RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (8) < ... 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: April 07 2006,11:32   

em,

Well, you've changed what you are saying in our conversation.

The initial discussion is if life comes down to yes/no questions.

Fundamental questions. Underlying questions. Not ALL questions.

That's the only thing I was talking about.

No wonder you can't make coherent arguments. You keep changing what you're talking about.

You are not worth the effort of continuing a conversation with.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,11:56   

Quote (Spike @ April 07 2006,16:32)
em,

Well, you've changed what you are saying in our conversation.

The initial discussion is if life comes down to yes/no questions.

Fundamental questions. Underlying questions. Not ALL questions.

That's the only thing I was talking about.

No wonder you can't make coherent arguments. You keep changing what you're talking about.

You are not worth the effort of continuing a conversation with.

Excuse me?

When have I ever said anything about "fundamental" questions here? If anyone's changing the terms of the debate, Spike, you are.

My original point, which you can read at the top of the previous page if you've forgotten it, is that there's a certain kind of person, who seems to be very similar to our own Thordaddy, who simply cannot abide ambiguity, and sees everything in yes/no, black/white, on/off binary terms.

You jumped in with some statement, which I never really understood, about finding quotes to support a particular point of view (is this supposed to be surprising? That's why we quote stuff). After pointing out that you had misconstrued my point, I said, and this is a direct quote:

Quote
Not all of life comes down to yes/no answers.


I can't imagine a less controversial assertion to make. Nevertheless, you and Thordaddy both begged to differ. I then spent a few hundred words explaining as patiently as I could that your claim that some questions can be answered with a yes or a no does absolutely nothing to sustain your more general (and more astonishing) claim that all questions have yes-or-no answers.

How we got from there to only "fundamental" questions having yes-no answers is anyone's guess.

If you wanted to talk about something else, or change the subject of the debate, that's fine. But don't pretend to be replying to something I said, completely change my meaning, and then accuse me of switching horses mid-stream once you find out your horse can't swim.

And you're wrong anyway. Asking whether a virus is alive or not is pretty fundamental, but you can't answer it with a yes or a no, because your answer is going to differ based on your definition of "life" (a term that so far is not very rigorously defined). But what would be a more "fundamental" question? Does a virus "exist"? I guess that's a yes/no kind of question, but it's beyond fundamental, it's just kind of pointless to ask in the first place. Most of your examples of "fundamental" questions (does light have a speed?) are pretty pointless, and generally go without saying.

But at this point I can only assume you're conceding the point. Any other pointless arguments you'd like to have?

--------------
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 07 2006,12:58   

I admit, I do sometimes suffer from that affliction known as "needing to have the last word." But, after this post, em can have the last words:

"Not all of life comes down to yes/no answers."

=/ "All questions have yes/no answers."

You won't even read your own posts.

I also like the way you've brushed off the entire human endeavor known as Ontology with this statement:

Quote
But what would be a more "fundamental" question? Does a virus "exist"? I guess that's a yes/no kind of question, but it's beyond fundamental, it's just kind of pointless to ask in the first place. Most of your examples of "fundamental" questions (does light have a speed?) are pretty pointless, and generally go without saying.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,13:22   

ericmurphy,


When did your life begin if not at conception"

How's that for a non-yes/no question?

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,14:44   

Quote (Spike @ April 07 2006,17:58)
I admit, I do sometimes suffer from that affliction known as "needing to have the last word." But, after this post, em can have the last words:

"Not all of life comes down to yes/no answers."

=/ "All questions have yes/no answers."

You won't even read your own posts.

I also like the way you've brushed off the entire human endeavor known as Ontology with this statement:

Quote
But what would be a more "fundamental" question? Does a virus "exist"? I guess that's a yes/no kind of question, but it's beyond fundamental, it's just kind of pointless to ask in the first place. Most of your examples of "fundamental" questions (does light have a speed?) are pretty pointless, and generally go without saying.

Well, that certainly was nonsensical.

But if I can figure out what you're driving at, you're claiming a disjunct between saying "not all of life comes down to yes/no answers" and saying "not all questions have yes/no answers." (Your notation actually says "Not all of life comes down to yes/no answers" is not equal to "All questions have yes/no answers," and if that's what you meant, you won't get an argument from me.)

