Antievolution.org :: Antievolution.org Discussion Board The Critic's Resource on Antievolution

Antievolution.org Discussion Board > From the Panda's Thumb > After the Bar Closes... > Life Doesn't Begin at Conception?

Pages: (8) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] >

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,11:04    Quote (thordaddy @ April 11 2006,15:48) Are you serious?  Arguing about definitions for human life is meaningless?  Even when that wallowing in meaninglessness presents a life/death conundrum?  I asked if YOU could define human life.  I didn't ask if others could?  So since human life "can" be defined, give us YOUR definition. I'm frankly wondering why I'm replying to someone who neither reads nor understands what others are writing, but here goes: We don't legally define (and the legal definition is the only one that matters here) the beginning of human life as conception for several reasons. The most obvious reason is because you can't define something as a "beginning" when you can't readily determine when that "something" happens. Who knows at what instant in time they were conceived? Most women don't even know they're pregnant until several weeks after conception. Outside of the lab, it's impossible to determine conception much more accurately than that. This is one of the reasons why we don't have funerals for fertilized eggs that fail to implant in the uterine lining. Everyone knows when they were born. That's an easily-determined, readily-apparent moment in time, that can easily be determined within a few minutes either way. It's also uncontroversial. As Thordaddy has amply demonstrated, you can argue for hundreds of thousands of words whether life begins at conception or at some time before or after that; one can argue whether a specific genotype is more important than a central nervous system, whether consciousness begins at conception and ends at birth, etc. Legal issues are complex enough, Thordaddy, without interjecting definitional elements that can't even be determined without a great deal of expense and inconvenience to all concerned. Yes, I know you're not persuaded by arguments that cannot be boiled down to a yes-no answer. But fortunately for millions of women nationwide, your opinions don't carry legal authority. As much as you insist otherwise, the abortion issue is fraught with nuance and ambiguity, a weighing of rights and responsibilities, and there's no one-size-fits-all solution that will satisfy everyone. This is exactly why the decision about whether or not to terminate a pregnancy should be a private matter between a woman and her doctor, and possibly (but not necesarily) involving the father, depending on circumstance. If you think you can collapse all of that ambiguity down into a simple yes-or-no (and we already know what your answer to that question is) solution, you're quite simply wrong. As in mistaken, not knowing what you're talking about, and of an opinion that simply isn't supportable. Can we possibly put a fork in this one? -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,11:29    ericmurphy opines, Quote I'm frankly wondering why I'm replying to someone who neither reads nor understands what others are writing, but here goes: Come up with any answers yet? Quote We don't legally define (and the legal definition is the only one that matters here) the beginning of human life as conception for several reasons. The most obvious reason is because you can't define something as a "beginning" when you can't readily determine when that "something" happens. Who knows at what instant in time they were conceived? Most women don't even know they're pregnant until several weeks after conception. Outside of the lab, it's impossible to determine conception much more accurately than that. This is one of the reasons why we don't have funerals for fertilized eggs that fail to implant in the uterine lining.[quote] Is that really the legal argument for why we don't define human life starting at conception?  I thought the legal argument was that women had privacy rights over their own bodies.  This "right to privacy" translated into a right to abortion.  This is the legal argument.  A weak one indeed.   Conception is conception.  It needs no further clarification.  It represents the beginning of a unique human life and everyone who has ever lived has experienced conception (a beginning).  Your attempt is to create ambiguity.  This represents the antithesis of science.  It's asking us to remain in a state of ignorance. [quote]Everyone knows when they were born. That's an easily-determined, readily-apparent moment in time, that can easily be determined within a few minutes either way. It's also uncontroversial. As Thordaddy has amply demonstrated, you can argue for hundreds of thousands of words whether life begins at conception or at some time before or after that; one can argue whether a specific genotype is more important than a central nervous system, whether consciousness begins at conception and ends at birth, etc. Actually, being born just represents when a child is no longer a part of a woman's body.  That's it.  But then we have those cases of partial-birth abortion and the severing of umbilical cords.  Birth is certainly not the beginning of life if conception isn't. Quote Legal issues are complex enough, Thordaddy, without interjecting definitional elements that can't even be determined without a great deal of expense and inconvenience to all concerned. What's so controversial about saying if you get pregnant you must accept the responsibility to bring your child into this world to raise it or give up for adoption?  