 |
Comments |
|
 | Wednesday, August 20, 2008 at 1:39:33 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Aaron Davies
E-mail: agd12(at)columbia.edu
What then would you say about the possibility of significant life extension breakthroughs within our lifetimes? How would a potentially infinite lifespan, barring accident or malice, affect these things? |
|
| Wednesday, August 20, 2008 at 4:20:53 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Gina Liggett
E-mail: GLiggett(at)comcast.net
By bringing in the possibility of "accident or malice" you are suggesting that life can be ended. The same applies. There is nothing in reality, save inanimate matter, that lives forever, so the supposition that we could one day extend life into infinity is not a believable possibility. I think it is more worthwhile to contemplate the facts of our existence. Even if we extend our lives to 200 years, we still face the hard cold reality of gravity--and if you bump your head hard enough, it will crack and you face the possibility of dying from that. |
|
| Wednesday, August 20, 2008 at 4:20:58 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: Gina Liggett
E-mail: GLiggett(at)comcast.net
By bringing in the possibility of "accident or malice" you are suggesting that life can be ended. The same applies. There is nothing in reality, save inanimate matter, that lives forever, so the supposition that we could one day extend life into infinity is not a believable possibility. I think it is more worthwhile to contemplate the facts of our existence. Even if we extend our lives to 200 years, we still face the hard cold reality of gravity--and if you bump your head hard enough, it will crack and you face the possibility of dying from that. |
|
| Wednesday, August 20, 2008 at 7:58:49 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Galileo Blogs
E-mail: rayniles(at)rcniles.com
URL: http://galileoblogs.blogspot.com
[Cross-posted on "Politics without God"]
Thank you for your insightful post. You explain the reason why a belief in an after-life is, essentially, anti-life. It devalues this life on earth and rationalizes policies that make life on earth more painful and deadly.
Every "believer" should think long and hard about what his belief in an after-life means. Of course, there is no evidence for a life beyond death and for that reason alone it should be rejected. But it should also be rejected for the reasons you cite.
Incidentally, when I consider that it is the finiteness of my life that gives the values I pursue their urgency and intensity, then I am thankful I have a limited lifespan. A limited lifespan and a life full of rich values go hand-in-hand. For a fictional illustration of this, I recommend the movie "Bicentennial Man," about an immortal robot who gradually gains humanity. Reconciling his ability to value with immortality is the story of the movie. |
|
| Wednesday, August 20, 2008 at 8:38:21 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: William H. Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
I'm glad to see this reappearing here. I thought it was quite the best piece I've seen on "Politics without God." It makes some points that are deserving of wider application.
One of the classic arguments for belief in God is "Pascal's wager." This is the one that says, "If God exists, and you believe, you'll go to heaven; if you don't believe, you'll go to hell. If God doesn't exist, and you believe, you've given up some of the enjoyment of your merely finite mortal life; if you don't believe, you haven't. You can't know if God exists, but a rational man will always wager a finite amount for the chance of gaining an infinite one. So you should believe."
This is a curiously insidious argument in that it doesn't argue that belief is rational in the sense of being likely to be true; in fact, it treats this as unknowable. Instead, it argues that believing is rational as an action, in the sense of being prudent. That is, its whole approach to theology is, "Play it safe." (Perhaps not surprising from the man who invented probability theory.)
But there's an important slip in the logic, and Ms. Liggett identifies exactly what it is. If there is a God, then my physical, mortal life is indeed only an infinitesimal moment in eternity, and of comparatively negligible value. But if there is no God, then my mortal life is all I have. In giving it up, I'm giving up EVERYTHING; in allowing it to be diminished, or my enjoyment of it to be taken away, I'm giving up all a large part of the only life I'll ever have. That choice is not infinitesimal, or negligible. By assuming that it is, Pascal is already adopting a theistic perspective, and tricking his readers into doing the same, smuggling in a premise that only makes sense as a conclusion from theistic premises.
Ms. Liggett's comments make explicit the opposite and true position: the importance, indeed as she says the sacredness, of mortal life on Earth, the value of the finite. Well said. |
|
| Wednesday, August 20, 2008 at 9:34:51 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: Steve D'Ippolito
There's another slip in the logic. The assumption that the choice is between the god of the Bible versus atheism. Leaving out allah, etc. It could be that by deciding to believe in the god of the Bible, you will *really* piss off allah. Or some god we don't even know about.
Yet another: How do you compel yourself to believe in something for pragmatic reasons?
In response to earlier comments--I read somewhere that if all "natural" causes of death (disease, old age) were eliminated, we'd basically have a life expectancy of something like 800 years before some accident or foul play did us in. Even if this number is not quite accurate, you see the point--that is far from infinite (infinitely so in fact).
Needless to say if we became immune to disease and aging, we'd probably put a lot more of a premium on safety than we do now, to say nothing of fighting crime, and this number could increase. |
|
| Wednesday, August 20, 2008 at 9:53:34 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: William H. Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
Pascal actually talked about how you get yourself to believe. What he said was that you should go to church, pray, receive the sacraments . . . and over time, you would find yourself starting to believe. It probably would work for a lot of people, with the help of a little lack of mental focus.
As to the problem of which God you should have faith in, that indeed is a flaw in Pascal's argument, as Anthony Flew pointed out several decades ago. It's one that didn't occur to Pascal, I suppose, because he was a Frenchman, living in a country that had only one established church to which nearly everyone belonged, with dissenters keeping quiet for their own safety. Which is yet another nuance of theocracy: If people are never exposed to differing religions, their own perspectives are likely to be narrow, to the point where they can't imagine more than one faith.
But I was interested in Ms. Liggett's argument because it strikes at a new flaw in Pascal's argument, one that I haven't seen addressed elsewhere. Certainly Flew's "God and Philosophy" didn't mention it, and it's about as comprehensive a critique of Christian theism as you could ask for. So I think it may be a new point, and I think it's an important one. |
|
| Wednesday, August 20, 2008 at 11:35:45 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: z
E-mail: shekfu(at)hotmail.com
Everyone, where do you think the desire to punish comes into this? I never understood anti-abortionists, so called "pro-lifers". I've been trying to come up with some essential characteristic of this type of mentality. I'd ask myself: "Self, how can many of the people be in favor sending soldiers to Iraq to kill adults, possibly innocents accidentally, but be opposed to stopping the growth of a tiny embryo or fetus?" What I came up with is that these people have a strong desire to punish! It makes sense to me. It even ties in environmentalists, who seemingly "don't care" about the implications of their actions. What do you think? |
|
| Wednesday, August 20, 2008 at 11:54:20 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Grant Williams
E-mail: grant.d.williams at gmail
Another contradiction in Pascal's Wager:
Obviously, belief in God and believe in the after life are part and parcel. The one makes the other possible. What that means, then, is that "life after death" cannot be identical to life on Earth spent as an atheist. So if one were to take Pascal's advice, and "give up" his atheistic life on Earth by believing in God, what he actually would be doing, in his terms, is simply living his life. It is a contradiction in terms to say that an after life without belief is something to be strived for on Earth at the price of temporary belief. If there were a Heaven, it would certainly be devoid of atheists. |
|
| Wednesday, August 20, 2008 at 12:17:50 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: Doug H.
E-mail: radiotheatre[at]gmail[dot].com
The idea of "infinite time" causing life to lose meaning is a common refrain among people coming to grips with their own mortality. I never really saw the logic.
If values are possible, then they are worth pursuing. So long as we are not certain of out own impending doom within the next moment, it is largely irrelevant whether the time we have left is 60 years or 600 years or 6000 years.