If that's what you're trying to say, then you're doing what the French call "couper les cheveux en quatre," which takes the splitting hair thing a bit further than we Anglos do. If I didn't make myself clear that when I said "Not all of life comes down to yes/no answers," I meant "Not all of experience comes down to yes/no answers," all I can say is that I assumed (possibly incorrectly) that English is your first language. Maybe it's not?

But if your point is, "all questions about life have yes or no answers," or even "all questions about whether something is alive" have yes or no answers, you're still wrong. See above.

In the meantime, as far as your ontology point goes: since you brought up the subject of fundamental questions as distinct from the other kind of questions, I don't see where it gets you anywhere. If you think it's more important to ask whether viruses exist than it is to ask whether they're alive, well, I guess you're entitled to your opinion. But I think the rest of the scientific community is kind of past your question.

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

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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,14:47   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 07 2006,18:22)
ericmurphy,


When did your life begin if not at conception"

How's that for a non-yes/no question?

Very good, Thordaddy! I see you've finally come to your senses and realized that life isn't entirely black or white.

Here's another non-yes/no question that's just as meaningful as your question: What's north of the north pole?

--------------
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

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

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

I have come to the conclusion that Thor is not a religious person after all, because he thinks life starts at conception.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

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

ericmurphy,

But this question assumes you answered "yes" to the question, "are you alive?"

Avocationist,

My stance is very simple,  There is no evidence that would have me conclude that MY LIFE started anywhere other than AT MY CONCEPTION.  Is this really that controversial?  If so, why?

  
Stephen Elliott



Posts: 1776
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,17:36   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 07 2006,22:31)
ericmurphy,

But this question assumes you answered "yes" to the question, "are you alive?"

Avocationist,

My stance is very simple,  There is no evidence that would have me conclude that MY LIFE started anywhere other than AT MY CONCEPTION.  Is this really that controversial?  If so, why?

Can you remember your conception? Do you know anyone who can?

Is a bird's egg a bird?

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,21:15   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 07 2006,22:31)
ericmurphy,

But this question assumes you answered "yes" to the question, "are you alive?"


At the expense of prolonging the agony, Mr. Thordaddy, I'm going to point out that the question, "Are you alive?" does not have a yes-or-no answer.

It can only be answered one way: "Yes."

Think about it.

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

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

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 07 2006,21:20   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 07 2006,22:31)

My stance is very simple,  There is no evidence that would have me conclude that MY LIFE started anywhere other than AT MY CONCEPTION.  Is this really that controversial?  If so, why?

Right, Thordaddy. No evidence at all.

OTHER THAN THE HUNDREDS OF TIMES WE'VE GIVEN YOU ALTERNATIVE PLACES YOUR LIFE STARTED THAT ARE JUST AS LOGICAL.

Don't you ever get tired of repeating the same stupidity over and over again?

--------------
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 08 2006,12:30   

Stephen Elliot opines,

Quote
Can you remember your conception? Do you know anyone who can?

Is a bird's egg a bird?


I can't remember my birth and as far as I know no one else can either.

The question still stands and your answers can follow in a 1...2...3 fashion following my quoted question.

What evidence LEADS YOU AWAY from presupposing that YOUR LIFE BEGAN anywhere other than AT YOUR CONCEPTION?

I can't make it any clearer and until we get a definitive response to this specific question we can't proceed.

We already assume your are alive and human.

Gentlemen, your answers, please?

  
Nike



Posts: 9
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2006,13:50   

I am new to this forum, and I haven't read every reply here, but I have been thinking about this question lately.

First, though, we need some definitions.  On the face of it, this question does not make much sense.  What do we mean by "life" or "human life"?  Because, life obviously does not begin at conception, but long before!  The fertilized zygote is a mating of two separate living gametes.  Those gametes came from other living cells, through our parents, grandparents, and so on, all the way back through humans, other hominids, early mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, etc., and eventually to the very first living forms that arose billions of years ago.  That is when life began; all life existing today has split from the original stock, including human life.  That is to say, there is no beginning of life when a sperm enters an ovum; the ovum changes into a zygote, but does not change from non-life to life.  The ovum was already alive, as was the sperm.  The unfertilized ovum was already human, as was the sperm, although each contained only half the genetic material that adult human cells contain.

