also, just to drive you all mad, my daughter spoke to me from the womb a week before she was born. If we lived in a society based on inequality, intolerance and discrimination, I would say you had a point.  Clearly, we don't and so your point seems meaningless. Russell, I would save whatever human life was feasible.  Again, no innocent person is morally obligated to die for another innocent human being.  But if said person did die in the course of saving innocent life, I would say that person was most noble.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,12:00    Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 31 2006,17:26) What we don't know is WHY? WHY, ericmurphy? The law certainly doesn't seem to be based on any science, does it?  If so, what's the science behind the difference in "rights?" Gee, Thordaddy, how many times are we going to need to say this to you: SCIENCE DOES NOT AND CANNOT ANSWER THIS QUESTION. That's about the 20th time someone's said this. Is it getting through to you yet? -------------- 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: Mar. 31 2006,12:01    Quote The question is what evidence LEADS YOU AWAY from assuming this development DID NOT start at conception?  I say there is none! So....If we do not have definative evidence against a concept...the concept should be accepted as fact? Do you have any evidence Thordaddy that you are not living in a delusional state.  Do you have evidence that the entire world in which you exist is not an illusion? Hmmm...guess not.... Oh well...guess its all true then...nothing exists...death doesnt really happen...and this is all an illusion.... So that would render your current argument pointless...since death is an illusion of your mind...and so are all other entities of existence...since there is no proof against this line of reasoning... So if nothing exists but your "consciousness"  I guess nothing can die, and nothing else can have consciousness.... Glad we settled that Yet, if we are simply for looking for evidence against consciousness at the zygote stage... I would point towards the lack of any cognitive mechanism The lack of any mechanism for motility The lack of any mechanism to interact to typical "human" stimuli like sounds, light, and smell And the fact that it is a #### "single celled organism" as a zygote

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,12:11    PuckSR, I still awaiting you to pinpoint my logical fallacies.  As for your house question, I have a better one. When did PuckSR become PuckSR if not at conception? Then you say, Quote So....If we do not have definative evidence against a concept...the concept should be accepted as fact? No... but if we are talking about killing innocent human life we should be reasonably assured it isn't a conscious human being.  As of now, I see no evidence that states that human consciousness along with the CNS doesn't start developing at conception.  Do you? Quote Do you have any evidence Thordaddy that you are not living in a delusional state.  Do you have evidence that the entire world in which you exist is not an illusion? Hmmm...guess not.... Oh well...guess its all true then...nothing exists...death doesnt really happen...and this is all an illusion.... So that would render your current argument pointless...since death is an illusion of your mind...and so are all other entities of existence...since there is no proof against this line of reasoning... So if nothing exists but your "consciousness"  I guess nothing can die, and nothing else can have consciousness.... Glad we settled that Are you living in a delusional state?  Once you answer that, I'll answer you. ericmurphy opines, Quote Gee, Thordaddy, how many times are we going to need to say this to you: SCIENCE DOES NOT AND CANNOT ANSWER THIS QUESTION. Then how in the world can you claim that "human life does not begin at conception?"  What is your OPINION based on?  And if science can't answer this question then biology seems rather meaningless, doesn't it?

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,12:21    Thordude, avoiding the "fire in the fertility clinic question": Quote I would save whatever human life was feasible.  Again, no innocent person is morally obligated to die for another innocent human being.  But if said person did die in the course of saving innocent life, I would say that person was most noble. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Wouldn't we all. But that doesn't answer the question, does it? Here: let me repeat. If you have to choose between saving the 1 two-month old baby and the thermos with 100 frozen embryos, what do you do? -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,12:24    Quote I still awaiting you to pinpoint my logical fallacies. If you go back to the previous thread...I have pointed out several of your logical fallacies....Do you really need me to post them again...they are normally near the point where i put (-1) logical fallacy.... I dont really think you want me going back and point out every time you made a statement that was logically invalid...you do it a lot.... Quote As for your house question, I have a better one. --Thats Thordaddy speak for..."I dont want to answer the question" Quote When did PuckSR become PuckSR if not at conception? LOL...this is stupidly smart.... PuckSR was conceived at the beginning...and therefore became PuckSR....if i am using "conception" as the beginning. This is a ridiculous argument that assumes that because conception is defined as the beginning, anything referred to as conception must necessarily be the beginning...(which, by the way is yet another logical fallacy) Haha...very funny...its kinda like your "empirical" comments.  If you honestly have an inability recognizing that words can have entirely different meanings depending on context...please let us know... It was cute at first Thordaddy....now quit it...you obviously have enough of a grasp of reality to realize that "conception" in the sense of biology is the formation of the zygote.  The refer to it as conception because that is the point it become a single entity.  You also understand that the word conception refers to beginning.  This rather dull play on words is getting old...just let it go...talk about flowers, bugs, cars...tell a funny joke...but seriously...you know what your doing and its just getting dull

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,12:42    Russell asks, Quote If you have to choose between saving the 1 two-month old baby and the thermos with 100 frozen embryos, what do you do? I assume you are still sticking to the original question that INCLUDED A FIRE.  Therefore, my CHOICE would be based on that FIRE.  Do you have a location for the fire as it relates to the baby and embryos? PS Can we assume that the FROZEN embryos aren't too close to the FIRE?

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,12:48    Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 31 2006,18:11) Then how in the world can you claim that "human life does not begin at conception?"  What is your OPINION based on?  And if science can't answer this question then biology seems rather meaningless, doesn't it? One more time, Thordaddy, and then I'm done with this, with my opinion about the stupidity of this argument if anything reinforced. Question: Is a fertilized egg alive? Answer: Yes. Question: Is an unfertilized egg alive? Answer: Yes. Question: Is a sperm cell alive? Answer: Yes. Question: Does life begin at conception? Answer: No. Question: Is the question as to when life begins meaningful? Answer: No. Question: Is the answer as to when life begins meaningful? Answer: No. We've gone around on this question about a million times so far, and every time you've asked it, I've given you the exact same answer. Can you think of any conceivable reason why you should ever, ever ask me this question again, Thordaddy? Because I sure can't. Quote And if science can't answer this question then biology seems rather meaningless, doesn't it? Only if you think kinematics is meaningless because it can't give you the magnitude and direction of love, or mechanics is meaningless because it can't give you a value for the moral power of virginity. -------------- 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: Mar. 31 2006,12:49    PuckSR, I already delineated between the definition of conception that shall be used in the debate.  Afterall, it is self-evidently false to claim that "human life does not begin at the beginning."  Unless of course, you maintain that human life does not have a beginning.   When does a house become a house?  I imagine there could be many different answers, but whatever they are they don't have much relevance as to when your son or daughter become your son and daughter and therefore protected from the "might makes right" ethos of their mother and her doctor.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,12:52    ericmurphy, Then take yourself out of the debate.  You apparently have nothing meaningful to add to this meaningless debate.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,12:56    Quote (thordaddy @ Mar. 31 2006,18:52) ericmurphy, Then take yourself out of the debate.  You apparently have nothing meaningful to add to this meaningless debate. That'd make two of us, TD. -------------- 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: Mar. 31 2006,13:01    Thordaddy.... You apparently have misunderstood a very important part of this entire conversation.... I agree with you...for completely different reasons... I think that the moment that life begins is not a definable moment...but that it does begin.  I believe in the sanctity of life...including nonhuman life. I am strongly pro-life, and i agree with your logic of erring on the side of caution.... We diverge at the point that you claim that science has a definative answer to this question and refuses to discuss it because it is politically incorrect.... To science the question of the house and the human life are similiar...almost identical... While I agree the question of human life is far more important than that of the house...the point of the analogy was to point out to you the absurdity of your position. It is almost impossible to determine with any degree of certainty when life begins....this would be a fact We should err on the side of caution...this is an opinion We should protect life at the conception...this is an opinion Everyone here will agree that you are entitled to your opinions... But opinions are not scientific... I was told in my science class as a child how a zygote was produced...as are most children... I was also introduced to the incredibly complex issue of defining "living"...as were most children... Science does not help anyone deal with the issue of abortion...at best it can tell us when an entity comes into existence...at worst it informs us that the entity is far from "human".  It cannot speak to us of the morality of killing such an entity... Science cannot even tell us if it is immoral to kill a baby... Science doesnt deal with morality...philosophers/theologians deal in this area...and you should most likely discuss this with one of them

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,13:21    PuckSR opines, Quote You apparently have misunderstood a very important part of this entire conversation.... I agree with you...for completely different reasons... I think that the moment that life begins is not a definable moment...but that it does begin.  I believe in the sanctity of life...including nonhuman life. So from this you must conclude that YOUR LIFE either began before or after conception.  Do you have an idea? Quote I am strongly pro-life, and i agree with your logic of erring on the side of caution.... But I am not erring on the side of caution.  I am not choosing the safe route over the risking one.  I'm choosing the risking one over the safe one. Quote We diverge at the point that you claim that science has a definative answer to this question and refuses to discuss it because it is politically incorrect.... I didn't claim science has a definitive answer.  Clearly, it doesn't.  The question is whether liberals are using the cover of science to obfuscate on an answer in order to rationalize abortion? Quote To science the question of the house and the human life are similiar...almost identical... While I agree the question of human life is far more important than that of the house...the point of the analogy was to point out to you the absurdity of your position. If you can pinpoint how claiming that "human life begins at conception" is an absurd point, please do?  You've already conceded human life has a beginning and unless you claim that life started before conception then we must assume that is began at or after conception. Quote It is almost impossible to determine with any degree of certainty when life begins....this would be a fact We should err on the side of caution...this is an opinion We should protect life at the conception...this is an opinion Almost impossible... therefore NOT impossible? Quote Everyone here will agree that you are entitled to your opinions... But opinions are not scientific... I was told in my science class as a child how a zygote was produced...as are most children... I was also introduced to the incredibly complex issue of defining "living"...as were most children... Science does not help anyone deal with the issue of abortion...at best it can tell us when an entity comes into existence...at worst it informs us that the entity is far from "human".  It cannot speak to us of the morality of killing such an entity... Science cannot even tell us if it is immoral to kill a baby... Science doesnt deal with morality...philosophers/theologians deal in this area...and you should most likely discuss this with one of them But you still haven't answered the question.  What evidence, scientific or otherwise, has you conclude that human life begins anywhere other than at conception?"

