RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (8) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >   
  Topic: Life Doesn't Begin at Conception?< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Spike



Posts: 49
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Mar. 31 2006,15:14   

Triple extra points for you! - Jupiter :p  :p  :p

  
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: 1773
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: 1773
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"  :p ).

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: 1773
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: 1773
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

:D

--------------
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: 539
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: 539
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: 1773
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?)

  
  239 replies since Mar. 30 2006,21:26 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (8) < 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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