Perhaps what the asker meant was, when does life become an individual human being, separate from its mother?  But that merely begs the question, what is a human being?  And one can define the term to fit whatever answer one wants.  So if one wants to claim that life begins at conception, one might simply define a human being as the product of an ovum fertilized by a sperm.

Some religious people believe that a human being begins when a soul comes down from heaven and implants into the ovum at the same moment as the sperm.  The problem with this is that the soul cannot be observed, so this is purely a religious belief, which cannot be proven or disproven.  There are, however, some logical problems with this belief.

It has long been known that two separate individual human beings can come from a single zygote.  These are called identical twins.  This raises the question of what happens to the soul?  Does it also split?  Or does a new soul come down from heaven?  Or does one of the twins get the soul, and the other be soulless?  For hundreds of years, it was commonly believed that the soul does not enter the body until later, so it is ironic that so many now insist that it happens at a particular moment before the zygote splits.

But now we also know that, not only can one zygote split into two, but two separate zygotes, each the product of an separate ovum and sperm with different DNA, can merge together and grow into a single individual, called a chimera, with different DNA in different parts of its body.  This raises the question of what happens to both souls?  Does the individual have two souls?  Does one die?  Does the soul not enter the body until later, as earlier thinkers believed?  Or is there no such thing at all?

While a case may be made for fetuses which have beating hearts and developed nervous systems to have some sort of rights, the same argument does not hold for undifferentiated clumps of cells, as zygotes are in the first couple weeks of pregnancy.  The primary argument against terminating them is the religious one, that they have some invisible thing called a soul that means that they cannot be killed.  (Unlike all those men, women and children we drop bombs on, etc.)  Because of this dogma, we have opposition to "morning after" pills, therapeutic cloning, embryonic stem cell research, embryo reduction, in vitro reproduction, etc.

The true answer to when an individual human being begins, is that it does not happen at any particular moment, but the embryo develops gradually into a person over time, with no clear demarcation, and it is really arbitrary when it gets labelled as a human being.

  
avocationist



Posts: 173
Joined: Feb. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2006,14:40   

Quote
But that merely begs the question, what is a human being?  And one can define the term to fit whatever answer one wants.
 Really?

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2006,15:58   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 08 2006,17:30)
I can't make it any clearer and until we get a definitive response to this specific question we can't proceed.

We already assume your are alive and human.

Gentlemen, your answers, please?

Proceed with what, Thordaddy?

Do you honestly think it's worth my time to actually have a discussion with you when you ignore everything I say that you don't like?

If you want to know why I think it's stupid to think your life begins with conception, I suggest you re-read the threads you've asked the question in, because I sure am not going to re-type it all over again so you can ignore it for the tenth or fifteenth time.

--------------
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 08 2006,19:39   

Quote (avocationist @ April 08 2006,19:40)
Quote
But that merely begs the question, what is a human being?  And one can define the term to fit whatever answer one wants.
 Really?

Sure, I've seen it done.  If someone wants a human being to originate at conception, they simply define the term in such a way that it comes into existance then; for instance, a human being is defined as having a unique genome with a full complement of human chromosomes.  Sperm and ova have unique genomes, but not all the chromosomes until they come together.

But some might define a human being as something that thinks and feels, that has a head and a heart and a brain and other attributes which are commonly associated with human beings.

I believe that the Supreme Court defined a human being as being able to survive outside of its mother's body.

One could even say that a human being exists only outside its mother, after taking its first breath and stops being a fetus.

Since there is no universally accepted definition, it comes down to semantics.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 08 2006,20:50   

Quote (Nike @ April 09 2006,00:39)
Since there is no universally accepted definition, it comes down to semantics.

This is about the twentieth or thirtieth time you've been advised that the question is not one science can answer, Thordaddy.

Are you ready to accept that yet, or do you need to be told another hundred or so times?

--------------
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 08 2006,23:59   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 08 2006,17:30)
Stephen Elliot opines,

Quote
Can you remember your conception? Do you know anyone who can?

Is a bird's egg a bird?


I can't remember my birth and as far as I know no one else can either.

The question still stands and your answers can follow in a 1...2...3 fashion following my quoted question.

What evidence LEADS YOU AWAY from presupposing that YOUR LIFE BEGAN anywhere other than AT YOUR CONCEPTION?

I can't make it any clearer and until we get a definitive response to this specific question we can't proceed.

We already assume your are alive and human.

Gentlemen, your answers, please?