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,13:31    Quote But you still haven't answered the question.  What evidence, scientific or otherwise, has you conclude that human life begins anywhere other than at conception?" What evidence do you have to conclude that it does begin at conception? Philosophically I could claim that you are not a truly living, breathing human being until you can communicate... If consciousness makes you living, and consciousness by your definition is being self-aware...you cannot be self aware until you communicate to someone else Quote If you can pinpoint how claiming that "human life begins at conception" is an absurd point, please do?  You've already conceded human life has a beginning and unless you claim that life started before conception then we must assume that is began at or after conception. Im sorry...but where did i concede that human life had a specific point of beginning? It must have a beginning...but you assume that a beginning implies a certain moment....im claiming that between the time a zygote is a created and the time brain function begins to occur...human life begins

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,13:31    Quote I assume you are still sticking to the original question that INCLUDED A FIRE.  Therefore, my CHOICE would be based on that FIRE.  Do you have a location for the fire as it relates to the baby and embryos? PS Can we assume that the FROZEN embryos aren't too close to the FIRE? Wow. You're really determined to avoid the question, and yet not admit that you're avoiding the question, aren't you? You can assume that you've got time to get EITHER the two-month old out, or the thermos out, NOT both, and that whatever is left in the building is toast. Whether it's a fire, flood, or the fact that "pro-life" loonies have planted a bomb in the adjoining clinic DOESN'T MATTER. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

steve_h Posts: 544 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,13:46    Is a zygote capable of suffering? Is the woman who carries it?  At which point does the zygote's right to a miserable existence on earth and the likelihood of a future in underscored's brimstone-and-torture-land(*) - as opposed to its otherwise guaranteed one-ness with him and eternal cosmic bliss - outweigh the mother's right to her freedom? (*) I wanted to write "####" but it got hashed-out, and I was afraid it might get confused with a naughty word of some sort.

avocationist Posts: 173 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,13:48    Thor, Would I be right to presume you believe in a soul, and are Christian? If so, why do you concern yourself so much about the CNS and brain?

Spike Posts: 49 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,14:00    This is a very important topic to me, and if we can't talk about it here, where can we? I also like to see people who are otherwise quite rational and non-religious squirm around, commit logical fallacies and rely on very religious-sounding arguments trying to defend their position. The only scientific, logical, moral and legal conclusion that can be reached is that an embryo in the womb, a zygote, even a fertilized human egg is a legal person with the same rights as a child on the sidewalk. Abortion is murder. How can I say so? Quite easily. Scientifically and logically, the fertilized egg is only human. It will not grow into a gazelle or a star fish. Morally and legally, the babe in arms is a human, deserving of protection from harm. In the birth canal, the babe is not substantially different than moments later. So, going backwards in development, eventually, we reach the fertilized egg, without any specific event that distinguishes it from the babe in the birth canal. Yes, there are gradual changes from fertilized egg to baby ready for birth, but nothing in the embryonic development of a fetus creates a moral difference between one day and the next. But we already know that scientifically and logically, the fertilized egg is human, so if we withhold moral and legal protection from the egg, then morality and the law are trumping science! Science says person A, standing here, is human, and person B, in the womb, is also human. But the law, following our moral lead, can say that person A is human and person B, while human, doesn't deserve the same protection as person A, because a certain non-scientific milestone has not been passed. It’s true we already do that even with humans outside of the womb. Some humans are allowed to kill others in self-defense. Some humans are allowed to kill others as punishment for certain crimes. Some humans are allowed to kill others who are designated as political enemies (or just unfortunate bystanders of such actions, a.k.a. "collateral damage"). And some humans are allowed to kill others because the birth of one of those others may be a health threat to the mother, or may just be inconvenient for the mother or some people. Of course there are natural causes for abortions. They are no more and no less the subject of moral or legal worry than any other natural calamities. But there is only one moral and legal instance when human-caused abortion is justified: When the mother would likely die from the pregnancy or birth. All other cases that you will cite are just a matter of inconvenience: Even rape, even incest. Abortion after rape is moral cowardice because raising a child of a rape would create a wonderful life as the antithesis of the terrible crime. Incest leads to discussions of developmental disabilities: If there is justification for killing a baby from an incestuous relationship because of the nearly certain potential for developmental disabilities, then there is equal justification for killing a baby tested to have Down’s Syndrome, a crack baby or such. My challenge to the reader is this: Distinguish your arguments from eugenics. My alternative? If someone wants an abortion: They should be allowed to have it. Then they should be sterilized. The exception would be for abortions to save the mother’s life. This applies to both parents, not just the mother. Wow! Pretty draconian, huh? How could I say such a thing! Try this: Since abortion is murder, and our society is willing to incarcerate murderers for life, even to kill them, sterilization is actually a lenient punishment. The people who chose the abortion, mother and father, have shown that they consider their convenience to be more important than the life of a child, so why not make their lives perfectly convenient? They never have to worry about “untimely accidents” again. If they want kids in the future – adopt! There are lots and lots of perfectly good kids literally dying for a home. I’ll attempt to cut off some arguments right away: I’m an atheist. I have two kids of my own, and will adopt others in the next five years. I’m neither a “conservative” nor a “liberal,” more like a libertarian. Abortion is not just a women’s issue – That leads to the logical fallacy that the father is responsible for co-raising the child, but has no rights for protecting the child’s life. If you say that it’s a legal issue, not something to be dealt with in the realm of science -  Then I say legal issues are still founded on the “sciences” of logic and ethics. So make logical and ethical arguments against my conclusions. Have fun!

steve_h Posts: 544 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,14:03    Quote (Russell @ Mar. 31 2006,19:31) You can assume that you've got time to get EITHER the two-month old out, or the thermos out, NOT both, and that whatever is left in the building is toast. And that there is no time to hang around asking philosophical questions. Any stalling results in the death of the two month old and the end of the contents of the thermos. Act!

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,14:28    Spike...how about taking a Kantian approach to ethics.... lets minimize the suffering...and if the mother rationally concludes that the best way in which to minimize suffering is an abortion, then we respect her decision??? As long as her motivation is not eugenics but rational ethics...we should be ok...right? Quote Science says person A, standing here, is human, and person B, in the womb, is also human. Actually this is a bit misleading...science says that B is a mixture of cells in the human body, completely indistinguishable from a number of other things(other organisms)...except that it has the particular genetic structure of a human.. You are approaching this situation incorrectly. It is human, because if you asked a scientist to tell you what it was..he would analyze the DNA and tell you that it was human.  He, however, could not distinguish anything that granted this entity 'human' characterstics except DNA. Of course...the same argument could be made for ugly babies.  They might be incredibly hairy babies that look like apes...this is one of the reasons i dont like killing apes... The sanctity of human life is at best a vague concept...you readily admit that we already have a long list of exceptions, and that we create new ones or destroy old ones depending on the culture. One moral rule that remains constant...we do not kill functional human beings.  We can kill the old, the dying, those who wish to die, even those who we decide deserve to die...but all of the rationales are based around the idea that the human is no longer functional to society. If you want to take the purely moral/philosophical stance...there is no imperative to protect the unborn...they have yet to function... This gets cloudy because functionality becomes a rather vague area...but it is most definately not a quality of the zygote.  The idea that we are protecting something because it might later become functional is absurd.  A suicidal man may later become functional...but he has every right to die.

Spike Posts: 49 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,14:29    Lifeboat ethics! Whoo-hooh! I'll answer: When it's a choice between a kid standing there and fertilized eggs - I'll go for the kid. Here's one for you guys: Your house is burning and your two kids, Ang and Eng are inside. You manage to save Ang, but you know that if you go back, trying to save Eng, you WILL die. Most parents would go back, orphaning Ang. Let's make it a little more interesting: Let's say just before you enter the building, you know for certain that if you go in, you will die, but that your orphaned kid will grow up to be a Crack-Dealing Gangsta who votes Republican, but if you live, he will win the Nobel prize in Medicine for curing AIDS. In his speech he will say, "I did it for Eng!" Now what would you do? Extra points if you remember two famous people named Ang & Eng. Double extra points if you know, and answer this question: If you saw Ang & Eng in your womb durin gthe ultrasound (all men are transformed into women for this question) would you have an abortion? Why?

jupiter Posts: 97 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,14:33    Thordaddy, you're abusing this forum. You remind me of Cinderella's step-sisters -- vanity compels you to force your argument into someplace it doesn't belong. "When does life begin?" you ask. "At conception," you answer. You pose the question here and yet you've demonstrated your double-riveted leakproof polyurethaned resistance to any answer other than your own. Your question isn't motivated by genuine philosphical inquiry, or even idle stoner wankery. You're here to force the godless scientists to submit to your truth, which is that abortion is murder. I won't indulge your self-obsession here but if you're sincerely interested in a debate over abortion, feel free to email me. As for AtBC, it's been pointed out to you repeatedly, but here it is once more: Legislation and science are separate and distinct fields. Further -- and this will shock you -- our laws aren't determined by either science or morality. Adultery is legal. The 14th Amendment isn't based on DNA evidence. Please stop your ridiculous behavior.