Even if we master one area of our existence, there would be countless others that we could invest our effort into. While eternity might make for a slower pace for most people's existence, it still would not change the capacity to learn and enjoy, nor would it change our needs to subsist, or more accurately, the requirements for man's survival. |
|
| Wednesday, August 20, 2008 at 14:18:11 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
I'm glad to see this idea posted here, as I've long used it as the rebuttal to Pascal's Wager, much as William points out. The emphasis on the afterlife has always seemed to disparage *actual* life to me, in much the same way that a belief in a "better world" disparages the actual world we live in. |
|
| Wednesday, August 20, 2008 at 15:03:44 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: Sascha Settegast
E-mail: sascha.settegast(at)gmx.de
URL: http://www.sascha-settegast.de
Being able to potentially live forever is not the same thing as being immortal. To be immortal means that there is absolutely no way that you could ever die, so your existence would not be conditional any longer, therefore no goals and no values. But it need not be unconditional even if you are potentially able to live for an infinite span of time. Living forever does not necessitate being immortal; it simply necessitates being forever succesful, in body (and that is the bigger problem) as well as in soul, in the pursuit of life-promoting values. |
|
| Wednesday, August 20, 2008 at 16:31:58 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: Roderick Fitts
E-mail: rodfitts(at)gmail.com
Doug H. says:
"The idea of 'infinite time' causing life to lose meaning is a common refrain among people coming to grips with their own mortality. I never really saw the logic."
Please see Rand's example of an "immortal, indestructible robot" in her essay "The Objectivist Ethics."
http://aynrandlexicon.org/lexicon/values.html
It's also drawn out in Leonard Peikoff's "Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand," pages 209-211, and Tara Smith's "Viable Values: A Study of Life as the Root and Reward of Morality," pages 87-90.
In short, life mandates needs, and values are goals in which action is initiated to fulfill those needs. In the sense relevant, it wouldn't matter if we lived for "60 years or 600 years or 6000 years," to use your phrase; we would still have needs which required fulfillment, and thus our actions would have meaning. Such would not be the case for an immortal being.
Immortality implies indestructibility. If a being's internal functioning were so extraordinary that it only needed to worry about external threats to its life, then it is still "mortal." In the context of what life is, "immortality," and thus "indestructibility," are violations of the law of identity. Here's why:
Life really *is* a process of self-sustaining, self-generated action: it means that a living being has certain organs parts and/or faculties which generate the actions necessary to sustain itself. Immortality implies that the processes of self-generation and self-maintenance are not only "unnecessary," but impossible--such a being would not have such organs and whatnot.
Such a being would not have external extremities--it has no need to reach out and grab things, or to evade other living things. It wouldn't have organs--it has no need to process anything. It couldn't "invest its effort" into anything because it has no need of generating energy, and thus engaging in effort (nor would it have means of *engaging* in anything). Immortality would not merely "change our need to subsist," like switching from a plant's form of subsisting to an insect's, but make them unnecessary to existence--the process of metabolism would not apply to an immortal being. Nor could an immortal being "learn and enjoy," since these capacities exist to serve a life-sustaining function; and underlying them, the mind, which does the learning and enjoying, also exists to keep the relevant entity in existence.
Immortality eliminates meaning in life, not only because it makes actions (and the means of carrying them out) pointless (and thus non-existent), but it extinguishes the fact that the relevant entity is *living*. Immortality violates the very nature of life.
I hope this helps you see the logic of that claim. |
|
| Wednesday, August 20, 2008 at 19:01:11 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: William H. Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
There's actually a distinction to be made here, between two different senses of "immortal." One is simply not having a built-in expiration date; the other is not being capable of ceasing to exist. Unaging versus indestructibility.
An unaging person could still die by violence, by accident, or by suicide, and perhaps even by illness. They would presumably still have a metabolism, and be able to die of hunger, thirst, asphyxiation, or exposure. They would need to take actions to avoid these conditions. They could just go on taking them indefinitely. If we developed medical technology that prevented natural aging, so that we remained biologically comparable to, say, thirty-year-olds, I don't see that that would make values pointless.
For an indestructible person, it would be different. They couldn't suffer tissue damage, so they wouldn't have a pain response. They couldn't die of hunger, so they wouldn't need to eat; or they could choose to eat plutonium compounds, or drink raw sewage, just for the novelty of the sensation. Or they could just sit in complete passivity waiting for eternity to pass. It wouldn't matter what they did; ultimately, not even to them.
Which I think is much what Roderick said, isn't it? |
|
| Wednesday, August 20, 2008 at 21:26:26 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: Jean
E-mail: DaveMatheny3000(at)comcast.net
I don't accept your premises at all. First, you posit "suffering" as an absolute evil, but I find that enduring suffering has, throughout history, formed strong character. It is the person who never faces suffering that is the wimp, who folds at the crucial moment. The training in the armed forces reflects this: recruits go through much suffering, by which the men are weeded from the boys.
When you posit "suffering" as an absolute evil, you are ignoring reality.
Someone mentioned Anthony Flew: besty not to do that, as he has left the atheist camp for some kind of belief in God.
Another person couldn't figure out the difference between fighting and killing in a war, and abortion. Oh fer Pete's sake, is it really that tough? The question of national defense, of untoward aggression, competiotion for resources; -- all of those things enter into war. Killing a fetus is hardly on the same moral ground. The fetus, with the exception of rape, could have been prevented by the simple act of saying "no" to sex, which is, after all, geared towards the production of fetuses. It is stupid and evasive behavior to equate the logical consequences of sex -- a baby -- with the often unlogical circumstances (and often downright evil) that provokes war. Use the brain cells -- that's what they're there for. |
|
| Wednesday, August 20, 2008 at 22:25:36 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: z
E-mail: shekfu(at)hotmail.com
Jean, Theres another way of stopping a fetus, namely: removing it, which prevents the harmful consequence of saying "no" to sex. But, then we don't get to punish people for enjoying their lives.
Some of the same anti-abortionists, i'm thinking of the Sean Hannity listener types, love war because it also gives them a vicarious sense of punishing the evil.
I used to think this was inconsistent but now I see the bottom line, the love of punishing. The love of making people submit. |
|
| Wednesday, August 20, 2008 at 23:09:42 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: William H. Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
Jean,
You write, "Someone mentioned Anthony Flew: besty not to do that, as he has left the atheist camp for some kind of belief in God."
What on earth does that have to do with anything?
In the first place, if Flew is now a theist, is there any reason to suppose that he was persuaded to become one by Pascal's Wager? Flew himself has apparently said that he is a deist, believes in the first cause argument, and does not believe in the God of Christianity or Islam. That doesn't sound like much basis for supposing that he has rejected his critique of Pascal's Wager.
In the second place, suppose that he has? People do change their minds, and sometimes they change from true to false beliefs; the fact that Flew has changed his mind does not prove that his current position is valid, or that his earlier arguments were invalid. In fact, if you look at accounts of his recent statements, they give a sad impression of floundering about between endorsements of inconsistent positions. This is sad, but it doesn't show that Flew's earlier views were wrong.
I'd also want to point out that I cited Flew not to prove the validity of the argument against Pascal's wager by appealing to his authority, but to give credit to Flew as one of the people who put it forth. I thought that Steve d'Ippolito's brief statement of the argument was more than sufficient to let anyone judge its validity, and my comment was intended merely to express agreement with it. |
|
| Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 6:24:13 mst
Comment ID: #18
Name: Doug H.
E-mail: radiotheatre[at]gmail[dot]com
Roderick, you're jumping ahead to a completely different consideration. I thought that my use of the word "mortality" in my first sentence would have been enough to specify the context of what I meant. I was speaking of atheists, not of religious people --- especially having said, "While eternity might make for a slower pace for most people's existence, it would still not change...the requirements for man's survival".