What is controversial about that societal notion? Quote Yes, I know you're not persuaded by arguments that cannot be boiled down to a yes-no answer. But fortunately for millions of women nationwide, your opinions don't carry legal authority. As much as you insist otherwise, the abortion issue is fraught with nuance and ambiguity, a weighing of rights and responsibilities, and there's no one-size-fits-all solution that will satisfy everyone. This is exactly why the decision about whether or not to terminate a pregnancy should be a private matter between a woman and her doctor, and possibly (but not necesarily) involving the father, depending on circumstance. This would be a legitimate concern if it weren't for the fact that an innocent human life is being killed based on the whim of another individual.  It's mother of all people, too!  We aren't talking about balancing rights and responsibilities, but rather whether one human being may kill another based on personal choice and the legal power to do so? Quote If you think you can collapse all of that ambiguity down into a simple yes-or-no (and we already know what your answer to that question is) solution, you're quite simply wrong. As in mistaken, not knowing what you're talking about, and of an opinion that simply isn't supportable. Can we possibly put a fork in this one? You may stay in a state of ambiguity.  Isn't doesn't bother me.  It will bother you though.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,12:02    Quote (thordaddy @ April 11 2006,16:29) Is that really the legal argument for why we don't define human life starting at conception?  I thought the legal argument was that women had privacy rights over their own bodies.  This "right to privacy" translated into a right to abortion.  This is the legal argument.  A weak one indeed. Here we go again. We're barely a paragraph into your response, and already you've fundamentally misinterpreted what I said. I didn't give a legal argument for not defining the beginning of life as conception; I gave a practical argument. Do you understand the distinction?   Quote Conception is conception.  It needs no further clarification.  It represents the beginning of a unique human life and everyone who has ever lived has experienced conception (a beginning).  Your attempt is to create ambiguity.  This represents the antithesis of science.  It's asking us to remain in a state of ignorance. You're acting as if I'm saying the moment of conception is ambiguous. As usual, you simply cannot follow a simple argument. What I am saying is that it's impractical to define life as beginning at conception because the moment of conception is difficult to pinpoint. If you disagree, then I'd like you to outline a procedure by which a woman could determine the exact moment of conception. Is this something she should do continuously for, say, 48 hours after sex? Does that seem a workable solution to you? Quote Actually, being born just represents when a child is no longer a part of a woman's body.  That's it.  But then we have those cases of partial-birth abortion and the severing of umbilical cords.  Birth is certainly not the beginning of life if conception isn't. Here we are, a few thousand words later, and you still don't get it. You'll never get it. You are constitutionally incapable of getting it. Quote What's so controversial about saying if you get pregnant you must accept the responsibility to bring your child into this world to raise it or give up for adoption?  What is controversial about that societal notion? Gee, Thordaddy, what's so controversial about the idea that if you're raped, you shouldn't be saddled with the consequences of someone else's crime? Quote This would be a legitimate concern if it weren't for the fact that an innocent human life is being killed based on the whim of another individual.  It's mother of all people, too!  We aren't talking about balancing rights and responsibilities, but rather whether one human being may kill another based on personal choice and the legal power to do so? As usual, you fail to make the distinction between a "human life" and a "person." As has been pointed out to you no fewer than twenty times, this is an important legal distinction. Your failure to understand the difference pretty much disqualifies you from even having an opinion on the subject. Quote ...an innocent human life is being killed based on the whim of another individual. Here's another reason why you're simply not equipped emotionally to discuss this issue, Thordaddy. Women do not get an abortion on a "whim." Obviously you've never seen, or known, a woman who has had to get an abortion, and seen them anguish over their choice. Your dismissal of their emotional pain shows just how clueless you are about the entire subject, and who manifestly unfit you are to try to argue about it. Quote You may stay in a state of ambiguity.  Isn't doesn't bother me.  It will bother you though. I'm not the one who's in a state of ambiguity. Life and experience are fraught with ambiguity, and your inability to understand that causes you to trip over your own shoelaces over and over again. You persist in your belief that life is black and white, and it's not. It's life's very ambiguity that makes you burn up a few hundred thousand words in trying unsuccessfully to argue that science proves that abortion, any abortion, for any reason, is murder and should be forbidden. And, if you're wondering who's bothered by this ambiguity, I should point out that you're the one who's been spouting your anguish over an issue that doesn't even actually concern you, unless you're thinking of having an abortion yourself. Why does this issue trouble you so, 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