I am about done with answering you Thordaddy. There is no point trying to explain a position just to have it ignored.

Thordaddy it is bleeding obvious (and has been for quite a while), you wish to define human life as starting at conception. You then want to use that to argue against abortion.

You wish to define women who choose to abort and the medical staff who help them as criminal.

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2006,00:23   

Nike,

Don't bother.
Your arguments are straight and logical- unfortunately, they've been pointed out to thordaddy a dozen times at least -literally. For a dozen times he's ignored them and kept posting the same "questions" again and again -and again, and again.
That's what he does. When the answer to his "arguments" doesn't suit him, he ignores it. He answers to someone else, and after a while posts the same old stuff and claims nobody answered him.
When he's unable to avoid facing our answers, he bails out and starts another thread where he posts the same stuff all over again, trying to start a "debate" with someone who hasn't figured him out yet. He's got five threads running already for that reason.

Now, I don't know about you, but that spells T-R-O-L-L in my book.

--------------
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 09 2006,00:53   

Hey Faid, let's see how "logical" Nike's arguments are?

Quote
First, though, we need some definitions.  On the face of it, this question does not make much sense.  What do we mean by "life" or "human life"?


You and I and everything we were from the time of conception.  Human life.  Or, are you doubting yourself?


Quote
Because, life obviously does not begin at conception, but long before!


Yes, "obviously!"  That's why WE call it conception and without you are non-existent.  

Quote
The fertilized zygote is a mating of two separate living gametes.  Those gametes came from other living cells, through our parents, grandparents, and so on, all the way back through humans, other hominids, early mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fish, etc., and eventually to the very first living forms that arose billions of years ago.


Then that life has not died and you only have the illusion of independence.  You are a mere conscious outgrowth of one very large and very old SINGLE ENTITY.


Quote
That is when life began; all life existing today has split from the original stock, including human life.


This is when YOUR LIFE began?  You are billions of years old and just look how perfectly time unraveled for you.

Quote
That is to say, there is no beginning of life when a sperm enters an ovum; the ovum changes into a zygote, but does not change from non-life to life.


Yes, but sperm and egg are like tires and car.  Unless they come together, what's the point?

Quote
The ovum was already alive, as was the sperm.  The unfertilized ovum was already human, as was the sperm, although each contained only half the genetic material that adult human cells contain.


Ok...what does this have to do with YOUR CONCEPTION?  Were you really a human and alive before your conception?

Quote
Perhaps what the asker meant was, when does life become an individual human being, separate from its mother?  But that merely begs the question, what is a human being?  And one can define the term to fit whatever answer one wants.  So if one wants to claim that life begins at conception, one might simply define a human being as the product of an ovum fertilized by a sperm.


And the question is... Why wouldn't human life be defined by conception?  I see no reason to believe that MY LIFE started anywhere other than AT MY CONCEPTION.  Do you have strong evidence for deciding against YOUR LIFE beginning AT YOUR CONCEPTION?

Quote
Some religious people believe that a human being begins when a soul comes down from heaven and implants into the ovum at the same moment as the sperm.  The problem with this is that the soul cannot be observed, so this is purely a religious belief, which cannot be proven or disproven.  There are, however, some logical problems with this belief.

It has long been known that two separate individual human beings can come from a single zygote.  These are called identical twins.  This raises the question of what happens to the soul?  Does it also split?  Or does a new soul come down from heaven?  Or does one of the twins get the soul, and the other be soulless?  For hundreds of years, it was commonly believed that the soul does not enter the body until later, so it is ironic that so many now insist that it happens at a particular moment before the zygote splits.

But now we also know that, not only can one zygote split into two, but two separate zygotes, each the product of an separate ovum and sperm with different DNA, can merge together and grow into a single individual, called a chimera, with different DNA in different parts of its body.  This raises the question of what happens to both souls?  Does the individual have two souls?  Does one die?  Does the soul not enter the body until later, as earlier thinkers believed?  Or is there no such thing at all?


What's up with the religious arguments?

Quote
While a case may be made for fetuses which have beating hearts and developed nervous systems to have some sort of rights, the same argument does not hold for undifferentiated clumps of cells, as zygotes are in the first couple weeks of pregnancy.


What arbitrary bullcockey.  That "undifferentiated clump of cells" was actually you at one time.  If you didn't deserve "rights" then... then why do you deserve "rights" now?  This is pure opinion based on nothing substantive.