Excuse me if I was not clear, but quoting Rand in a context like this is more socially ostracizing than anything else.
As William was able to identify, there are two senses of being "immortal". First in the sense that one's well-being would be immune to all action, and the second being a purely self-regenerative way -- where one's lifespan is indefinite but one is not indestructible and still must follow certain courses of action to survive.
Of course I concur with the idea that the first sense of immortality is objectionable. It really shows how "heaven" and "hell" are the same thing.
But in that second sense of immortality, a "finite" existence is no more precious than in "indefinite" one. Therefore, defining "time" as the fundamental factor that gives our lives meaning is false. This is why I said "I never saw the logic". Perhaps to equate "time" in that sense with "finite" is not accurate, tho maybe that comes back to making the distinction between being indestructible and immortal. |
|
| Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 9:16:13 mst
Comment ID: #19
Name: Jean
E-mail: DaveMatheny3000(at)comcast.net
"Jean, Theres another way of stopping a fetus, namely: removing it, which prevents the harmful consequence of saying "no" to sex. But, then we don't get to punish people for enjoying their lives."
Ah, I see: it's OK to punish OTHER people so one can enjoy one's life!
Look, one doesn't have to be religious to see the obvious childish silliness here: the purpose of sex is to produce offspring and to cement bonds between the parents in order to best raise that offspring and thus perpetuate the species. To kill another human being (it's not a frog or monkey, and it's not a body part)the logical product of sex. is to be a perpetual child who wants what he wants with no consequences for his actions. Waaaahhh -- I wanna stick my hand in a fire and not have it get burned!! Life is unfair! Waaahhh...
Your language is also interesting: you speak of "stopping" a fetus: Look out! A totally unexpected, foreign life has somehow invaded my body!! How can this have happened?? Someone stop it before it has a chance to be born!!
I've known plenty of women who had abortions. It left them very messed up. Stupid way to go about "enjoying" one's life.
Get a grip on reality. |
|
| Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 10:14:33 mst
Comment ID: #20
Name: Doug H.
E-mail: radiotheatre[at]gmail[dot]com
"...the purpose of sex is to produce offspring and to cement bonds between the parents in order to best raise that offspring and thus perpetuate the species."
Speak for yourself, bro. |
|
| Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 10:25:22 mst
Comment ID: #21
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
Jean wrote: "Ah, I see: it's OK to punish OTHER people so one can enjoy one's life!"
*WHAT* "other person" are you talking about? The whole point here is that we are talking about a fetus, not a person. In the early stages of pregnancy, we're not even talking about that, just a mass of undifferentiated cells. The whole point of abortion is the termination of pregnancy *before* the embryo/fetus becomes an *actual* person. To equivocate between a mass of protoplasm and an actual human being is the height of religious irrationality. |
|
| Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 10:26:45 mst
Comment ID: #22
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
"...I see: it's OK to punish OTHER people..."
Nice attempt at smuggling. But you've been caught at the border to rationality. A fetus isn't "someone" - not yet. It's still a some THING.
"...the purpose of sex..." More smuggled ideas! Man is not a mindless automaton. But ignoring the possibility of sex for reasons of consciousness (individual pleasure, happiness, pride) is telling. It fits in with your whole "suffering" as good motif.
Now you are certainly free to indulge your depravity - to seek out ALL the suffering, pain, loss, self-denial, and degredation you desire to inflict on yourself. But your freedom stops at masochism. You are not free to force your desire for sadism upon the rest of us (and that goes for the insults/personal attacks you keep tossing about. If you intend to engage in rational discussion, such abusiveness has no place here. If you don't intend in such discussion, then *you* have no place here).
Put simply, your existence may be about destruction and suffering. We choose a *different* standard - flourishing and happiness. So you are absolutely right when you say our "premises" are are not the same. Our premise is long life as a healthy human being. Your premise is an extended death as a demented animal. |
|
| Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 10:51:09 mst
Comment ID: #23
Name: z
E-mail: shekfu(at)hotmail.com
Jean wrote: "...is to be a perpetual child who wants what he wants with no consequences for his actions."
Dead givaway. I'll bet you're the one who wants to punish that "child". Teach her a lesson. Give her some consequences. That's what you can't stand, the idea that some people think the purpose of sex is enjoyment, only enjoyment.
Let God punish her, if there is one. |
|
| Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 12:45:22 mst
Comment ID: #24
Name: Jean
E-mail: DaveMatheny3000(at)comcast.net
"*WHAT* "other person" are you talking about? The whole point here is that we are talking about a fetus, not a person. In the early stages of pregnancy, we're not even talking about that, just a mass of undifferentiated cells. The whole point of abortion is the termination of pregnancy *before* the embryo/fetus becomes an *actual* person. To equivocate between a mass of protoplasm and an actual human being is the height of religious irrationality."
Religious irrationality? How about basic biology: a fetus, even in its most beginning stages, is a developing human being. It's not going to develop into a horse or dandelion. It's human, with its own DNA. There is no magic hour or stage in which it is so-o-o different than it was the millisecond before that we can now point at it and say, "NOW it's human!" It was human -- and unique -- the moment of conception. It's biology, folks. Open up your dusty textbooks from your high school years.
I am not allowed to shoot at what I THINK might be a deer in the woods: I am legally required to be certain, or else I will be guilty of negligence. If there is no agreement on this, why would you not opt for being for the life of the fetus? Why is killing the attractive option? Fond of death?
|
|
| Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 13:31:02 mst
Comment ID: #25
Name: z
E-mail: shekfu(at)hotmail.com
Jean, don't bring out biology as if you were being scientific. Its pure religion. You bring out DNA to make it sound like you are concerned with reality, being rational. You are still sacrificing a woman to what is at the time nothing more than a clump of cells. There is no reason to oppose abortion unless you believe that the speck is a product of God's will. But still, if it is, why not leave the punishment up to God, who supposedly exists? |
|
| Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 13:53:51 mst
Comment ID: #26
Name: Richard
E-mail: rbramwell(at)sympatico.ca
Skipping the abortion debate and existence of a Space Daddy, I would like to emphasize that it is not mortality that gives value to life. Certainly it makes one recognize that one only has so much time to live but, far more importantly, it is the values in oneself and in one's experience that gives value to life.
Parents initiate that understanding, by showing the child positive experiences... even that awesome chocolate-caramel-swirl ice cream figures in. As the child grows s/he sees the wonderfulness of (in special order) sports, other people, movies, animals (pets), peers and so on. As they become an adult, assuming rationality and thoughtful introspection, they accumulate experience and knowledge that says, "*MY Life* is worth it!"
Taken as a whole, they are the fundamental reason for living. They are the reasons that a strong mind realizes are worth enormous pain to sustain. |
|
| Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 14:18:03 mst
Comment ID: #27
Name: Freddy Ben-Zeev
E-mail: benzeev(at)comcast(dot)net
Gina, thanks for a very nice post.
Jean, when you say "... even in its most beginning stages, is a developing human being", you've just said that it is NOT a human being, it is just going to become one at some future point in time. Also, saying that the fetus is human does not mean it is a man; a fingernail is also human (different in DNA from nail of anything else).
On the "Pascal Wager" issue: George H. Smith, author of "Atheism: The Case Against God", has a "Smith's Wager", which suggests (my own words, and from memory) that you live your life as an atheist the best that you can, and when you die there are three possibilities:
1. There is no god: you lived your life the best you could.
2. There is a benevolent god: he'll understand that you did the best you could, and won't punish you for not believing in him without evidence.