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,13:34    ericmurphy opines, Quote Here we go again. We're barely a paragraph into your response, and already you've fundamentally misinterpreted what I said. I didn't give a legal argument for not defining the beginning of life as conception; I gave a practical argument. Do you understand the distinction? But you said earlier, Quote We don't legally define (and the legal definition is the only one that matters here) the beginning of human life as conception for several reasons.   Quote You're acting as if I'm saying the moment of conception is ambiguous. As usual, you simply cannot follow a simple argument. What I am saying is that it's impractical to define life as beginning at conception because the moment of conception is difficult to pinpoint. "Impractical" in what way?  It's only "impractical" for "pro-choicers" and their "right" to abortion.  It's certainly not "impractical" to that unique human life striving to live.   Conception does not need be pinpointed by the human eye to ascertain its beginning, does it?  It began and we know because the aborted fetus is all the proof we need. Quote If you disagree, then I'd like you to outline a procedure by which a woman could determine the exact moment of conception. Is this something she should do continuously for, say, 48 hours after sex? Does that seem a workable solution to you? Why do we need to pinpoint conception?  It is self-evident to the woman seeking an abortion.  She must naturally rationalize the insignificance of such a "beginning" even though her very life depended on the same "beginning."  You do the same thing. Quote Here we are, a few thousand words later, and you still don't get it. You'll never get it. You are constitutionally incapable of getting it. Maybe your ability to articulate your "ambiguous" view is the problem?  In fact, such an "ambigious" view seems incomprehensible by its very definition. Quote Gee, Thordaddy, what's so controversial about the idea that if you're raped, you shouldn't be saddled with the consequences of someone else's crime? Well, if the zygote is a human being then you are making an innocent person pay for the crime of another with ITS LIFE!  But of course, the zygote is but a "clump of cells."  Poof, problem solved? Quote As usual, you fail to make the distinction between a "human life" and a "person." As has been pointed out to you no fewer than twenty times, this is an important legal distinction. Your failure to understand the difference pretty much disqualifies you from even having an opinion on the subject. Actually, it's science that fails to make the distinction.  I merely assume the obvious due to the ambigious nature of science on this issue.  If there is indeed a difference between "human life" and a "person," then I am baffled as to why the latter takes primacy while it relies on the former for its very nature? Quote Here's another reason why you're simply not equipped emotionally to discuss this issue, Thordaddy. Women do not get an abortion on a "whim." Obviously you've never seen, or known, a woman who has had to get an abortion, and seen them anguish over their choice. Your dismissal of their emotional pain shows just how clueless you are about the entire subject, and who manifestly unfit you are to try to argue about it. You are equating the hurt feelings of a women who had an abortion to the actual death of her child?  Why would a women be so emotionally pained if not for the clear understanding that she is killing her child?  It is you that is not thinking clearly on this issue.  If a women were to refrain from abortion then her emotional pain would be nonexistent in this particular context.  Why does she fight for her "right" to emotional pain? Quote I'm not the one who's in a state of ambiguity. Life and experience are fraught with ambiguity, and your inability to understand that causes you to trip over your own shoelaces over and over again. You persist in your belief that life is black and white, and it's not. It's life's very ambiguity that makes you burn up a few hundred thousand words in trying unsuccessfully to argue that science proves that abortion, any abortion, for any reason, is murder and should be forbidden. And, if you're wondering who's bothered by this ambiguity, I should point out that you're the one who's been spouting your anguish over an issue that doesn't even actually concern you, unless you're thinking of having an abortion yourself. Why does this issue trouble you so, Thordaddy? I haven't said science has proved anything.  I said pretty much the exact opposite because you are an example of that science.  Science is ignorant on the issue of abortion.  It remains in a state of ambiguity, but only amongst its ideologues.  Real scientists are coming to impeachable conclusions about human life emerging at conception.  The knowledge only grows and there is little the ideologues can do about it.  Including you! My view changed with the birth of my children.  I used to be like you sucking up that latest euphemisms and relishing in the fact that I could deflect responsibility in serious matters of my own creation.  I got to see first hand TWICE what an abortion really means.  It means the killing of a unique individual.  I didn't need gods or religions to come to this conclusion.