Spike Posts: 49 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,14:55    PuckSR, I need to apologize right from the start. I used to be very academically astute with philosophy. I used to know all the various philosophical schools, but I can no longer tell Kant from Spinoza or the Utilitarians. Nowadays, what most people consider axiomatic, I have to have explained to me. Please explain what it means to "minimize suffering" and where we can draw the line between doing so for the good of the child and mother, and doing so for the mere convenience of the mother. If you want to argue for functionality, then you'll have to lead me by the hand. I don't really know what that means. I provided the counter-examples of societally-condoned murder because I figured others would bring them up. But only agree with self-defense and suicide, and only because I want to reserve those rights for myself. I'm not trying to be coy, or anything. I've just found that if you try to discuss ideas with others starting at the tree-tops, rather than the roots, you end up arguing points that neither person is really making. I will concede that using "human" in this context is slightly misleading, because human in the scientific sense is different than in the moral and legal sense. But for those of us who do not receive our morality handed down to us on tablets from a mountain top, we have to use science and logic to at least help us define our moral terms and develop our moral codes. I certainly rely on what I have learned about the world through science to make some of the moral decisions I do. And I try to use logic as well.

Spike Posts: 49 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,15:03    Jupe - If our laws are not determined by morality, then what do we use? I'm one who maintains that our scientific understanding of the world does color our moral choices. 200 years ago, and less, many people could make scientific arguments for racism, and no one could really counter them because as far as we knew, they were true. Nowadays, the science at least supports the idea that all people are of one race.

jupiter Posts: 97 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,15:09    Spike, it's Chang and Eng.

Spike Posts: 49 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,15:14    Triple extra points for you! - Jupiter

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,15:51    Sigh. This thread has degenerated into another illustration of what religious faith does to the reasoning faculties. As Dawkins wrote so eloquently: Quote ... a fascinating, if pessimistic, conclusion about human psychology. It implies that there is no sensible limit to what the human mind is capable of believing, against any amount of contrary evidence. No evidence, no matter how overwhelming, no matter how all-embracing, no matter how devastatingly convincing, can ever make any difference. And what we've been presenting to thordaddy is evidence. As though it matters. Let us pray...

beervolcano Posts: 147 Joined: Dec. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,16:04    I think this may add to this thread: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/03/god_hates_squid.php Quote So, animals that contain hemoglobin (vertebrates) and therefore have red blood can be considered "living" and animals that contain hemocyanin, or other proteins (invertebrates) and therefore have blue (pink/violet or brown) blood can be considered "nonliving". This is further supported by Scripture since the Hebrew for "blood" (dawm) is derived from the Hebrew for "red" (aw-dam). And with Genesis 1:20-22 and Leviticus 11:10, there is a distinction between "living" creatures and "swarming/moving" creatures that teem in the waters. So the logical conclusion can be made that a "living" creature is one that contains red blood. So creatures without red blood aren't living. Then PZM hits it on the head. I think this is a better score than he may realize. Quote What I'd really love to see now, though, is the rhetorical squirming they'd go through when it's pointed out that human embryos do not develop red blood cells until about the 5th week of development, and therefore the early embryo, by their own definition, is not living. Heh. The early embryo has no red blood, therefore according to the Bible, it is not living. This page: http://groups.google.fi/group....?&hl=en details how creatures who lack red blood are not considered living from the Biblical perspective. IOW, they have done the work of proving that decades of religious righteous indignation was all based on poor Bible study skills. God hates squid. God also hates embryos (because they look all squishy like squid and that grosses God out.) -------------- ("It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."--Jonathan Swift)

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,16:08    Quote This thread has degenerated into another illustration of what religious faith does to the reasoning faculties. No...I disagree...Thordaddy is a perfect example of a person who attempts to reconcile his religious faith with the rest of the beliefs a normal person is supposed to hold. The "creationist" has a problem.  He holds a religious belief, that he then attempts to reconcile with science/political/moral/philosophical beliefs.  Sometimes it works...and sometimes it doesn't.  I wish you guys would refrain from bashing the faithful though. I can imagine your contempt...but there do exist rational, sane, and religiously faithful people.  Sometimes my science interferes with my religion(i.e.  morality seems to be more and more an intrinsic value to humans, more than extrinsic value.  We exhibit the same morality as many other animals, and we frequently cannot rationalize our morality as much as we would like to).  Sometimes the spheres cross paths...and you have to come to some form of reconciliation...but for the most part...they are independent belief systems.(Im not talking about the creationist who is a biologist...Im talk Ken Miller-style here) Spike- I find the topic of morality hugely interesting, but at the same time...I currently dismiss morality as something we can avoid.  Morality, in my opinion, is simply the result of us being social animals.(To the Daoist...this makes sense...Im not Daoist).  Religion provides an interesting extension to our natural morality, and both politics and religion provide interesting solutions to our current state of affairs.  Our morality developed in an age that didnt present us with the complex, and disconcerting moral decisions. We were simply not designed to deal with the complexities of the abortion issue.  Is it ok to kill something that could possibly become human?  This is a foreign concept to ancient humans and other social organisms. We know that killing is wrong, especially murder of the defenseless....but this is not killing in the conventional sense.  We are ending the life of something, but.... See the problem...everyone admits that killing a newborn is evil.  Almost everyone admits that stopping a sperm and ovum from forming a zygote is not evil.  The gray area lies in that 9 month period in between.  Its the classic question of the boat...or the paradox of the transformation(the idea that if you replaced every board in a boat...when would it become a new boat...would it become a new boat...would it be the same boat....) So...sorry Spike...but I was just countering your logic...I wasnt actually debating one way or another.

jupiter Posts: 97 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,16:24    So where do I redeem these points? If our laws are not determined by morality, then what do we use? Ask any lawyer. We use precedent -- what's worked before (i.e., common law) -- with adaptations to meet changed circumstances. Laws regulate behavior, so they have to be specific; laws apply to vast numbers of individuals and situations, so they have to be flexible. Sharia law is impeccably moral. Don't know about you, but I'm very, very thankful that our legal system is not. Of course science influences law, viz. DNA testing and the Innocence Project. Which does not mean that our laws are based on, or dependent on, science. As I said, the 14th Amendment wasn't based on a breakthrough in clinical research. Should we have waited for scientific confirmation?

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,16:34    Quote And what we've been presenting to thordaddy is evidence. As though it matters. Let us pray... as i started in the other thread, apparently research indicates the value of prayer is overrated. I think it would have similar efficacy whether used as an aid in healing, or as an aid to promote acceptance of rational thought.

sir_toejam Posts: 846 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,16:42    Quote Let's make it a little more interesting: Let's say just before you enter the building, you know for certain that if you go in, you will die, but that your orphaned kid will grow up to be a Crack-Dealing Gangsta who votes Republican, but if you live, he will win the Nobel prize in Medicine for curing AIDS well, winning the nobel is all well and good, but will he vote democrat?

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 01 2006,00:43    PuckSR opines, Quote What evidence do you have to conclude that it does begin at conception? My evidence is that MY conception was the beginning of the development of my CNS and the consciousness that apparently comes with it.  There is NO EVIDENCE for me to make any unnecessary assumptions as to when I became human life.  It is UNDENIABLE that the zygotes that are now my children began their lives at conception.  There is NO EVIDENCE of the scientific type that can conclude that the zygotes were not my children.  To have aborted them would have been to kill my children.  Idon't see any way around this. Quote Philosophically I could claim that you are not a truly living, breathing human being until you can communicate... If consciousness makes you living, and consciousness by your definition is being self-aware...you cannot be self aware until you communicate to someone else You're making the claim that consciousness determines human life.  But consciousness cannot exist without the life itself.  Clearly, in determining human life, consciouness CANNOT be more important than the human life itself. Quote Im sorry...but where did i concede that human life had a specific point of beginning? It must have a beginning...but you assume that a beginning implies a certain moment....im claiming that between the time a zygote is a created and the time brain function begins to occur...human life begins You conceded it here, [QUOTE]I think that the moment that life begins is not a definable moment...but that it does begin. But of course I actually said this, [QUOTE]You've already conceded human life has a beginning and unless you claim that life started before conception then we must assume that is began at or after conception. So I didn't say you define a "specific point of beginning," but rather said that you "concede human life has a beginning."  Of course, a beginning is a specific point of time. Again, want evidence do you have that human life does not begin at conception?  I see NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE and therefore assume that human life begins at conception.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 01 2006,00:53    Russell opines, Quote Wow. You're really determined to avoid the question, and yet not admit that you're avoiding the question, aren't you? You can assume that you've got time to get EITHER the two-month old out, or the thermos out, NOT both, and that whatever is left in the building is toast. Whether it's a fire, flood, or the fact that "pro-life" loonies have planted a bomb in the adjoining clinic DOESN'T MATTER. I'm not determined to avoid the question.  I'm determined to get specifics about a hypothetical scenario that has little relation to reality. Am I related to any parties involved? Is the 2-month old OBL's son? You're a biologist and teach about life and yet can't even define it?  What does it matter who I save?  They are equally insignificant to science, no? PS  I'm currently questioning a universal pro-life stance.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 01 2006,01:03    To PuckSR, jupiter, Flint, etc. Each of you do yourself no favors if you insist on assuming that all those that think abortion is the killng of human life do so out of religious motivation.  My motivations have nothing to do with religion, but instead have to do with having children and following the science. There has been no discussion of religion, beliefs or faith in any posts other than your own posts complaining about religious arguments interfering in this debate.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 01 2006,01:35    Quote (thordaddy @ April 01 2006,07:03) Each of you do yourself no favors if you insist on assuming that all those that think abortion is the killng of human life do so out of religious motivation.   I would agree with you on that point. It is unlikely that everyone who objects to abortion are doing so for religious reasons. I doubt it is due to scientific reasons though. The only valid reasons to object are on ethical/moral grounds. Personaly I would say give the pregnant woman the choice.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 01 2006,01:50    Stephen Elliot, My decision is based on many things and the science is certainly a factor.   I have stated in no uncertain terms that there is NO EVIDENCE to suggest that human life and the consciousness that helps define it began anywhere other than at conception.  There is no reason to make any further assumptions about the beginning of human life.  The assumptions made are entirely political and used as justification for abortion.   If you disagree then state the evidence that LEADS YOU AWAY from conceding that human life begins at conception along with the consciousness that further defines it.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 01 2006,02:02    The problem I have here is defining a human life. Basically I can't do it. You want to "draw a line" saying this side is a human and the other side isn't. I cannot do that. At a guess I think humanity emerges slowly during pregnancy. I would consider a fetus is conscious before birth but not at conception. I believe a brain needs to develop before consciousness can be acheived. Now why don't you answer the very simple question that you have so far dodged? Given the choice of saving a single 2 month old baby or several hundred human zygotes. Which would be your choice? It is simple for me. I would save the baby.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 01 2006,02:28    Thordaddy is just trolling around, guys. We've repeatedly adressed his "stated in no uncertain terms" arguments. He's repeatedly ignored us. When backed into a corner, he starts to argue about something else entirely, responding to something else someone previously said. Then, after awhile, he posts the same drivel again. When we asked him to stop hijacking the "post-ID" thread and make his own (we even made one for him) he ignored us. When he had no more room to back out in that thread, and had to face our questions directly, he made not one, but two new threads where he posted his same old gibberish from the beginning (I'm sorry, I meant "conception"   ). My guess is he's not even a deluded fundie ID advocate: He's just your regular dishonest troll. Leave him alone. I know I should have done sooner. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 01 2006,02:42    Faid, I know you are correct. Somehow I can't help myself. I must be an addict. Or maybe my rose tinted glasses need to be removed. Despite all evidence to the contrary, I still expect people to respond to rationality.