3. There is a malevolent god: nothing you do will satisfy him any way, you cannot expect justice from him, so you may just as well ignore him. |
|
| Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 14:55:46 mst
Comment ID: #28
Name: Richard
E-mail: rbramwell(at)sympatico.ca
Jean's points about sex and supporting a fetus are not, in themselves, wrong. However, they reflect a common view of Man, and human biology, as being subject to the laws of Nature in full disregard for Man's *more essential* capacity for conceptual thought.
Basic biology is enough to make the point:
The protoplasm of a blastocyst and semi-formed fetus are not at all human. They only have human DNA, which in time will *alter* the fetus into something human. The real human does not emerge until the final stages of the third trimester.
Jean should study COMPARATIVE embryology (that is embryology of other organisms and humans) to grasp the amazing extent to which a human embryo, even in the second trimester, is more like a rat than a man. She need only go here:
http://www.biologyreference.com/images/biol_01_img0111.jpg
to see that DNA in a zygote (fertilized, single cell) begins a developmental process that works through the steps that (via Darwinian Evolution) will produce a human being. Before that human is formed, it is NOT a human, though one could call it a 'potential' human.
Furthermore, the DNA in the fetus may be able to MAKE a human, but Jean must grasp that IT HAS NOT DONE SO, until the final stages of the third trimester (as above).
WRT the idea that the fetus is developing via uniquely human DNA, Jean can surely grasp that the male and female contributions of DNA that MIGHT form the human zygote, may never meet. Whether it be from estrous cycles where no sperm are available or from wasted sperm (however that may occur). The human DNA not used is destroyed, wasted, irrelevant. The same is true of every miscarriage, which some studies suggest exceeds 70% of all (potential) pregnancies. Most of those pregnancies are written off by the couple trying, as simply a matter of having "not gotten pregnant yet". Nonetheless the "POTENTIAL child" was destroyed.
That anyone should hold an ACTUAL human being's life hostage to such a clump of cells is a despicable, anti-life, punishment based on nothing but some irrational belief that those POTENTIALLY human cells are *sacrosanct* â€"â€"while the mother is debased for the simple fact of being an ACTUAL human. I have no words for so depraved a view.
Jean's response to this, should she do so & given that she clearly has some knowledge of biology, should be interesting, as it will distinguish whether she is intellectually honest, or is pursuing her argument from blind faith.
P.S. Smith's Wager is far better than Pascal's! |
|
| Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 14:56:03 mst
Comment ID: #29
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
Jean wrote: "It's human, with its own DNA." Your fingernail has exactly the same DNA that you do. Does that make it as much a person as you are? Obviously not. Having human DNA, obviously, is not sufficient to make something a human being.
As for the rest: a potential is not an actual. There is no "magic hour" when a child becomes an adult, either. That doesn't mean that there isn't a huge and obvious difference between a baby and a grownup, or that we should treat the one no differently than the other. If you want to have a discussion about the morally and legally appropriate point at which to "draw the line" between a fetus and an infant human being, we can have an intelligent and civilized discussion about the issue. But not if you're going to insist, counterfactually, that is no fundamental difference between a baby and a mass of insentient protoplasm.
For the record, I maintain that the appropriate "dividing line" that you are looking for is *birth*. That is when the developing fetus actually becomes a biologically individuated entity, which philosophically is a prerequisite for possessing individual rights. |
|
| Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 14:56:18 mst
Comment ID: #30
Name: perl10
E-mail: perl10ngck(at)gmail.com
Speaking even as a Christian, I love this 'Smith's Wager.' It is always how I have lived my life. Will I go to heaven when I die? Don't know. Don't care. I am a Christian because of the wonderful things that worshiping Christ has brought into my life now, not later. Why must we always look at religion as absolutes. I honestly don't know any one that I associate with religiouly who does anything just because some preacher says so. I know they exist, but to throw them out as a viable choice confuses in an either/or argument deminishes any rational conversation on this subject.
All I can say for sure is that if some 'voice' tells me to sacrifice my child as in the story of Abraham, it could never convince me it's God. |
|
| Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 14:57:05 mst
Comment ID: #31
Name: Jean
E-mail: DaveMatheny3000(at)comcast.net
"Jean, when you say "... even in its most beginning stages, is a developing human being", you've just said that it is NOT a human being, it is just going to become one at some future point in time. Also, saying that the fetus is human does not mean it is a man; a fingernail is also human (different in DNA from nail of anything else)."
No, I have NOT said that it is not a human being, I am pointing out that a human being is developing: its development continues long past birth. A newborn looks very different from a mature man or woman, but it is still a developing human being. At no point is it some other kind of animal, vegetable, or mineral. Nor do you understand what I am saying about DNA: DNA is unique to INDIVIDUAL PERSONS (with the exception of identical twins, which share their DNA "fingerprint". That individual "fingerprint" is present in every cell of that individual, whether fingernail cell or blood cell.
" Its pure religion. You bring out DNA to make it sound like you are concerned with reality, being rational. You are still sacrificing a woman to what is at the time nothing more than a clump of cells. There is no reason to oppose abortion unless you believe that the speck is a product of God's will".
You're simply wrong. I know many atheists who oppose abortion because it devalues human life and -- history shows -- that is a destructive thing to do. Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, was all for getting rid of the "unfit", and abortion was merely one way of doing it. Her views were shared, of course, by the Nazis.
No woman is being sacrificed. As I said before, unless there is a case of rape, every woman ought to have the brains to figure out that sex makes babies. If she doesn't have the necessary brains, why should a human life be snuffed out because of her stupidity? |
|
| Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 19:59:10 mst
Comment ID: #32
Name: z
E-mail: shekfu(at)hotmail.com
Why don't you adopt an unwanted baby, or all 10million of them? Calling these women stupid! You just want to punish them for being ignorant, or having sex. Sorry, some women are ignorant. Some are young and men take advantage of them. You can't convince me you care for human life and still be against abortion. I just don't believe you. You want to punish people. Who cares about a clump of cells? You say you do. I just don't buy it. It drives you crazy that people have sex for enjoyment and you want to punish them for it. It drives you crazy that people feel they don't have a duty to God.
40 million abortions??? Thats right. And counting. |
|
| Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 20:57:06 mst
Comment ID: #33
Name: perl10
E-mail: perl10ngck(at)gmail.com
Calm down z. Your in a bloodlust, and in serious need of a chill pill!
Something you need to take into account is that the babies being killed are of your ilk, and would have grown up with your ideology. The religous types are out populating you. For me, abortion is a problem that comes with its own solution. It's almost (dare I say) Darwinian if you think about it. |
|
| Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 23:03:04 mst
Comment ID: #34
Name: Richard Watts
E-mail: rw1963(at)earthlink.net
Jean:
"...the purpose of sex is to produce offspring and to cement bonds between the parents in order to best raise that offspring and thus perpetuate the species."
Whose purpose? Would you then say that it is wrong for childless people to use condoms, have vasectomies, or get their tubes tied so they can have sex for enjoyment, without unwanted pregnancies?
"As I said before, unless there is a case of rape, every woman ought to have the brains to figure out that sex makes babies. If she doesn't have the necessary brains, why should a human life be snuffed out because of her stupidity?"
And in the case of a woman is pregnant because she was raped -- should it be illegal for her to have an abortion? |
|
| Thursday, August 21, 2008 at 23:22:09 mst
Comment ID: #35
Name: Richard Watts
E-mail: rw1963(at)earthlink.net
Perl10:
"All I can say for sure is that if some 'voice' tells me to sacrifice my child as in the story of Abraham, it could never convince me it's God."