BWE Posts: 1902 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,13:45    Quote What's so controversial about saying if you get pregnant you must accept the responsibility to bring your child into this world to raise it or give up for adoption?  What is controversial about that societal notion? I don't understand how guys think they should have a say at all. Women certainly aren't up in arms over vasectomies. I wonder why? She who carried the baby has the say. Period. If we only let women vote on the issue that would be better. But then, should the other half of the irresponsible party be able to absolve his financial responsibilities? -------------- Who said that ev'ry wish would be heard and answered When wished on the morning star Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it Look what it's done so far The Daily Wingnut

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,13:50    Okay, I've had enough. The mind-numbing repetition has worn out even my patience. Can you go argue this on an anti-abortion site rather than an evolution site, Thordaddy? You're the most unbelievable waste of bandwidth I've ever seen on an evolution website. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,14:08    BWE opines, Quote I don't understand how guys think they should have a say at all. Women certainly aren't up in arms over vasectomies. I wonder why? Because I believe in equality, tolerance and non-discrimination plus that abortion MAY BE MY child that my actions helped create.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2006,06:34    Quote (ericmurphy @ April 11 2006,18:50) Okay, I've had enough. The mind-numbing repetition has worn out even my patience. Can you go argue this on an anti-abortion site rather than an evolution site, Thordaddy? You're the most unbelievable waste of bandwidth I've ever seen on an evolution website. Don't forget Larry. I would say joint equal.

Nike Posts: 9 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2006,12:42    You can call it "human life" all you want, a zygote is still just a clump of cells that does not think or feel, so there is no reason why it cannot be destroyed, if the owner of the body it's in wishes.

Henry J Posts: 5786 Joined: Mar. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2006,16:13    Re "a zygote is still just a clump of cells" I though a zygote was one cell, and once it turns into a clump its called an embryo. Henry

argystokes Posts: 766 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 12 2006,18:36    Henry J, As I understand it, a zygote is a single cell, a blastocyst is a clump of cells, and an embryo is a clump of cells that has implanted into the uterus. -------------- "Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2006,05:10    8--> Quote (thordaddy @ April 11 2006,198) ... Because I believe in equality, tolerance and non-discrimination ... Yeah right, of course you do! The only thing I am unsure about here is wether I am witnessing irony or hypocrisy. EDIT: Oops. I forgot sarcasm.

RamsandGolf Posts: 4 Joined: Mar. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2006,06:26    Take this for what it's worth (I personally disagree with it), but here is what the South Dakota Task Force on Abortion said in preparing their report for the new anti-abortion law. “It can no longer be doubted that the unborn child from the moment of conception is a whole separate human being.”  (Pg. 10) ……   After setting forth their alleged scientific evidence for this, the Task Force (Majority Report only) concluded that “the scientific evidence not only supports the (fact that abortion terminates the life of a human being), but that “IT IS INDISPUTABLE”.  (Pg. 11)(emphasis added). The entire report can be viewed at SD Task Force Like I said, I personally disagree with this, but it's interesting.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2006,06:48    A zygote may produce: Nothing, if it fails to atach to the uterus. 1 Child if it does atach and a normal birth is the result. 1/2 a child if a chimera effect happens. 2 children, if it splits. Nothing, if it ataches and fails. >2 in some instances. Now, how does 1 zygote=1 unique human? (hindsight is not apropriate here).

Sanctum Posts: 88 Joined: Feb. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 13 2006,21:00    One biologist seems to think that science does inform conclusions regarding human life and abortion. He doesn't say quite how, unfortunately. http://pharyngula.org/index...._resist

Nike Posts: 9 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 14 2006,01:49    Quote (Henry J @ April 12 2006,21:13) I though a zygote was one cell, and once it turns into a clump its called an embryo. Sorry, I meant a blastula (I think) although the same argument applies for a single-celled zygote, and, arguably, for an embryo. I'm really picking low-lying fruit here.  The more advanced the pregnancy, the more human characteristics the fetus has. so the more sophisticated the debate gets.  However, worrying about the life of a zygote or blastula is just silly.  Most of the people who do probably wouldn't bat an eye about the agonies cattle go through to provide them with hamburgers and shoes, and often seem to be more worried about microscopic cells than actual children their government is dropping bombs on.  Let's get some perspective! zygotes = single cells embryos = clumps of cells men, women, children = breathing, feeling, thinking, talking human beings Where should the priorities lie in preserving human life?

steve_h Posts: 544 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 14 2006,03:47    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 13 2006,11:48) 2 children, if it splits. In which case we have one zygote which began at conception which becomes two which began at the time of the split. We had one "person" and now we have two, so one is slightly older than the other, even though they both began at the same time(s).