Russell Posts: 1082 Joined: April 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 01 2006,04:14    I'm sorry, Thor. You dithered too long. They're all dead now. And what a perfect metaphor for all your posing here. A total waste of time, never getting anywhere. I'm with Faid - outta here. -------------- Must... not... scratch... mosquito bite.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 01 2006,09:04    Quote (thordaddy @ April 01 2006,06:53) Is the 2-month old OBL's son? You know however, inanity aside, it would be interesting to speculate as to why exactly this was important to Trolldaddy... -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 01 2006,09:09    Quote (Faid @ April 01 2006,15:04) Quote (thordaddy @ April 01 2006,06:53) Is the 2-month old OBL's son? You know however, inanity aside, it would be interesting to speculate as to why exactly this was important to Trolldaddy... I doubt that it is. Just another excuse to dodge a question. Very anoying. Let us hope that TD never joins the fire department. Everyone would be dead before he could decide which hose to turn on.

MidnightVoice Posts: 380 Joined: Aug. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 01 2006,10:00    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 01 2006,08:42) Faid, I know you are correct. Somehow I can't help myself. I must be an addict. Or maybe my rose tinted glasses need to be removed. Despite all evidence to the contrary, I still expect people to respond to rationality. 42 -------------- If I fly the coop some time And take nothing but a grip With the few good books that really count It's a necessary trip I'll be gone with the girl in the gold silk jacket The girl with the pearl-driller's hands

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 01 2006,10:05    Quote My evidence is that MY conception was the beginning of the development of my CNS and the consciousness that apparently comes with it. But...there were no neural cells present....so couldnt we just as easily say that the creation of an ovum is the beginning of the development of your CNS? Quote It is UNDENIABLE that the zygotes that are now my children began their lives at conception. It is very deniable...since you cannot even seem to give us a strict definition for life..... Quote So I didn't say you define a "specific point of beginning," but rather said that you "concede human life has a beginning."  Of course, a beginning is a specific point of time. My point was that in the case of developing systems, that are transitioning from one to another, or are slowly being created...."speicific point of beginning" is not applicable...of course you can feel free to debate this.... a beginning is not always a specific point in time...and I have pointed that out to you several times.  I have mentioned houses, biological systems, and boats.... What is this twisted fascination with defining a word on your own terms and then refusing to use the common definition of the word? Quote Again, want evidence do you have that human life does not begin at conception?  I see NO EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE and therefore assume that human life begins at conception. This is your point and your wrong...you arbitrarly chose conception as the "beginning of development" of being human.  Of course you could have chosen any point along the causal chain from the moment the mother developed ovaries to the point at which the baby started moving in the womb.  You just decided that you wanted to choose conception...because it is the first time that 2 become 1. So...as you said...you assume that human life begins at conception...because you want it to.  There is no logic to this position.  A zygote lacks every single feature that would normally classify an organism as sentient life.  You ignore this.  You ignore the fact that a zygote is not even capable of controlled movement....yet a sperm is in fact capable...so shouldnt a sperm(which more closely resembles a human) be considered the "beginning"? You point to the lack of evidence in support of any other point of origin of humanity...and conclude that you must therefore be correct.  You are simply attempting to rationally validate your personal position...and despite all of the information we have kindly thrown your way....you ignore it all and plod on ignorantly. Good luck to you...but Im not going to argue with someone who thinks I am challenging his beliefs any longer... I will never change the way you, or anyone else believes...but if you are a sane person...I can point out the fallacies in your reasoning.  I can correct your logical mistakes.  I can provide you with better information.... But you have forsaken all of those...because they attack your beliefs.... Simple, simple, simple man...standing in a room with his ears covered until it is his turn to speak.

Jay Ray Posts: 92 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 01 2006,10:27    Quote My motivations have nothing to do with religion, but instead have to do with having children and following the science. Mmhmm.  I hear you paying lip service to secular motivations.   You'd have us believe that it is a pure coincidence that your conclusions align so tightly with religious fundamentalism?  And you'd also have us believe that your conclusions are based on science? Oooookay. If so, then what does this mean? Quote I digress, science, by your own implication, cannot give us an answer on issues of OOL.  Now who should we look to for the answer?  Science is out of the game. First, is science out of the game or not? Second, if it is out of the game, then who should we look to for the answers? From where I sit, you've just been outright busted in a multiple offense.  How much better for all of us--especially yourself--if you cut with the BS.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 01 2006,12:43    Stephen Elliot opines, Quote The problem I have here is defining a human life. Basically I can't do it. If you can't define human life then how in the heck have we defined life in general?  If we can't even define that which DEFINE ALL OTHER THINGS then all those others things are up for eternal review. Quote You want to "draw a line" saying this side is a human and the other side isn't. I cannot do that. I don't WANT to drawn a line but am FORCED to draw a line.  You simply use science as your scapegoat.  But again, if science and Biology/evolution in particular can't draw the line that defines human life then they can draw NO LINE defining ANY ENTITY.  How can we claim evolution to be a fact when those things that evolve are undefinable? Quote At a guess I think humanity emerges slowly during pregnancy. I would consider a fetus is conscious before birth but not at conception. I believe a brain needs to develop before consciousness can be acheived. You guess?  If a fetus is conscious then it had a lower degree of consciousness before it was a fetus, no?  Or, does consciousness spontaneously emerge in a fetus?  There is no evidence of spontaneous consciousness in a fetus that I'm aware of.  Does the whole brain need be developed before consciousness?  Again, I think the answer is an unequivocal NO. Quote Now why don't you answer the very simple question that you have so far dodged? First, I already answered it.  I would save that which was feasible to save.  Remember, in the original question there was a fire.  If I had a good chance of dying in this fire, I would save neither as my duty is to the well-being of my children.  Fortunately for you, you have no moral dilemna.  You simply define the 100 embryos out of existence.  Yet, your definition is based on nothing more than your own personal values and certainly not scientifically-based. Quote Given the choice of saving a single 2 month old baby or several hundred human zygotes. Which would be your choice? It is simple for me. I would save the baby. It's simple for you because you choose ignorance over insight.  You unilaterally define the 100 embryos out of existence.  But what if those 100 embryos represented the LAST of the Elliot lineage?  What would you do then?  Choose extinction?

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 01 2006,13:10    PuckSR opines, Quote But...there were no neural cells present....so couldnt we just as easily say that the creation of an ovum is the beginning of the development of your CNS? There are two things wrong with this.  First, are you claiming neural cells are conscious?  Secondly, if the sperm and egg are consider the beginning of new human life then we must follow the "life come from life" scenario.  This means that you are really nothing more than an individuated outgrowth of ONE very big and very old LIVING ENTITY.  We can just as well say that your parents who produced the egg and sperm that produced your CNS was the start of your life.  We must then necessarily go all the way back to the beginning and claim that's were YOUR CNS began its development.  Silly, I say. Quote It is very deniable...since you cannot even seem to give us a strict definition for life..... Are you claiming my children weren't the specific zygotes that came together at their conception? Quote My point was that in the case of developing systems, that are transitioning from one to another, or are slowly being created...."speicific point of beginning" is not applicable...of course you can feel free to debate this.... All development requires a beginning.  We agree that there are transition periods in the human life cycle.  What we can't agree on is when is started.  I think we've already shown the problems with claiming no beginning or a beginning before conception.  That only leaves a beginning at conception or after conception.  I see NO EVIDENCE to suggest is starts anywhere other than at conception.  If you have evidence it starts after conception then present it. Quote a beginning is not always a specific point in time...and I have pointed that out to you several times.  I have mentioned houses, biological systems, and boats.... What is this twisted fascination with defining a word on your own terms and then refusing to use the common definition of the word? A beginning is not a specific point in time?  What?  What is it then? Quote This is your point and your wrong...you arbitrarly chose conception as the "beginning of development" of being human.  Of course you could have chosen any point along the causal chain from the moment the mother developed ovaries to the point at which the baby started moving in the womb.  You just decided that you wanted to choose conception...because it is the first time that 2 become 1. I already been through the ABSURDITY of claiming that YOUR LIFE began before your conception.  If YOUR LIFE started with the making of your mom's ovaries then there is no reason to say that it didn't REALLY start with your grandma's ovaries and then all the way back to the original living entity.  You are a mere outgrowth of one very big and very old SINGLE ENTITY. Quote So...as you said...you assume that human life begins at conception...because you want it to.  There is no logic to this position.  A zygote lacks every single feature that would normally classify an organism as sentient life.  You ignore this.  You ignore the fact that a zygote is not even capable of controlled movement....yet a sperm is in fact capable...so shouldnt a sperm(which more closely resembles a human) be considered the "beginning"? Then you've just stepped on your last argument.  If the zygote lacks then certainly the sperm and egg lack, too.  You can't possibly claim a transitional life cycle and then claim the zygote represent LESS development than sperm and egg. Quote You point to the lack of evidence in support of any other point of origin of humanity...and conclude that you must therefore be correct.  You are simply attempting to rationally validate your personal position...and despite all of the information we have kindly thrown your way....you ignore it all and plod on ignorantly. What information?  Sperm and egg are more developed than a zygote?  Your life really began with your mother's ovaries which means it really began with your granny's ovaries whcih really means it began with some apes ovaries?  Your life could have only began AT conception or AFTER conception and yet you have NO EVIDENCE to LEAD YOU AWAY from AT conception.  If you do, present it! Quote Good luck to you...but Im not going to argue with someone who thinks I am challenging his beliefs any longer... I will never change the way you, or anyone else believes...but if you are a sane person...I can point out the fallacies in your reasoning.  I can correct your logical mistakes.  I can provide you with better information.... But you have forsaken all of those...because they attack your beliefs.... Simple, simple, simple man...standing in a room with his ears covered until it is his turn to speak. You're not attacking my beliefs.  You feel like I'm attacking yours.  And of course you are right!  I see no reason or rational in your arguments.  I simply see someone that pleads ignorance and thereby retains a solid PERSONAL justification for abortion.