Ah. Because that would be unreasonable. And neither should Abraham have listened, had that fable been true. But then, if you only listen to what is reasonable, what would you need a god for? You can reason for yourself. |
|
| Friday, August 22, 2008 at 0:11:26 mst
Comment ID: #36
Name: William H. Stoddard
E-mail: whswhs(at)mindspring.com
URL: http://whswhs.livejournal.com/
Jean: I think there are several things to be said about your posts on abortion. I'm going to combine them in one somewhat long post.
1. You don't seem to believe your own assumptions. You argue repeatedly that a fetus is human; and that can only have a point if it means "has the rights of a human being, including the right to life." But at the same time, you seem to be making an exception to your argument for a woman who is impregnated by rape.
Well, suppose that she is? The fetus didn't rape her; when she was raped, the fetus didn't even exist, because it came into existence as a result of the rape. So far as the rape is concerned, it's an innocent third party. Are you saying that it's okay to punish a child for the crime of its parent? And, in fact, to punish it more harshly than its parent could be punished, since rape does not carry the death penalty? If you really believed that a fetus has the right to life, it seems that you would have to forbid abortion even in cases of rape.
2. Your arguments about the pregnant woman having known that sex led to pregnancy seems to point to a different argument with different implications: that the woman consented to become pregnant by consenting to sex. This seems like a kind of "assumption of risk" argument.
Well, but what if the woman and her partner(s) used condoms, or a diaphragm? What if she took oral contraceptives? What if he had a vasectomy, or she had a tubal ligation? All of these acts seems clearly to indicate that she did not intend her sexual activity to lead to pregnancy. But there are known cases of pregnancy following all of them. Are you saying that people have the same duties and responsibilities for events that they tried to bring about, for events that they freely took the risk of, and for events that they tried conscientiously to prevent, only to be defeated by an accident?
If I park on a hill, and set my brakes, and an undiscovered mechanical defect causes the car to roll downhill and kill someone, should I face trial for murder?
3. You cite the damaging aftereffects of abortion. Well, any major surgery has damaging aftereffects. So does chemotherapy. But if I get cancer, are you going to forbid me to have it treated, to protect me from those aftereffects? Or are you going to let me decide to get treated, on the basis that the consequences of untreated cancer are even worse? Sometimes people have to make hard choices. Some of those people are pregnant women. I don''t think many women have abortions lightly, or without considering whether carrying the pregnancy to term is even worse. Why is it your business to protect them from themselves?
4. It's not really valid to talk about the purpose of sex, or of any biological function. Sex is the result of evolution, and evolution is not purposeful. But we can talk about the ways in which a biological function contributes to inclusive fitness.
In some animals, sex contributes to inclusive fitness only by producing offspring. But that's not true of human beings. Our sexual activity isn't limited to copulation of a male with a fertile female; both sexes are capable of desiring copulation throughout the female's fertility cycle, and even after the female is no longer fertile. At least the former case argues that sex is performing some function other than reproduction (most likely the creation of a lasting emotional bond between sexual partners). So any argument that says that sex is "for" reproduction is biologically invalid for our species. |
|
| Friday, August 22, 2008 at 0:14:04 mst
Comment ID: #37
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
Jean's problem is not only biology - its epistemology as well.
'Unique DNA' is not the definition of 'human being'. A strand of DNA can be completely unique. And it can be 'human', as opposed to belonging to some other species. But it is the FOULEST equivocation (grotesque irrationality) to say that 'human' and 'human being' are the same concept. They are not.
Put simply, a mass of cells is NOT a being - certainly not a *human* being, regardless whether those cells are human or not. |
|
| Friday, August 22, 2008 at 4:26:23 mst
Comment ID: #38
Name: perl10
E-mail: perl10ngck(at)gmail.com
Richard,
What do I need God for? Nothing. What do I want God for? Everything. Miracles are those gifts from God that we can't explain. Just because we can now explain them does not make them any less a gift. You use reason to explain away God. I use reason to praise him. |
|
| Friday, August 22, 2008 at 4:34:08 mst
Comment ID: #39
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
Jean writes: "DNA is unique to INDIVIDUAL PERSONS (with the exception of identical twins..." Your own exception disproves your argument. DNA is NOT "unique to individual persons," since identical twins have the same DNA (to say nothing of clones, when cloning is perfected). The idea that having a "unique genetic fingerprint" is in any way relevant to the objections raised to your view is nonsense. Having human DNA is not sufficient to make something a *human being*, with individual rights. That happens at birth, when the fetus has developed into a clearly human form (as Richard points out, in the early stages of development, it is anything but), *and* becomes biologically individuated from the host mother.
Being biologically connected to and dependent on, and physically contained within the mother's body is a fundamental difference that changes at the time of *birth*. So when you claim that: "There is no magic hour or stage in which it is so-o-o different than it was the millisecond before that we can now point at it and say, 'NOW it's human!'," you are simply wrong. The hour is biological, not magical, it marks the change in status to becoming an *individual* human *being*, and it happens at birth. |
|
| Friday, August 22, 2008 at 4:47:36 mst
Comment ID: #40
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
Perl, with all due respect, your comment about miracles as gifts from god is literally incoherent. Anything that you can't explain is a miracle, and thus a gift from god? And if you learn to explain it, it's still a miracle? What about if you were able to explain it from the beginning? Is it then not a miracle? If it isn't, then what's supposed to be the important difference between something you learn to explain and something that you knew how to explain from the beginning? If it is, then doesn't that mean that you've vacuously defined non-miracles out of existence, since you've now exhausted all logical possibilities? |
|
| Friday, August 22, 2008 at 6:06:03 mst
Comment ID: #41
Name: z
E-mail: shekfu(at)hotmail.com
BrianS, I think thats a fantastic point about the equivocation between the concept of human and human being. I was thinking along the same lines last night and I looked up the word "being" but I was too sleepy to make the point I wanted to. A fetus is not a human 'being'. Its human, without a doubt, but it is not a human being until birth. |
|
| Friday, August 22, 2008 at 8:37:16 mst
Comment ID: #42
Name: Richard
E-mail: rbramwell(at)sympatico.ca
In support of Tony's comment, at #40 â€"â€" Perl makes absolutely everything a miracle... and off we go to the Bible, Talmud, Koran, with inquisitions, tribalism and jihad. Nice one Perl. |
|
| Friday, August 22, 2008 at 9:55:20 mst
Comment ID: #43
Name: Richard
E-mail: rbramwell(at)sympatico.ca
In my comment at #28 I wondered aloud whether Jean would make use of the facts the comment provided.
In her next comment #31 she wrote, "…it is still a developing human being. At no point is it some other kind of animal, vegetable, or mineral. Nor do you understand what I am saying about DNA: DNA is unique to INDIVIDUAL PERSONS (with the exception of identical twins, which share their DNA "fingerprint". That individual "fingerprint" is present in every cell of that individual, whether fingernail cell or blood cell."
Jean, in writing that, you completely disregarded the facts I offered on embryology, and on the transient and disposable nature of DNA (either in eggs, sperm or in miscarried offspring). It also follows that you are struggling, perhaps without really knowing it, to justify a mystical view of 'humaness' using the few things you do know about embryo development, and have projected that 'mystical ideal' onto DNA. Persistence in that view is not an act of reason, but of blind, unreasoning, faith. On the presumption that you do not wish to use so un-comprehending a means of working with your mind, please read on, and pursue the links I provide.
First, Jean, what about the wonderful, *fully implemented*, DNA of the mother, including the incredible *functioning* human mind it produced and her body supports? The anti-abortion view seeks to impose a slavery on that actual human *mind* --which has the mother's unique DNA copied into every cell-- in favor of her *uterus*, the embryonic DNA that has not yet done its job, and has not created enough neural structures to produce a fetal 'mind' (until late in the third trimester).