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 14 2006,07:39    Quote (steve_h @ April 14 2006,08:47) In which case we have one zygote which began at conception which becomes two which began at the time of the split. We had one "person" and now we have two, so one is slightly older than the other, even though they both began at the same time(s). One of the reasons I stated, back about a month ago, that the whole "life begins at conception" argument is one of the stupidest arguments the right wing has ever come up 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

Nike Posts: 9 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 14 2006,12:01    I also made the point earlier about twins.  Even more problematic, I think, is when two zygotes, or "persons", result in a single human life, called a chimera.

steve_h Posts: 544 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 14 2006,12:24    Oops! sorry Nike, I've not been following this thread very closely, but I just went back and found your comment. I like the way that it that must not be fed subsequently quotes your questions about these examples but makes no attempt at all to answer them.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 14 2006,12:54    Nike opines, Quote zygotes = single cells embryos = clumps of cells men, women, children = breathing, feeling, thinking, talking human beings Where should the priorities lie in preserving human life? Nike the zygote = single cell Nike the embryo = clump of cells Nike the man/women = breathing, feeling, thinking, talking Nike Where should the priorities lie in preserving Nike? I would say that if the priority didn't lie with Nike the zygote then your position is one of existential agnosticism.

Nike Posts: 9 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 14 2006,17:29    Quote (thordaddy @ April 14 2006,17:54) Where should the priorities lie in preserving Nike? The priority should be in preserving my life as a thinking, feeling, breathing, talking and typing human being, obviously.  I am no more concerned about existence of the zygote and embryo I descended from any more than of the sperm and egg that they were descended from, or of any of my single-celled ancestors from billions of years ago.  If any of those had not existed, then I would not be here to worry about it, so why should I worry about it now?  My hypothetical non-existence does not bother me, but since I do exist, I care about continuing my existence.  If my mother wanted to abort me, she should have been able to. At no time did I ever identify myself (Nike) as a zygote or embryo.  I can only identify as a sentient being, not a potential one.  Cells are not capable of identifying themselves.

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 14 2006,17:50    We also retain the option of terminating our lives at any time. The question of how old we NEED to be to make this decision, shows which question we are begging. Human newborns are notoriously useless. It's a couple of YEARS before humans can even feed themselves, even when conditions stack the deck so they can hardly avoid it. Similar long periods of time are required before even the most primitive cognitive abilities start to appear - to associate vision with objects, words with meaning, etc. We might reasonably argue that we become *actual persons* at the age where our cumulative experiences are sufficient to allow us to resist the sort of idiotic religious indoctrination that has permanently incapacitated thordaddy.

thordaddy Posts: 486 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 15 2006,12:59    Nike and Flint, You're typical of the selfish individualist analogous to the black affirmative action recepient closing the door on the brother behind him. You're alive, so why worry about whether others get that same chance?  You could care less.  You only care about your sentient self. I still remain amazed how psuedo-scientists could elevate the importance of the conscious being to that of the being at conception.  The former NEEDS the latter and not vice versus.  This is science.  How can that which gave you life (conception) be so devalued when it is ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED for you to be here pontificating its unimportance?

