Joined: Jan. 2006
|The longer you yack, Thordaddy, the less sense you make. I'm not sure this particular post makes any sense whatsoever. But I'll give it a try anyway.|
Thanks... I knew you liked engaging in meaninglessness.
|It sounds like you're saying that because human life is "undefinable" (but in what sense? It's not like no one has any idea what a human being is), then any human explanation for—what? anything whatsoever?—is also "undefinable." I challenge you to explain what that means.|
One of the arguments against ID is that we know nothing of the Designer and so how could we possibly infer "his" design.
The same argument exists in this situation. If we know nothing of the designer (what constitutes human life) then how can we possibly draw ANY inferences from his explanations since his explanations are the basis for all our knowledge?
I say it's bunk. We can define human life and science can certainly weigh in heavily.
|But if it means what it appears to mean, you seem to be saying that no one has any idea what a human being is, a position that is comically false. You also seem to be implying science has no explanatory power at all, which is equally preposterous. And if that's what you mean, then one is left wondering why the h*ll you're looking for a scientific explanation for when human life begins in the first place.|
Yes, we both now see the absurdity in claiming that human life can't be defined by science. I totally agree
|But it's pretty clear that you're really trying to do. You're trying to find some science (good luck, because it ain't out there) that will support a conclusion you've already reached: that abortion under any circumstances should be forbidden. In common with creationists in general, you're putting the cart before the horse: you want the "facts" to fit your conclusions, rather than the other way around.|
You have it exactly backwards. I used to be agnostic about abortion because I was ignorant to the pathetic arguments being made in its defence.
But more to the point, you have once again claimed that science presents no evidence for defining the start of human life. Yet, you will claim to be human life. How did you come to this conclusion when you know nothing of your conception? You just assume your humaneness based on what, exactly?
|And in the meantime, you're making statements that are pretty close to completely meaningless. Science's explanations are "undefinable"? Would you care to take a stab at telling us what that's supposed to mean?|
What needs to be cleared up is this;
If YOUR human life did not start at YOUR conception then when did it start?
If science cannot tell you then how can it tell you anything else?