steve_h Posts: 544 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 01 2006,14:00    TD, What does the human zygote have that the equivalent in a dog or a rat or a fish does not?  As I see it, the only thing that it currently has is potential, but it is not currently more conscious, more capable of suffering, more intelligent, morally superior, or in any way  'better' than those others. Every human sperm and egg has potential but we allow millions and lots respectively to go down the pan (or whereever) without undue worry, so why kick up a fuss here?  As I see it, the only thing you might claim for the human zygote apart from potential that the others don't have is a soul, but that's religion.  What is being lost that wouldn't also be lost if the sperm and eggs donors had decided to go to church instead of having sex? Also, I missed your answer to the "who would you save" diliemma and can't find it. Could you repeat it for me please?

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 02 2006,00:41    steve h asks, Quote TD, What does the human zygote have that the equivalent in a dog or a rat or a fish does not? Obviously something or else you wouldn't have called it a human zygote. Quote As I see it, the only thing that it currently has is potential, but it is not currently more conscious, more capable of suffering, more intelligent, morally superior, or in any way  'better' than those others. If you don't see your potential son and/or daughter as anything better than a dog, rat or fish then I suggest you get your abortion.   Quote Every human sperm and egg has potential but we allow millions and lots respectively to go down the pan (or whereever) without undue worry, so why kick up a fuss here? Didn't we already dispense of this argument?  What does a human sperm have potential for?  What does a human egg have potential for?  They have NO potential until conception. Quote As I see it, the only thing you might claim for the human zygote apart from potential that the others don't have is a soul, but that's religion. Once again we have an anti-fundie proclaiming fundie arguments that haven't been made.  Have I said anything about "souls?" Quote What is being lost that wouldn't also be lost if the sperm and eggs donors had decided to go to church instead of having sex? What? Quote Also, I missed your answer to the "who would you save" diliemma and can't find it. Could you repeat it for me please? I would save which ever life was more feasible in the case of an emergency knowing that I am under no obligation to risk death to save another.  I reserve that action for my children and those closest to me.

hehe Posts: 59 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 02 2006,01:24    Quote I assume you are still sticking to the original question that INCLUDED A FIRE.  Therefore, my CHOICE would be based on that FIRE.  Do you have a location for the fire as it relates to the baby and embryos? PS Can we assume that the FROZEN embryos aren't too close to the FIRE? That you even have to ascertain these "conditions" shows that you're potentially a murderous moonbatty thug. And that's the point of this little hypothetical.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 02 2006,03:53    Quote (thordaddy @ April 02 2006,06:41) If you don't see your potential son and/or daughter as anything better than a dog, rat or fish then I suggest you get your abortion. Coming from someone who claimed with a straight face that his actual newborn children (whose existense I seriously doubt) were no more concious than a comatose person, this is twice as hilarious. For those who still have the patience and stamina to try and converse with trolldaddy: It's entirely possible to answer to his "arguments" by simply copy/pasting your previous comments. Saves a lot of effort. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

steve_h Posts: 544 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 02 2006,04:48    All non-answers, TD. As far as I am concerned, your "Troll" status is confirmed - I can be a little slow to catch on sometimes. If any one else, from any side of the discussion, thinks I have wrongly dismissed any honest answers I will be happy to elaborate, but I will not be feeding TD directly any more.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 02 2006,06:23    Quote (thordaddy @ April 01 2006,18:43) Stephen Elliot opines, ... Quote Given the choice of saving a single 2 month old baby or several hundred human zygotes. Which would be your choice? It is simple for me. I would save the baby. It's simple for you because you choose ignorance over insight.  You unilaterally define the 100 embryos out of existence.  But what if those 100 embryos represented the LAST of the Elliot lineage?  What would you do then?  Choose extinction? Thordaddy, I did not define 100 embryos out of existence. The choice was simple. You have the ability to choose to save either one 2 month old baby or several hundred human zygotes. You know that the situation and personal relationships are unimportant to the question. You know for a fact a 2 month old baby can feel pain. You do not know that of zygotes. FGS You claimed that you could not detect consciousness in your own newborn.

normdoering Posts: 287 Joined: July 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 02 2006,07:35    Quote (hehe @ Mar. 31 2006,03:39) But this is just semantics. And it looks like fairly bad semantics to me. Life began over 3 billion years ago, conception is just another process in the continuation of life. What is left out of that simple sentence is what is actually meant: a specific human individual. When can it  be said that "a specific human individual" begins its life. The process doesn't begin with conception. Before conception, egg and sperm must be produced, each with their own load of genetic code -- why don't sperm have a right to life? (because we can't afford to give it to them?)

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 02 2006,10:14    Quote Each of you do yourself no favors if you insist on assuming that all those that think abortion is the killng of human life do so out of religious motivation.  My motivations have nothing to do with religion, but instead have to do with having children and following the science. I guess I need to keep repeating until something sinks in. Abortion is the killing of a human life. Religion has nothing to do with that. It's a matter of genetics: the fetus is alive, it's human. Killing it takes a human life. What abortion is NOT killing, is a person. Not a child, not a legal entity of any kind. Until we recognize that a human life is a biological entity, and a person is a LEGAL entity, we will continue to misunderstand one another. The abortion debate isn't whether we're taking a life, it's whether we are committing murder. Murder means unlawfully killing a person. A person is a legal construct.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 02 2006,11:33    hehe, What a silly comment.  Not risking your own death to save a stranger is not equivalent to murder.   Faid, I said that my newborns looked no more conscious than Terri Schiavo.  Simply reacting to external stimuli doesn't constitute DIRECT EVIDENCE of consciousness, does it?  Do newborns do anything other than react to external stimuli?  Would you even know? Steve h, What a pathetic response.  I answered each question, one by one.  You just didn't like the answer and so you choose to pout instead.  Perhaps, you and Faid can start a pouting thread? Stephen Elliot, If the 100 embryos were the  last of the Elliot lineage would you save the 2 month old and choose extinction for the Elliots? Asking stupid questions that have little relation to reality in order to make a point is a poor way to make a point especially if you slyly change the premises. Normdoering, This was assumed unless you consider yourself nothing more than an individuated outgrowth of one very large and very old SINGLE LIVING ENTITY.  Are you under than illusion? Flint, The only ones that keeping saying "murder" are those that seem to support abortion.  The point is that there is no scientific basis to distinguish the human life from the human person.  Do you agree or not?

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 02 2006,13:03    thordaddy: Quote The only ones that keeping saying "murder" are those that seem to support abortion.  The point is that there is no scientific basis to distinguish the human life from the human person.  Do you agree or not? Again, you just can't seem to grasp it, can you? Legal arguments are not scientific arguments. I have no problem with your science. And as a matter of propaganda, the "murder" label was invented, and continues to be deployed, solely by the anti-abortion crowd. They use it for emotional control. Those who support human rights (of which abortion is undeniably one) speak of human rights. You know, things like fair play, don't force me to do what you don't want me to force you to do, things like that. Consciousness, intelligence, awareness, knowledge, education, are all irrelevant. I will repeat for at least the third time now, the slaves were sometimes all these things, but they were not persons. They were property. That's not a scientific determination, it's a legal determination. There is in fact no "scientific" way to distinguish between morally right and morally wrong. Moral questions are not amenable to scientific investigation in any way. You might as well use science to determine if red is a prettier color than blue. The issue here is not scientific. Not at all. Not even a little bit.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 02 2006,14:37    Quote (thordaddy @ April 02 2006,16:33) Faid, I said that my newborns looked no more conscious than Terri Schiavo.  Simply reacting to external stimuli doesn't constitute DIRECT EVIDENCE of consciousness, does it?  Do newborns do anything other than react to external stimuli?  Would you even know? Quote If you are sincere and have actually kept a newborn in your arms, you just know this is true. The newborn displays emotions, shows curiosity and interacts actively with his enviroment. And: Quote You're comparing your newborn child to a person in PVS? You are a liar, thordaddy. You either lie about having children, or you lie about your children, which is worse. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 02 2006,22:36    Flint opines, Quote Again, you just can't seem to grasp it, can you? Legal arguments are not scientific arguments. I have no problem with your science. And as a matter of propaganda, the "murder" label was invented, and continues to be deployed, solely by the anti-abortion crowd. They use it for emotional control. Those who support human rights (of which abortion is undeniably one) speak of human rights. You know, things like fair play, don't force me to do what you don't want me to force you to do, things like that. First, I have NOT stated that legal arguments are scientific arguments.  But as far as I can discern, original legal arguments need to be based on something other than other legal arguments.  Secondly, I have not used the "murder" label, but have instead used the appropriate language to describe what abortion entails. Quote Consciousness, intelligence, awareness, knowledge, education, are all irrelevant. I will repeat for at least the third time now, the slaves were sometimes all these things, but they were not persons. They were property. That's not a scientific determination, it's a legal determination. I say so what?  You are simply saying that the law may be changed to justifiy and legalize the murder of any person.  Afterall, we have quite some precedent. Quote There is in fact no "scientific" way to distinguish between morally right and morally wrong. Moral questions are not amenable to scientific investigation in any way. You might as well use science to determine if red is a prettier color than blue. Then science cannot be our basis fror this law.  That's all you are saying.  And since morality and religion can also not be the basis for our law in this situation, what exactly are we basing abortion law on? Quote The issue here is not scientific. Not at all. Not even a little bit. Yet you can't see the implication of your assertion.  Science doesn't WANT to be apart of this discussion because it doesn't align with correct political ideology.  One cannot but laugh at the notion that "evolution" is a fact when the very entity that defines this "fact" is in fact itself undefined.  If there is NO scientific basis for human life then there is NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS PERIOD.