Quote
The primary argument against terminating them is the religious one, that they have some invisible thing called a soul that means that they cannot be killed.  (Unlike all those men, women and children we drop bombs on, etc.)  Because of this dogma, we have opposition to "morning after" pills, therapeutic cloning, embryonic stem cell research, embryo reduction, in vitro reproduction, etc.


The primary reason against killing YOUR ZYGOTE is that YOU WOULD BE DEAD.  You seem perversely at ease with this?

Quote
The true answer to when an individual human being begins, is that it does not happen at any particular moment, but the embryo develops gradually into a person over time, with no clear demarcation, and it is really arbitrary when it gets labelled as a human being.


Yes, and those who find justifications for abortion are all too content at keeping this sort of mindset.  A mindset that says, "Ignorance is bliss."

  
Faid



Posts: 1143
Joined: Mar. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2006,02:23   

Stop your gibberish, Thor. The fact that Nike doesn't know yet about your little charade with the words "life" and "human life" and their interchangeable meanings, doesn't mean that you can still bother us with it.
As for answers to your overwhelming questions, take the time and trouble to look back a couple posts in any of your trolling threads and just read them. Not that I expect you to, of course.

--------------
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."

  
Nike



Posts: 9
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 09 2006,03:27   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 09 2006,05:53)
Hey Faid, let's see how "logical" Nike's arguments are?

Quote
First, though, we need some definitions.  On the face of it, this question does not make much sense.  What do we mean by "life" or "human life"?


You and I and everything we were from the time of conception.  Human life.  Or, are you doubting yourself?

You define human life as "You and I and everything we were from the time of conception."  But this is your original postulate!

Basically, you are claiming that human life begins at conception, simply because your definition of human life requires it!  But this does not prove anything, except my point.

How about an answer which actually explains something?  Why do you define human life as beginning at conception?  How do you know?  What criteria are you using?

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,11:48   

Nike asks,

Quote
How about an answer which actually explains something?  Why do you define human life as beginning at conception?  How do you know?  What criteria are you using?


Note: If you believe human life can't be defined including its individual beginning then nothing I say will have much impact.

But here we go again.

I define human life using all the available information I have at my disposal.

First, I use the common definition of "conception."  Conception means both the "beginning" and the coming together of sperm and egg to form a unique human organism.

Conception

That why I state that MY LIFE began AT MY conception.

But there is more and I approach it from a different direction.

If we assume that Nike's LIFE does NOT BEGAN at HIS conception then WHEN did it begin?

It seems to me that you only have 3 choices.  Please add more if you like.

(I assume that you believe that you are alive and human)

1. Nike's life has NO beginning.

2. Nike's life BEGAN before conception.

3. Nike's life BEGAN after conception.

When we evaluate #1 then either Nike is eternal or his life came from non-life.  There is NO scientific evidence for either of these propositions.

When we evaluate #2 we must invoke the "life from life" position.  Your life ACTUALLY began at the OOL and history unraveled much to your delight.  Everything happened perfectly over the course of several billions of years and now we have Nike.  You one old son of a gun!  But, are you an individual human life or are you a mere conscious outgrowth of one very large and very old Single Living Entity?

When we evalute #3, we delve into the debate concerning consciousness.  I think it is clear that consciousness develops over time.  I don't think there is ANY DIRECT EVIDENCE of newborn consciousness (I am conscious, I am newborn!;).  There is perhaps evidence of a low-degree of consciousness?  But this consciousness was ALREADY developing before birth and most likely started at conception.  There is NO evidence to suggest ootherwise.  Is there?

When I say that the definition of human life is ME, this is taking into account that many on this forum claim to be unable to define human life.  Outside of someone claiming their humaneness, what are these ambivalent scientists going to accept as a definition?

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,12:04   

Thordaddy: the Leonard Shelby of AtBC.

Thordaddy thinks that anything he's arguing is still in issue. It's been explained to him again and again that this stupid project of trying to draw a line at the "beginning" of life is a pointless waste of time. It's of absolutely no interest to anyone other than an anti-abortionist. He's been shown again and again why pointing to conception as the "beginning" of life is just as arbitrary as any other point in development.

But does he listen?

Arguing with Thordaddy is like arguing with a re-run of "Three's Company."