Even when those neural structures are ready to start absorbing information about the world, the mind is still undeveloped and, essentially, blank. At best, the fetus is more an animal than a full human being. If you doubt this, see "The Miracle Worker" (1962 version). Below, I call attention to two key parts.
You will be able to observe how Helen Keller's (9 yr old?) mind was less comprehending than that of a 1 yr old dog. You can see it, brilliantly portrayed by Patty Duke in the famous Breakfast Scene, here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EHwoRFe70jk&feature=related Yes, she has learned many things and, yes, there IS a power struggle, but those are consequences of that lack of comprehension. They do not alter that fundamental point the scene demonstrates. You can see that her behaviour is based only on what little she learned through smell, taste & touch. Sure, she is physically human, but she is not much more.
Now, until you can watch the full movie, observe the final scene here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRq9G_B9yWY&NR=1 Helen has not yet grasped the meaning of the signs Annie Sullivan (by Anne Bancroft) spent weeks trying to teach her. The father is giving up. However, as a baby, before Helen lost her sight and hearing due to a fever, she had just begun to say "Wa wa". It proved to be the link to *human* thinking that Annie had sought. Obviously, the scene is stylized, but it is built on the records from Annie Sullivan's notes. Observe the change in Helen when she suddenly grasps that things have names (via symbols on her palm). To be human, literally, Helen's mind *required* concepts for her to develop a true human character. The actual human, because of the human mind’s conceptual faculty, is so more worthy of worship than any fetus. Unfortunately, few people in today’s culture understand that (many of those who do, frequent Noodlefood).
So, it is only the mother's choice to give birth to that *potential human* that gives it the chance to become a true human being, a Man (in the non-gender sense). On being born, a baby is *deemed* to be human for socio-political reasons based on the principle of *Individual* Rights. Such Rights do not and cannot apply before birth. At most, abortion is the termination of a semi-human animal dependent on the mother. No other human has any political or moral right or justification to intervene if she should seek an abortion.
That said, the mother knows she has a potential human being, and can judge that potential as being a possible value.. However, if that value is, in her judgment, dramatically outweighed by other values in her brilliant, actualized, life then her having an abortion is the proper *moral* thing for her to do.
When and if she has a child she *wants*, that child is a product of her mind's choice and not a product of her mind's 18 yr enslavement by some other person or group’s uterus-worshiping, protoplasm-worshiping, DNA-worshiping &/or god-worshiping dictate.
A woman is a Man; she is not God’s walking uterus. |
|
| Friday, August 22, 2008 at 10:19:57 mst
Comment ID: #44
Name: Richard
E-mail: rbramwell(at)sympatico.ca
In the previous comment, I mentioned Helen Keller's discovery of the essential human characteristic of conceptual thought (and reason). I want to add that you can also see how she became utterly focused on using her mind conceptually. Hers was not mere attention, a response to outside impingements on her senses, but a choice to think. That capacity to focus, on judging the meaning of all sensory input, is the difference between the largely unthinking, automatic behaviors of an animal and volitional concentration and decision making of a Man. That characteristic makes Man as different from animals as animals are from plants! It is not enough just to be human in DNA, or in body. Anyone can be a barbarian, it takes an effort (of focus and reason) to be a Man. Helen Keller understood that so well, that by 21 she achieved a University degree.
Why cannot normal children, without such sensory deprivation, achieve the same thing? Such is the modern education system. The philosophies it relies upon largely reject the nature of, and the relationship between, reality, the mind and concepts. Instead, they see learning as a process of storing discreet disconnected ideas in children's minds as if their minds were little more than a data storage program, with the occasional capacity for making 'interesting' links. Concept development and methods of abstract thought and reasoning are virtually non-existent, and lessons do more to inhibit them than to promote them. It is little wonder that so many teenagers and people in their early twenties (even at University) behave with incredible irrationality, even WITH all five senses functioning.
Discovering, and understanding Ayn Rand's body of ideas, called Objectivism, is every bit as important to one's life, to becoming a Man, as Helen Keller's grasping that things have names. |
|
| Friday, August 22, 2008 at 21:04:52 mst
Comment ID: #45
Name: Richard Watts
E-mail: rw1963(at)earthlink.net
Perl10, you said:
"You use reason to explain away God. I use reason to praise him."
What do you think reason is? |
|
| Friday, August 22, 2008 at 23:53:43 mst
Comment ID: #46
Name: Per-Olof Samuelsson
E-mail: per-olof.samuelsson(at)swipnet.se
URL: http://www.nattvakt.com
"Reason is the Devil's highest whore", according to Martin Luther (who undoubtedly knew his Bible).
How, then, does one use reason to praise God? Because whores were created by God? Or what? |
|
| Saturday, August 23, 2008 at 7:03:23 mst
Comment ID: #47
Name: Richard
E-mail: rbramwell(at)sympatico.ca
Even if God is real, isn't everyone who believes in Him and his morality, a spiritual and moral whore anyway? |
|
| Sunday, August 24, 2008 at 10:06:43 mst
Comment ID: #48
Name: Jean
E-mail: DaveMatheny3000(at)comcast.net
My, my.....I go away for a few days, and look at the insanity:
"Calling these women stupid! You just want to punish them for being ignorant, or having sex."
I don't want to "punish" women for having sex or being ignorant. I want them to understand that it is common sense to expect that having sex can lead to pregnancy. If women aren't ready to be mothers, they ought not to engage in the activity that produces motherhood. It's simply commmon sense. Even a chickadee has the sense to build a nest before it mates and lays eggs. Killing another human being because of the desire to not use common sense is stupid and childish.
"Before that human is formed, it is NOT a human, though one could call it a 'potential' human."
Please tell me when, in human history, this "potential" human has EVER developed into something that was not human. I must have missed that headline: "Woman gives birth to puppies". It's human, not "potentially" human.
"Put simply, a mass of cells is NOT a being - certainly not a *human* being, regardless whether those cells are human or not."
And what are you? A mass of cells. You have simply developed further -- though I'm starting to wonder about that.
"A fetus is not a human 'being'. Its human, without a doubt, but it is not a human being until birth."
What about premature babies? Are they not human, because they can't live without medical intervention? In the case of the wrongful death or murder of a pregnant woman, why then can criminals be charged with two deaths?
"Furthermore, the DNA in the fetus may be able to MAKE a human, but Jean must grasp that IT HAS NOT DONE SO, until the final stages of the third trimester (as above)."
Prove this assertion. The DNA in the fetus isn't a god: it can't decide to make a puppy instead. It is human DNA to begin with, not a non-specific entity. And why the division at the third trimester? What is fundamentally different about a baby near the end of the second trimester, than a baby a few days later in the beginning days of the third trimester?
If I destroy Bald Eagle eggs, I will be charged with a crime. No judge will accept that I only destroyed "potential" Bald Eagles.
You can't even decide amongst yourselves: you're saying third trimester, another poster says birth: again, if I shot at a deer without knowing for sure it was a deer, I can be charged. But somehow it's OK to default to the "kill" position when it involves the unborn?
|
|
| Sunday, August 24, 2008 at 10:47:51 mst
Comment ID: #49
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
""Put simply, a mass of cells is NOT a being - certainly not a *human* being, regardless whether those cells are human or not."
And what are you? A mass of cells." If Dave cannot PERCEIVE, let alone CONCEIVE, the difference between a few human CELLS and an actual human BEING, then the "insanity" here is on his part. However, I don't believe that Dave is insane. He is simply engaged in a disgusting EVASION - an evasion of the difference between 'CELL' and 'BEING'. And he is engaged in this WILFUL evasion in order to rationalize his ARBITRARY (ie faith-based) conclusions.