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 03 2006,03:01    thordaddy: I'm starting to understand the contempt you have earned on this thread. You don't listen at all. Quote But as far as I can discern, original legal arguments need to be based on something other than other legal arguments. Who said they weren't? Laws are based on the desire to avoid if possible, and if not then to resolve as painlessly as possible, any social conflicts. Quote Secondly, I have not used the "murder" label, but have instead used the appropriate language to describe what abortion entails. I notice in your very next statement, you use the murder label. Quote I say so what?  You are simply saying that the law may be changed to justifiy and legalize the murder of any person.  Afterall, we have quite some precedent. See, there it is! But you are correct, murder is a legal construct. Taking the life of another human being is not necessarily murder. If done in wartime, it produces heroes. If done in self defense, it's fine. If policement do it in the line of duty, it's not only appropriate but considered necessary. If done for abortion, it's considered the right of the pregnant woman. However, I hope you notice that laws are not entirely arbitrary. They are intended (as I wrote above) to avoid and/or resolve conflicts. As we have learned the hard way (with drugs, with alcohol, with abortion, and countless other laws), the attempt to enforce unenforceable laws results in an increase rather than a decrease in conflict. Quote Then science cannot be our basis fror this law.  That's all you are saying.  And since morality and religion can also not be the basis for our law in this situation, what exactly are we basing abortion law on? Ultimately, the law is based on trial and error. Over the long run, we make laws, and see what the results are (often completely different from what's intended or expected). We modify the laws with the intention of improving the results. This process goes on continuously. What triggers the process is that too many people are too unhappy with the status quo, for whatever reason. And often enough, passing a law results in even MORE people even MORE unhappy with the change, and the modification cycle continues. Quote Science doesn't WANT to be apart of this discussion because it doesn't align with correct political ideology. Nope, you have completely misunderstood. Science can tell us the facts, but science can NOT tell us what we ought to do with them or why. I can agree that laws work best if they are informed by the facts, because the consequences of the law are most predictable in that case. But even if science could tell us precisely what the consequences of every law would be, science STILL could not tell us which consequences to prefer. Quote One cannot but laugh at the notion that "evolution" is a fact when the very entity that defines this "fact" is in fact itself undefined. What entity is that? Evolution is a fact, and science is the appropriate way to determine this. Science has done so. What's your point? Quote If there is NO scientific basis for human life then there is NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS PERIOD. I don't know what you're trying to say here. Of course there is a scientific basis for human life. Which has absolutely nothing to do with a society deciding which lives to protect, which to terminate, and which to remain silent about in deference to the rights of the individual members of that society. Those are SOCIAL decisions. Science is irrelevant.

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 03 2006,03:08    I agree that this is not a scientific argument but science does play an important advisory role. The current law is that a pregnancy cannot be terminated if the fetus can survive outside the mother and since the laws were introduced, the age has been reduced according to the latest science. In the UK there is currently a big move to reduce the age further as it has been shown that fetuses can be viable at 20-22 weeks. This does depend on the abortion law being concerned with fetus viability, which is based on a moral argument. If it was decided for example, that the abortion age was to be decided  based on the ability to suffer, then the limit would have to be reduced to 18 weeks based on science. So when thordaddy says: Quote Science doesn't WANT to be apart of this discussion because it doesn't align with correct political ideology. he technically is wrong as the science is perfectly in line with the current law (ish). On the other hand if the law were to state that an abortion cannot be performed on anything that is describable as a human life, then he would be right that the science would not fit in with a liberal pro-choice perspective, but that would be because of the moral argument not the science. So we can argue all we want about what scientifically constitues a human life, but as Flint said that argument is irrelevant to the current law which is based on embryo viability. If you want to argue that the law should be changed to include any idea of a human life, then that is a moral argument. I dont know about the US, but in the UK there is no 'right to an abortion' the woman must convince two doctors that carrying the pregnancy to term would result in physical or mental damage to her and/or the baby. I know people who have been refused abortions (due to the availability of adoption, financial grounds usually don't suffice), and there are many cases of women being refused abortions even in cases of rape. The only people I know who have had abortions got them due to mental health problems and extreme health risks.

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 03 2006,04:48    Chris: Quote So we can argue all we want about what scientifically constitues a human life, but as Flint said that argument is irrelevant to the current law which is based on embryo viability. If you want to argue that the law should be changed to include any idea of a human life, then that is a moral argument. US law is perhaps somewhat different, and varies by state. But in many states, embryo viability is not a legal restriction. Also, you are implying that the law is based on morality, and this is not necessarily the case. The law can be based on whatever we determine we should base it on. Morality, practicality, enforceability, cost, majority vote, whatever. I'm rather surprised the UK law is workable, though. Do those who are wealthier (or otherwise more culturally privileged) get their abortions under the table, or do they leave the country to get them?

Chris Hyland Posts: 705 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 03 2006,05:20    Perhaps instead of moral arguments I should have said non-scientific arguments. That is just my experience of the law in the UK, and the wording of the law does say you can't just have one because you want one, although I doubt doctors are that strict in all cases and my experiences might be the exception as opposed to the rule. I suspect wealthier or more privileged people are less likely to accidentally get pregnant and possibly are better at persuading doctors that they will by psychologically damaged. More details.

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 03 2006,05:27    Chris, Thanks, very interesting link. This was important: Quote When establishing the level of risk to health, doctors can take into consideration a woman's ‘actual or reasonably foreseeable environment', which includes her personal and social situation. With rational interpretation, this strikes me as a Good Thing. Generally, unwanted pregnancies are unwanted for a good reason; good enough so that a child will be unwelcome, unsupportable, etc. In practice, this amounts to choice. The 6-month limit on choice also strikes me as reasonable. If you do NOT want a child, it shouldn't take more than 6 months to figure this out.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 03 2006,06:55    Quote (Flint @ April 03 2006,10:27) Chris, Thanks, very interesting link. This was important: Quote When establishing the level of risk to health, doctors can take into consideration a woman's ‘actual or reasonably foreseeable environment', which includes her personal and social situation. With rational interpretation, this strikes me as a Good Thing. Generally, unwanted pregnancies are unwanted for a good reason; good enough so that a child will be unwelcome, unsupportable, etc. In practice, this amounts to choice. The 6-month limit on choice also strikes me as reasonable. If you do NOT want a child, it shouldn't take more than 6 months to figure this out. As far as I can tell. In-practice it is not too difficult to get an abortion on the national health. I think the woman merely needs to persuade the Doctors that she has genuinely thought it through and definately wants one. If a woman ends up asking for a string of abortions then she is likely to encounter hostility from Doctors. It is not suposed to be an alternative to contraception. The law is definately workable in practice. On the whole Doctors tend to be sensible respected people. As for wealthy people. Well enough money makes almost any situation/decision easier.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 03 2006,07:04    Quote (thordaddy @ April 03 2006,03:36) If there is NO scientific basis for human life then there is NO SCIENTIFIC BASIS PERIOD. Classic Thordaddy. Aside from being more or less unintelligible, this is like saying that since there's no scientific basis for why some people like Dvorak more than Beethoven, there's no scientific basis for anything. This is the same kind of reasoning by which Thordaddy determines that life begins at conception. Since there's no scientific basis for saying it doesn't start at conception (other than the two dozen reasons various posters to this thread have offered), Thordaddy believes he's entitled to therefore think that life does begin at conception. Way to go, Thordaddy. -------------- 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

Spike Posts: 49 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 03 2006,09:26    Flint said, Quote In practise, this amounts to choice. Choice to dispose of someone you find inconvenient. If economic considerations are sufficient to get rid of unborn babies someone doesn't want, why stop there? There are plenty of people walking around right now that are a burden on "society." I'm really trying to understand how pro-abortion folks on this thread decide where to draw the line between person and non-person. If I missed it in the previous posts, please point it out to me. ******************** My morality derives from my rationalist/scientific world view. I ask the other posters on this thread who are rationalists/scientifically minded how they developed their systems of morality.