--------------
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 10 2006,13:02   

ericmurphy,

The more you pontificate the more you expose your motivations.

Questions

1. How can anything you just said not equally apply to you?

2. Isn't your motivation for declaring the "meaninglessness" of this conversation the whole strategy of the abortion lobby?

3. Are you the example of the guy that get through the door just to shut closed on the one behind you?

4. If you can't define human life then how do you know you are human life?  Do you even know?

If "conception" is arbitrary then why is it called "conception?"  It represents a specific point in time.  It represents the creation of UNIQUE DNA.  Some would call that a beginning.

You want me to dance blissfully to YOUR self-imposed ignorance.

  
ericmurphy



Posts: 2460
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: April 10 2006,14:38   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 10 2006,18<!--emo&:0)
ericmurphy,

The more you pontificate the more you expose your motivations.

Questions

1. How can anything you just said not equally apply to you?

2. Isn't your motivation for declaring the "meaninglessness" of this conversation the whole strategy of the abortion lobby?

3. Are you the example of the guy that get through the door just to shut closed on the one behind you?


The difference between your motivations and my motivations is I'm not trying to impose my belief system on anyone else (and before you disagree, tell me how my belief system is going to force anyone to get an abortion who doesn't want one).


Quote
4. If you can't define human life then how do you know you are human life?  Do you even know?


Where did you ever get the idea that I can't define human life? You keep saying this over and over as if it were true. It's a complete fabrication of your own inability to understand standard written English.

Quote
If "conception" is arbitrary then why is it called "conception?"  It represents a specific point in time.  It represents the creation of UNIQUE DNA.  Some would call that a beginning.


Again, a complete inability to understand English. I never said conception was arbitrary; I said it was an arbitrary location for the beginning of life. Please read what I write, not what you think I write.

--------------
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 10 2006,19:23   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 10 2006,18:02)
ericmurphy,

The more you pontificate the more you expose your motivations.
...

You want me to dance blissfully to YOUR self-imposed ignorance.

BANG! Another irony meter for the scrap.

Good grief!

  
Nike



Posts: 9
Joined: April 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,02:12   

Quote (thordaddy @ April 10 2006,16:48)
Note: If you believe human life can't be defined including its individual beginning then nothing I say will have much impact.

I never said that "human life" cannot be defined.  Of course it can; people make up definitions all the time!  Some of those definitions do not include undifferentiated clumps of cells.  The Supreme Court defined it as having viability outside the womb.  Arguing about definitions is pointless.

The real issue is, what should be the limits allowed in terminating pregnancy.  Some believe that it is wrong to prevent pregnancy before conception, i.e. contraception.  In some cultures, postnatal abortion was apparently accepted.

If you want to define human life as beginning at conception, that's fine, but that's not a good argument against allowing morning-after pills, embryonic stem cell research, therapeutic cloning, in vitro reproduction, etc.

  
Flint



Posts: 478
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,03:14   

Nike,

I spent, oh, half a dozen or more posts trying to explain that since this is an arbitrary definition, and no definition is inherently better than any other, the matter is properly decided through legal rather than scientific processes. But this observation never penetrated, not even a little bit. But I don't feel slighted, as I can see that nobody else's answers have done any better. The 'Eliza' program is more rational and coherent than thordaddy.

  
thordaddy



Posts: 486
Joined: Jan. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: April 11 2006,10:48   

Nike opines,

Quote
I never said that "human life" cannot be defined.  Of course it can; people make up definitions all the time!  Some of those definitions do not include undifferentiated clumps of cells.  The Supreme Court defined it as having viability outside the womb.  Arguing about definitions is pointless.


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.

Quote
The real issue is, what should be the limits allowed in terminating pregnancy.  Some believe that it is wrong to prevent pregnancy before conception, i.e. contraception.  In some cultures, postnatal abortion was apparently accepted.


But, I'm really only worried about America's stance as it represents my country and my roots.  I see a vast difference between using contraception and aborting a unique individual.

Quote
If you want to define human life as beginning at conception, that's fine, but that's not a good argument against allowing morning-after pills, embryonic stem cell research, therapeutic cloning, in vitro reproduction, etc.


Care to elaborate as to WHY it isn't a good argument?  I mean, what's the "good argument" against eugenics?

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

Pages: (8) < ... 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 >   


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

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