Of course, wilful evasion is worse than insanity, because the evader actually *chooses* to place his mind in the same state as the insane. CHOOSING a deranged mental state instead of facing reality demonstrates an utter contempt and grotesque hatred of existence itself. |
|
| Sunday, August 24, 2008 at 11:10:58 mst
Comment ID: #50
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
Oh - and in case it eluded anyone, I would point out that Dave is STILL employing the same logical fallacy in the rest of his post. Dave continues to equivocate between the meaning of 'human' as identifying an *aspect* of the entity (ex - human blood, human DNA, human consciousness, etc) and 'human' as identifying the entity itself (ie - that thing which possesses all those aspects). In other words, he is equivocating between a modifier and that which is modified. So you can toss out all those other objections without a further thought - leaving the tired old 'Borderline Case' objection (which is an attack on 'conception' of a completely different kind, and which is another reason I pointed out Dave's fundamental problem here is epistemology not biology). |
|
| Sunday, August 24, 2008 at 12:14:48 mst
Comment ID: #51
Name: Jean
E-mail: DaveMatheny3000(at)comcast.net
Brian,
I am quite aware of the distinction between the use of the word "human" as an adjective (for example, human blood, human DNA) and its use as a noun indicating "human being". I'm sorry if that wasn't made clear to you: in my earlier post, I forgot to add the word "being" after the word "human" when I asked, "What about premature babies? Are they not human..." My bad.
My statement, however, is still correct: you and everyone else is, biologically speaking, a mass of cells. To dismiss the "human being-ness" of a fetus on the grounds of it being merely "a mass of cells" is to invite this comparison, though you may try to evade it.
And to ignore the distinction between a fetus and, say, a mass of blood cells, is to evade the obvious: nine months down the road, the blood cells aren't going to crying, gurgling, and sucking at their mother's breast. This is common sense.
Oh, and earlier a poster asked, "So far as the rape is concerned, it's an innocent third party. Are you saying that it's okay to punish a child for the crime of its parent? And, in fact, to punish it more harshly than its parent could be punished, since rape does not carry the death penalty? If you really believed that a fetus has the right to life, it seems that you would have to forbid abortion even in cases of rape."
Actually, I would (if it were left to me) forbid abortions even in the case of rape precisely for the reasons you very eloquently state: in what other case do we kill the child for the crime of its father? However, it isn't up to me, and since killing unborn children is so acceptable even without rape being part of the situation, I will settle for an incremental approach: at least prohibit the millions of unborn killed as a form of late birth control. |
|
| Sunday, August 24, 2008 at 13:17:25 mst
Comment ID: #52
Name: Burgess Laughlin
E-mail: burgesslaughlin(at)macforcego.com
URL: http://www.aristotleadventure.blogspot.com
Dave/Jean/Whoever: "This is common sense."
If I recall correctly, you have appealed to "common sense" several times. Would you define that, please? |
|
| Sunday, August 24, 2008 at 13:52:10 mst
Comment ID: #53
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
"I am quite aware of the distinction between the use of the word "human" as an adjective (for example, human blood, human DNA) and its use as a noun indicating "human being"." Your responses demonstrate otherwise (ex - "I must have missed that headline: "Woman gives birth to puppies". It's human, not "potentially" human."). But it is heartening to have you now dropped the equivocation. As such, we can dismiss those nonsense 'arguments'.
"My statement, however, is still correct: you and everyone else is, biologically speaking, a mass of cells." Except that your statement EVADES the point I made with my post. Your statement ignores the distinction BETWEEN a mass of cells and a being. A human being certainly has cells. But a mass of human cells is NOT the definition of human being. The terms are not synonymous because the things being identified are NOT the same. And that, if you will recall, was the point I made with MY statement.
Blood is a mass of cells. But human blood is not the same as a human being. Blood is NOT the being. Bone is a mass of cells. But human bone is not the same as a human being. Bone is NOT the being. A human sperm is not a human being. A human egg is not a human being. The combination of the two is not a human being. That you continue to avoid the distinction between such masses of human cells and an actual human being is the grotesque evasion of which I spoke.
"...nine months down the road, the blood cells aren't going to crying, gurgling, and sucking at their mother's breast." What the cells MAY eventually BECOME does not change the fact of what they ARE at conception. They are simply a mass of cells. They are NOT a human being. Not YET (as you implicitly *admit* with your "nine months down the road" comment).
Again, if you cannot even perceptually, let alone conceptually, distinguish between cells in a petri dish and yourself, the "insanity" here is on *your* part. |
|
| Sunday, August 24, 2008 at 14:35:40 mst
Comment ID: #54
Name: Jean
E-mail: DaveMatheny3000(at)comcast.net
"If I recall correctly, you have appealed to "common sense" several times. Would you define that, please?"
The wisepread and correct apprehension of reality. (This as opposed to specialized knowledge in a particular field, such as physics.) For example, common sense would tell you that jumping out of a plane without a parachute is a bad idea. One doesn't need to have the experience of a skydiver to know that, not does one need to know the precise aerodynamics of a falling object to know that.
"Your statement ignores the distinction BETWEEN a mass of cells and a being. A human being certainly has cells. But a mass of human cells is NOT the definition of human being. The terms are not synonymous because the things being identified are NOT the same. And that, if you will recall, was the point I made with MY statement."
You know, I once engaged in a lively debate with a nutburger Baptist, who, like you, seemed to think that CAPITALIZING WORDS made his argument MORE FORCEFUL AND TRUE. But aside from that annoying habit, you are wrong: I am not saying that a "mass of human cells" is the definition of a human being. I never did. So stop the straw-man argument, please. I simply made the point that the dismissal of the fetus as a human being could not be because it was merely "a mass of cells", as we all are, biologically speaking, a "mass of cells".
"What the cells MAY eventually BECOME does not change the fact of what they ARE at conception."
Facts don't change just because they interfere with your desires. "MAY" become???!! Please give me one example in which a human embryo developed, all on its own, into a non-human.
"They are NOT a human being. Not YET (as you implicitly *admit* with your "nine months down the road" comment)."
I don't admit any such thing, implicitly or explicitly. A human being begins at some point: tell me, when is that? A baby one day before it's born looks very much like it does after it's been delivered. One day before that day, it looked very similar. Here's the point: development is a continuum, with a starting point (conception) and ending point (maturity). Change is ever-present, and obviously continues past the maturation into adulthood. This is a linear progression. At what point, then, are you going to decide that it's a human being? And if you're not sure, why come down on the side of killing human life? |
|
| Sunday, August 24, 2008 at 15:57:39 mst
Comment ID: #55
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
A genuine concern with "common sense" would not evade the *common sense* distinction between an unstructured smear of protoplasm inside a woman's body on the one hand, and a baby outside it on the other. Nor would an honest interlocutor continue asking questions that have already been answered repeatedly, such as "At what point, then, are you going to decide that it's a human being?" Since Jean seems to be more interested in hearing himself talk than in engaging in actual, honest debate, I'll leave him to it. |
|
| Sunday, August 24, 2008 at 15:58:15 mst
Comment ID: #56
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
"stop the straw-man argument, please." It is no straw man to identify the fact that you claim a mass of cells is a human being. You explicitly stated: "a fetus, even in its most beginning stages, is a developing human being." In other words, you identify that mass of cells as a being. The point you keep evading is that - at that stage - it is NOT a being at ALL. It is JUST a mass of cells. Nothing more.
""MAY" become???!! Please give me one example in which a human embryo developed, all on its own, into a non-human." What is your bizarre fixation on human cells becoming some non-human entity? Is the biological concept of miscarriage completely foreign to you? Do you seriously NOT grasp the fact that the mass of cells doesn't have to become a human being at ALL? That it may NEVER progress past the stage of being just a mass of cells?