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 03 2006,10:14    Spike: Quote I'm really trying to understand how pro-abortion folks on this thread decide where to draw the line between person and non-person. I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. Personally, it's simple. Not born, not a person. Born, legal person. Simple. But as I wrote earlier on this thread, this policy has plenty of exceptions. Enemy soldiers are "inconveniences" in wartime. Kill them, you're a military hero. Someone threatening your life is inconvenient as well; they're fair game. As for abortion, laws against it are much like prohibition: so difficult to enforce as to make enforcement capricious and highly unfair. Easy for the rich, hard for the poor. Such laws don't prevent abortions, they only increase the incidence of incompetent abortions. Quote There are plenty of people walking around right now that are a burden on "society." Depending on how burdensome they are, they can be imprisoned indefinitely or (in many places) executed. Anway, we as a society must balance out many factors: the degree of burden, the definition of personhood, the social and financial costs, the political ideals and how they are to be applied: Should abortion be mandatory (as in some places), prohibited (as in other places), or up to the individual (where Big Brother allows personal freedom)? Associated with this is the question of reciprocation: if you are willing to meddle in the lives of others, would you accept their meddling in YOUR life to the same degree? Like FORCING you to abort, whether you wanted to or not, because THEY decided it was for your own good? And to some degree, depending on your preferences, there's the technological issue of when viability starts, and whether that point is meaningful, morally speaking. Again, this question becomes significant only for those with enough money (or insurance) to make a difference. Not a simple yes/no issue, but rather an issue where many people take many different positions for many different reasons. Which leads to the most important question of all: Who are you to dictate my life, and who am I to dictate yours?

Spike Posts: 49 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 03 2006,11:12    Flint, "Not born, not a person." OK. But not simple. I've listened to all the arguments about discriminating against babies in the womb and have yet to find one that makes a rational argument for where in the development process to draw the line. So, being a person who prefers to err on the side of caution ragarding the killing of innocents, I go all the way back to conception as the point at which human rights begin. I think my draconian solution would be as easy to enforce as most other laws we have made. The person wanting the abortion is already in the clinic. It's only a matter of a couple more ligations and sutures to implement sterilization. Would some people "go underground" because they didn't want to be sterlized? Of course. A solution does not have to be perfect to be better than what we have. If "convenience to society" really is a valid consideration for why some people's rights can be curtailed, then given the choice between killing a certain class of "inconvenients" and preventing the creation of those "inconvenients" I would opt for the latter. More directly: Mandatory sterlization is much better for "society" than is abortion. Readers, don't waste time with non-arguments like, "Well, who would decide who gets sterilized?" I already pointed out that it is a self-selection process. Anyone who wants an abortion-for-convenience can have one, for free, but they must be sterilized afterwards.

PuckSR Posts: 314 Joined: Nov. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 03 2006,11:13    Quote My morality derives from my rationalist/scientific world view. I ask the other posters on this thread who are rationalists/scientifically minded how they developed their systems of morality. actually most scientific evidence points to the fact that you cannot rationalize your morality.... The point of this whole abortion debate is your interpretation of when life begins.... Claiming you're pro/anti abortion isnt based on morality. Let me give you an example...some people believe in partial birth abortion.  They believe it is an acceptable practice. However, no one is pro-newborn baby killing.  No one claims you should be able to kill a baby once it is born. Why?  Because everyone knows that murder is wrong. The difference is that some people dont define partial birth abortion as murder.  It would be a moral issue if they did define it as acceptable murder....but they dont. Anti-abortion people are not in possesion of a higher set of morals.  Pro abortion people have the same morals as anti-abortion people.  It's a question of how they define human life...which is not a question of morality. It also isnt a question of science, as we have tried to explain to Thordaddy.  Science has a difficult enough time defining life.  They arent even going to begin to try and decide when the creation of a new offspring becomes an individual human life. Its a question of philosophy/theology/law.  This is also why it is so heavily contested..because everyone is allowed to have their own ideas on philosophy/theology/law.  It is not a case of clear cut solutions.  IF it was, then it would not be a case of such heavy contention.

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 03 2006,11:34    Spike: Quote So, being a person who prefers to err on the side of caution ragarding the killing of innocents, I go all the way back to conception as the point at which human rights begin. And isn't it wonderful that you can not only hold this opinion, but act on it without anyone else telling you that their opinion is better than yours? Quote I've listened to all the arguments about discriminating against babies in the womb Isn't it great that you get to select whatever slanted terminology ratifies your conclusions, and nobody is stopping you? Wouldn't it be great if the hypocrites could realize that depriving other people of their rights is very dangerous, because tomorrow THEY might be among the 'other people'? Quote More directly: Mandatory sterlization is much better for "society" than is abortion. And aren't you fortunate that you can hold this opinion, but nobody is going to mandatorily sterilize YOU, like you seem willing to do to others? If there is anything that characterizes the "I'm cramming my preferences down YOUR throat" crowd, it's this fundamental, unavoidable double standard. I have never yet met a "my way or the highway" fanatic who shows the slightest clue what the Golden Rule actually says.

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 03 2006,11:51    Quote Readers, don't waste time with non-arguments like, "Well, who would decide who gets sterilized?" I already pointed out that it is a self-selection process. Anyone who wants an abortion-for-convenience can have one, for free, but they must be sterilized afterwards. There is a catch here. You say that this will be a self-selected process for those that want an abortion for convenience- but whether each case is "for convenience" or "out of necessity" has to be decided by someone else first. And separating those two groups is not as easy as it may seem to you. Maintaining control on the choices offered to the woman, by deciding in which category she belongs, is in my opinion a sure-fire way to let discrimination (and corruption) in through the back door. So, nothing is gained (except perhaps another step towards a society where a woman's reproductive right is not a right at all). -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

Faid Posts: 1143 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 03 2006,12:10    <edit> Also, this theory seems to me seriously flawed on the very moral grounds you're proposing. If you consider abortion murder, how can you say to the woman "OK, we'll let you (and help you) commit murder just this once, and then we'll punish you for that by taking away your right to reproduction forever"? Where's the ethics in that? If you don't consider it murder, what's the purpose of all this charade in the first place? Seems to me more like a way to inflict punishment on the women who choose to have an abortion, than a serious attempt to solve the issue. -------------- A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty: "The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information" "...mutations can add information to a genome.  And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."

Spike Posts: 49 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 03 2006,12:37    PuckSR, Quote actually most scientific evidence points to the fact that you cannot rationalize your morality.... I'm slightly worried about the double meaning of "rationalize." Do you mean it in the sense of "make rational" or the sense of "create reasons to justify what you want to believe." Because, when it comes to defining the point at which a developing human has the right to not be killed, then there is a lot of "creating of reasons" to justify what people already believe. It's not a matter of defining when life begins that is the problem. That's actually something that can be worked out quite easily, both on scientific and moral grounds. What prevents all of us people from agreeing is that we want to rationalize our behavior, rather than change. Think about it: Even genocidal maniacs believe what they are doing is right and can give you lots and lots of reasons why. *************** Regarding the question of rational morality: If you are arguing against rational morality, then are you arguing for irrational morality? When I say "scientific" I do not mean that we can develop a bench test for a certain moral code (all tests have to be in the field). I do mean that we can use the same rational tools that helped us develop the scientific method to develop, for want of a better term, an "ethical method." I'll give you an example of a rational moral idea: I treat others as I wish for them to treat me. Why? Observation, hypothesis, theory, and "law." My observation is that most people I deal with have a sense of "fairness" and a desire for egalitarianism. I hypothesize that to utilize that tendency to my benefit, I present my goals in a way that seems fair and egalitarian to the other person: I won't benefit at their expense, instead, we will both benefit. I experiment with various people and find different levels of success. I review the results and try to develop other theories to explain why I did not succeed in certain cases. What I come up with is that I did not really understand what the other person wanted from the interaction, so I did not give them what they percieved as a "win." I formulate a new hypothesis that includes spending more time trying to understand exactly what the other person wants, and figuring out how meet that want so that I benefit also. I try it out. It gives me what I want more often than the way I was doing things before. I repeat this process, improving my ability to understand and my ability to help the other person find solutions. To be sure, the most fundamental reason that I do what I do is for my own gain. Defining, "my own gain" is also an iterative process. Sometimes I realize after I have put forth a lot of effort to achieve something that I didn't like the result as much as I had anticipated I would! Even more fundamental than that, I suppose, is explaining why my own gain is a moral good. At that point, you've got me. I have no explanation for why I believe it is right for me to want to make my life better. Again, my experience is that every other person that I have met wants to make their lives better also. Even people who commit suicide do so because they feel it is better than continuing to experience the pain they are living with right now (physical and/or emotional).* If the source of our desire to make our lives better were programmed into our selfish genes in a "Dawkinsian" fashion, then we would have a scientific explanation for why we do what we do! BTW: I draw a distinction between what is better for other individuals and what is better for "society." I only care about other individuals. There is no argument I have heard for doing things "for the good of society" that doesn't include sacrificing the rights of a certain class of people. *Speaking of suicide. There was a point in my life when I understood why other people would commit suicide. I wish I could explain what prevented me from doing so, because I would offer it to others who are standing on edge of that chasm. Anybode else "been to the edge?" What kept yout from hurling yourself into the abyss?