Nike Posts: 9 Joined: April 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 17 2006,01:24    Why on earth should I care about the non-existent?  "Conception" did not "give me life".  My life is part of an unbroken chain going back billions of years to primitive unicellular (and perhaps even non-cellular) organisms.  I am related to all organisms living today or in the past.  Their numbers are uncountable, yet should I be concerned about each and every cell in existence?  And you want me to worry about ones which never existed! No, I do not care about every sperm and ovum "getting a chance."  Had a different one of my father's sperms entered my mother's ovum, then someone else would have been born, and I would never have existed.  Should I cry, "boo hoo!" because millions of potential siblings didn't make it?  Or about my twin zygote which may have not made it? Do you think that I even care about my own zygote?  As I said, if my mother wished to terminate my embryo, she should have been able to.  This is not about me.  Of course I care about my continued existence, since I already exist, just as I care about yours and all other people who have been born. A zygote has no thoughts, no feelings, no desires.  To equate this cell to a conscious human being, who does all these things, is illogical.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 18 2006,11:07    Quote (Flint @ April 14 2006,22:50) ... Similar long periods of time are required before even the most primitive cognitive abilities start to appear - to associate vision with objects, words with meaning, etc. ... I have to disagree with that. My earliest memory is within a few days of being born. I was definately thinking (all-be it in a different way {I was thinking in pictures rather than words} I also had some idea about recognising my parents and maternal grandparents).

Flint Posts: 478 Joined: Jan. 2006 (Permalink) Posted: April 18 2006,11:20    Stephen Elliott If you are correct, you are WAY unique. You might enjoy reading this article, which much more closely reflects my understanding... Quote A new Canadian study is the first to systematically mark the onset of "childhood amnesia" in children rather than adults. The research shows that by our tenth birthday our early pre-school memories have receded into an inaccessible past. It's a result, the lead researcher says, that further deepens the mystery around the fate of our earliest autobiographical memories. "I expected that they would differ, but there's a striking similarity in the age of the earliest memory for adults and ten-year-olds," says Dr. Carole Peterson, a psychologist at Memorial University of Newfoundland. Her study, funded by NSERC, was published in the August issue of the journal Memory. The results extend what Dr. Peterson calls the paradox of surrounding childhood amnesia – adults’ inability to recall autobiographical events that occurred before the age of four. Four- and three-year-olds can readily recall events from their second year.

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 18 2006,11:50    Quote (Flint @ April 18 2006,16:20) Stephen Elliott If you are correct, you are WAY unique. You might enjoy reading this article, which much more closely reflects my understanding... ... I doubt I am that unusual. Early memory. My parents had a hard time believing me, until I recounted the event. TBH. Recounting acurately is impossible. I had no language and thought in pictures. I can remember where I was positioned and who was anoying me. I wanted her to go away. What I thought was a picture/image of her walking out the room. I was able to know the difference between what was happening and what I desired. I recognised my parents and maternal grandparents. But not as such a relationship. Rather it was people I was comfortable with. Emotions played a part, but not as sophisticated as later in life. Mainly it was security/insecurity. I have lots of pre-school memories. However they are not linear. Rather it is a disjointed bunch with gaps.

ericmurphy Posts: 2460 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 18 2006,12:24    Quote (Stephen Elliott @ April 18 2006,16:50) I doubt I am that unusual. Hmm…within a few days of birth? How would you know? Couldn't they just as easily be within a year of birth? I don't know about you, but not much changed in my immediate surroundings (e.g., where I lived, where my bedroom was, etc.) in the first year of my life. I know I have memories dating to before my third birthday, because I have specific visual memories of the house I lived in at the time. But these are memories dating back to when I could understand at least some English. Are you saying you have memories going back to before you understood any language? I'd guess that makes you part of a vanishingly small minority. Most people I know can't remember anything before first grade. -------------- 2006 MVD award for most dogged defense of scientific sanity "Atheism is a religion the same way NOT collecting stamps is a hobby." —Scott Adams

Stephen Elliott Posts: 1776 Joined: Oct. 2005 (Permalink) Posted: April 18 2006,12:37    Definately within a few days. I was in the "front room". I had a bedroom when a few months old. I was fresh out from hospital. I have pre-language memories from my own bedroom. Scared as #### about wallpaper. I can remember my mother teaching me to read before school. Loads of memories from Liverpool and we left when I was 3 years old. At age 2 I can remember waiting for my sister to be born. 9 months seemed so long it felt like an age. I remember playing on my rocking horse and drinking from a bottle. Skinning my knee on the doorstep and punching the kid who lived over the street. Watching TV "watch with mother". All this was pre-3 year old.

Pages: (8) < ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] >

Track this topic	Email this topic	Print this topic

© 2002-2009 Antievolution.org Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a © 2001 Ikonboard