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 03 2006,13:03    Flint opines, Quote I'm starting to understand the contempt you have earned on this thread. You don't listen at all. I've already agreed with you on your basic premise and still you scorn me.  I shall disagree with for now on because your premise may be reasonable, but from there your argument is quite pathetic.   thordaddy asks, If laws are not based in morality and science, but simply precedent alone, then what are the precedents based upon?  But even further, what are the original legal arguments, that will then become precendent for future case law, based upon if not morality and science? Flint says, Precedents man... You contemptible human life form! Quote Who said they weren't? Laws are based on the desire to avoid if possible, and if not then to resolve as painlessly as possible, any social conflicts. Is there a framework to work with?  I mean, what constitutes a social conflict?  What constitutes pain?  Is emotional pain more aggregious than physical pain?  Is the mother's SPECULATIVE PREDICTIONS about the future of HER CHILD represent greater pain than the killing of her child in an abortion? Quote I notice in your very next statement, you use the murder label. And so my statement was correct as I said nothing about using it further into the conversation.  But if you'll care to notice, it was used in an entirely correct context and did not relate to nonpersons. Quote See, there it is! But you are correct, murder is a legal construct. Taking the life of another human being is not necessarily murder. If done in wartime, it produces heroes. If done in self defense, it's fine. If policement do it in the line of duty, it's not only appropriate but considered necessary. If done for abortion, it's considered the right of the pregnant woman. I agree with everything you have said.  Unfortunately, the arguments for wartime and self-defense are infinitely greater than the mere choice of ALL INDIVIDUAL WOMEN to abort their children.  The question then becomes, how has this been justified when the science is shining ever more light on what actually takes place in the course of an abortion.  The moral argument is already strong and the advocates for abortion have relied upon the ignorance or shere obfuscation of "science" to justify at least in part their arguments for abortion.  I think science in now abortion's greatest foe.  Legal arguments will evolve to meet this new insight like they have done before. Quote However, I hope you notice that laws are not entirely arbitrary. They are intended (as I wrote above) to avoid and/or resolve conflicts. As we have learned the hard way (with drugs, with alcohol, with abortion, and countless other laws), the attempt to enforce unenforceable laws results in an increase rather than a decrease in conflict. Yet, one could easily argue that abortion has not decreased the conflict, but has in fact increased it.  Are the children any less wanted?  Are children treated with more or less compassion?  Are women better women?  Are relationships between women and men better?  I see very little to suggest that abortion has been an OVERALL social good.  In fact, abortion is, in MOST REGARDS, an abolition of responsibility.  Hence, the increase in conflict. Quote Ultimately, the law is based on trial and error. Over the long run, we make laws, and see what the results are (often completely different from what's intended or expected). We modify the laws with the intention of improving the results. This process goes on continuously. What triggers the process is that too many people are too unhappy with the status quo, for whatever reason. And often enough, passing a law results in even MORE people even MORE unhappy with the change, and the modification cycle continues. Then the law will evolve to reflect the unprecendent scientific insight into what exactly an abortion constitutes.  The moral arguments will only be strengthened and the law will bend to the will of the enlightened. Quote Nope, you have completely misunderstood. Science can tell us the facts, but science can NOT tell us what we ought to do with them or why. I can agree that laws work best if they are informed by the facts, because the consequences of the law are most predictable in that case. But even if science could tell us precisely what the consequences of every law would be, science STILL could not tell us which consequences to prefer. Science can obviously tell us what we can do or not do and they need not be explicit.  The implication is clear to many that science is dragging its feet in this regard.  The insights brought to us by science concerning abortion and the process of pregnancy cannot be hidden by the ideologues within science.   Quote What entity is that? Evolution is a fact, and science is the appropriate way to determine this. Science has done so. What's your point? A fact based on the knowledge of an undefiniable entity seems undefiniable itself.  Isn't this the argument against ID? Quote I don't know what you're trying to say here. Of course there is a scientific basis for human life. Which has absolutely nothing to do with a society deciding which lives to protect, which to terminate, and which to remain silent about in deference to the rights of the individual members of that society. Those are SOCIAL decisions. Science is irrelevant. You are claiming that human life is undefiniable and yet this human life form has defined all we know.  If you don't know who or what you are then how can you know anything else let alone describe evolution as a "fact" for the rest of us.  Your science is based on something undefiniable.  Almost like an intelligent designer or something?

Spike Posts: 49 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 03 2006,13:31    Faid, Wow! Just like I said. People who are normally quite rational get their panties in a bunch when it comes to abortion. (Me too! For your part, you use loaded language to package your idea as “a woman’s reproductive right.” You presuppose that a woman's "right to choose" precludes the baby's right to live. You have chosen some line in the developmental process at which you say, "On this side, the baby has rights, on that side, nope." How have you decided where to draw the line? As I said, my draconian proposal is not a perfect solution. The only perfect solution would be to convince every person that abortions-for-convenience are wrong and then every person would choose not to have an abortion. The perfect solution is to prevent all unwanted pregnancies and stop all rapes. If you know a way to do that, I'll work with you on it. I do not believe that people who have an abortion enjoy it. I don’t pretend doctors who perform abortions are evil. Right now, our society thinks abortions are OK. So most people (baaa-baaa) go along with the crowd. I used to feel the same way. But the more I tried to defend the pro-abortion position, the less rational support I could find for it. I don't believe that any person (including me) has a right to squirt out little "mini-me's" all over the place. Just because someone can do something doesn’t make it a right. I can counter any argument about “This is not the right time,” or “The parents are too poor,” or “Why should the rape victim have to raise the rapists child?” with real-life examples of parents who do a good job in spite of those obstacles, and more. Here’s one: In my son’s preschool is a little white-skinned girl with two white-skinned mothers, who are married to each other, and have adopted two dark-brown-skinned babies to be the little girl’s brother and sister. Are you going to tell me, in all your prescience, that those two adoptees would have been better off aborted? If so, you’ll have to come up with some pretty good arguments against two lesbian mothers of a different “race” as parents. In my first post, I defined abortions-for-convenience as those not required to prevent the death of the mother. That seems pretty unambiguous to me. Do you have some common occurrences when you cannot distinguish between "prevent the death of the mother" and other reasons people use for abortions? If the Golden Rule is important to you, why do you withhold it from little kids just because they do not measure up to your arbitrary definition of human? There’s the irony: “Hey you! There in the womb! I’m on the outside, living my life, so I can say that you don’t get to live yours beyond today.”

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 03 2006,13:46    thordaddy; Well, I'll keep trying for a while. Maybe we can communicate. Quote Is there a framework to work with?  I mean, what constitutes a social conflict? People disagreeing with one another. Quote What constitutes pain?  Is emotional pain more aggregious than physical pain? That's entirely up to whoever experiences it. Quote Is the mother's SPECULATIVE PREDICTIONS about the future of HER CHILD represent greater pain than the killing of her child in an abortion? That's up to her, not you. If YOU are pregnant (note: a pregnant woman is not a mother of a fetus. She becomes a mother of a child at birth. Not before) then YOU get to make this decision. Nobody else. Quote And so my statement was correct as I said nothing about using it further into the conversation.  But if you'll care to notice, it was used in an entirely correct context and did not relate to nonpersons. You need to re-read what you wrote, in this case. Murder is defined as the *unlawful taking of a person's life.* You're correct that the law may be changed to legalize the taking of a person's life, but in that case, it's no longer murder because it is no longer unlawful. Quote Unfortunately, the arguments for wartime and self-defense are infinitely greater than the mere choice of ALL INDIVIDUAL WOMEN to abort their children. I hope you can recognize that you just stated a personal opinion not shared by everyone. If YOU find some arguments more persuasive, fine. If others don't, also fine. They're as entitled to their opinions as you are. Or don't you think so? Quote The question then becomes, how has this been justified when the science is shining ever more light on what actually takes place in the course of an abortion. Try to stay on topic. Let's grant that we know, or can learn, everything there is to know about every relevant fact. NO facts are at issue here at all. What is at issue are legal constructs. Quote The moral argument is already strong You have an MO here, I notice. You state your opinion as thought it were a fact, and then you attempt draw conclusions based on the logical implications of your opinions. But I really don't consider myself bound by your opinions. I consider them wrong. Quote the advocates for abortion have relied upon the ignorance or shere obfuscation of "science" to justify at least in part their arguments for abortion. This claim is simply false. No obfuscation has taken place in our discussion. We have granted the accuracy of everything science can learn. Hopefully, we have recognized that the legal issue is something entirely unrelated. Quote I think science in now abortion's greatest foe.  Legal arguments will evolve to meet this new insight like they have done before. Except of course this has nothing to do with science, nor is your opinion any kind of insight. My support for abortion is based on the notion of freedom and liberty - that I will not force you to act according to my opinion, and you will not force me to act according to your opinion. That you are entitled to conduct YOUR life according to YOUR preferences, and I have no authority to prevent this. Nor would I want to, for fear you might turn around and do the same to me. Quote Yet, one could easily argue that abortion has not decreased the conflict, but has in fact increased it. Yes, but not accurately. What we in the US have done is traded one kind of conflict for another. At the cost of offending busybody religious fanatics, we have granted equality and human rights to all citizens. Quote Are the children any less wanted?  Are children treated with more or less compassion? As a matter of fact, yes. Economists and criminologists and demographers spent some considerable research trying to learn why certain types of violent crimes went WAY down (cut in half! during the 1990s and then stayed down. Exhaustive analysis has provided the answer: the cohort of people who committed those crimes -- poor, bad neighborhoods, lots of drugs, high unemployment, gangs -- *were not born* because they were aborted. In other words, only WANTED children were born. They are better off, and everyone around them is better off. Abortion has without question been a social boon. Quote Then the law will evolve to reflect the unprecendent scientific insight into what exactly an abortion constitutes. What ARE you talking about? There are no scientific insights here. Quote The moral arguments will only be strengthened and the law will bend to the will of the enlightened. Which I take it means you and not them? THEY will bend to YOUR moral superiority, right? YOU will not bend to THEIR opinions, because THEY are wrong and YOU are right. Is that it? Quote A fact based on the knowledge of an undefiniable entity seems undefiniable itself.  Isn't the the argument against ID?[/qote] I askied what entity this was, and I notice you didn't answer. so I still don't understand what you're talking about. Evolution is based on observation. In fact, based on many millions of related observations. The argument against ID is, they have ZERO observations. None. [quote]You are claiming that human life is undefiniable I said no such thing. I will repeat: a human life begins at conception. It is well defined. We all know what it is. Quote If you don't know who or what you are Since this is both false and foolish, the rest of your claim is irrelevant. You really do need to learn how to keep on topic.