Given your response, apparently these notions do indeed escape you.
Since you seem to need these things spelled out for you, I'll put this as simply as possible: 'the cells may eventually develop into that crying baby. Or the cells may not develop any further at all. Or the cells may develop but result in a still birth. Or may develop into a thing without a brain - or any number of pitiful, non-being outcomes. The point is, "What the cells MAY eventually BECOME does not change the fact of what they ARE at conception. They are simply a mass of cells. They are NOT a human *being*. Not YET."'
"Here's the point: development is a continuum, with a starting point (conception) and ending point (maturity)." Yes. Development FROM a mass of cells INTO a human being. As I have pointed out, you seek to evade the difference between just some CELLS and an actual BEING. And you are trying to do this now by engaging in an epistemological attack on 'conception' of an entirely different sort - ie by attacking the valid functions of a conceptual mind (something the faithful must necessarily resort to when dealing with rational arguments). Your attack takes the form of the 'borderline case' argument. It claims that, because there is no sharp delineation between two things, ANY distinction one makes whatsoever is ARBITRARY and thus invalid.
The usual example given is these attacks is color. It is pointed out that color is a continuous spectrum (much as you have pointed out 'development' is a continuous process). There is no physical dividing line in reality where yellow becomes orange or orange becomes red, etc. (just as you claim there is no physical dividing line where a handful of cells suddenly becomes a human being). There is just one uninterrupted spectrum (one uninterrupted process of development).
The claim that, because there is no physical dividing line on a spectrum, therefore no color red exists distinct from yellow, orange, blue, black, etc is just as insane as the claim that, because there is no physical dividing line in the progression of development from cells to a being, therefore no distinction exists.
This is the perfect example of the 'concrete-bound' mentality - of the 'insane' mentality which willfully cripples itself by limiting itself to the perceptual level - never reaching the level of valid conceptualization.
What makes this willful crippling worse is that, before engaging in this insanity, you explicitly rejected it. Unless it is NOW your claim that a mass of cells alone IS the definition of human being (which you have explicitly claimed it is not, ie explicitly claimed cells alone are NOT a being), then you necessarily reject conception as the point at which a human BEING comes into existence (since, at that point, it is JUST a mass of cells - nothing more). That means, all you are doing here is quibbling over what point BETWEEN conception and birth one can declare the fetus an actual human BEING. And that means you're quibbling over WHEN, not IF, an abortion may properly be performed.
So - good to have you on board! :) |
|
| Sunday, August 24, 2008 at 16:41:33 mst
Comment ID: #57
Name: Jean
E-mail: DaveMatheny3000(at)comcast.net
"A genuine concern with "common sense" would not evade the *common sense* distinction between an unstructured smear of protoplasm inside a woman's body on the one hand, and a baby outside it on the other."
I disagree: common sense tells us that a woman is pregnant. What is she pregnant with? A woman who wants her child is overjoyed to learn that she is pregnant; the mother who doesn't want her child chooses abortion because she doesn't want that child to be born. That's common sense. The whole purpose of abortion is to stop a child from being born. If it was merely "an unstructured smear of protoplasm", she wouldn't be concerned, right? Why should she be concerned, if what you say is "common sense"?
"In other words, you identify that mass of cells as a being. The point you keep evading is that - at that stage - it is NOT a being at ALL. It is JUST a mass of cells. Nothing more."
Yes, I do identify that mass as a human being. It's not a monkey, frog, or dog. It's not a tumor. It is a living, growing human organism.
"What is your bizarre fixation on human cells becoming some non-human entity? Is the biological concept of miscarriage completely foreign to you? Do you seriously NOT grasp the fact that the mass of cells doesn't have to become a human being at ALL? That it may NEVER progress past the stage of being just a mass of cells?"
My "fixation" on the cells being human is simply a response to the odd notion that they could be something else. And yes, I am quite aware of the biological fact of miscarriage, having friends who have had miscarriages and have grieved the loss of their child. If you can't see the difference between the unfortunate narural death of a human life and its deliberate killing, I feel very sorry for you.
"Development FROM a mass of cells INTO a human being. As I have pointed out, you seek to evade the difference between just some CELLS and an actual BEING."
Then tell me at what exact point during pregnancy the mass of cells (having a heartbeat 18 days from conception)you think becomes a "being", and please tell me the difference between that exact moment and the day or minute before. But you are right in your assessment: I see the human being there from the start.
"Your attack takes the form of the 'borderline case' argument. It claims that, because there is no sharp delineation between two things, ANY distinction one makes whatsoever is ARBITRARY and thus invalid."
Your distinction is, in fact, arbitrary. Mine is not: I am quite clear that a human being exists from the moment of conception. However, simply describing my argument as a "borderline case" argument doesn't do away with the arbitrariness of your position. Please explain to me why it is not arbitrary but is based on objective facts.
"The claim that, because there is no physical dividing line on a spectrum, therefore no color red exists distinct from yellow, orange, blue, black, etc is just as insane as the claim that, because there is no physical dividing line in the progression of development from cells to a being, therefore no distinction exists."
I would never claim such a thing -- reality is reality. Deal with it. A developing organism is not a color on a static spectrum.
"This is the perfect example of the 'concrete-bound' mentality - of the 'insane' mentality which willfully cripples itself by limiting itself to the perceptual level - never reaching the level of valid conceptualization."
I could say the same for you: you are ignoring science and common sense in a quasi-religious fervor: really, you sound so much like that fundie Baptist I once engaged in conversation: full of damnation for my views, certain that he alone possessed the Truth.
You would be so much happier if you accepted reality and its encumbent responsibilities: a woman who is pregnant will, barring a miscarriage, give birth. The whole point of abortion is to stop that child from being born.
|
|
| Sunday, August 24, 2008 at 17:31:37 mst
Comment ID: #58
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
I'm going to ignore Dave's flip-flops, equivocations, ad homs, continued attacks on conceptualization (which makes his use of ANY concept to be the fallacy of the stolen concept), and get to the nub of the matter, since he now states his fundamental position explicitly.
Dave claims: "I see the human being there from the start." In other words, Dave claims a few cells IS a human BEING. Such a claim requires him to identify his definition of 'being', especially as it pertains to 'human'. And then his claim requires him to identify how it applies from the point of conception onward.
As has already been identified, human cells, human DNA, human blood, human sperm, human heart, etc - are not the same as a human 'being'. They are not the definition of a being, human or otherwise. Since Dave claims that the point of conception a BEING comes into existence, then the burden of proof is upon HIM to prove it. It is HE who is making the positive claim - that X exists (at that point and in that time). Without such proof, all Dave has is an arbitrary assertion. All he has is fantasy. And one does NOT treat fantasy as fact. Nor does anyone have to disprove such fantasies. One doesn't have to do ANYTHING with the arbitrary except dismiss it out of hand - for the arbitrary is the unreal.
All his bluster, all his intellectual posturing, and all his personal attacks aside, that is what Dave must do here. Barring such proof by him, there is *literally* nothing to discuss with him. |
|
| Sunday, August 24, 2008 at 19:25:59 mst
Comment ID: #59
Name: Jean
E-mail: DaveMatheny3000(at)comcast.net
Ah, Brian, is it really that easy to dismiss my arguments? It's revealing, to say the least, to see the evasion you practice: you haven't told me when you think a human being becomes a human being.
I will state my position quite clearly: when the sperm fertilizes the egg, a new entity, a new human being, is formed. It is not a rat, dog, or cat, but human. It is not an arbitrary position, but one based on biology.
Now, I know you want to define a "human being" not by scientific, biological definitions (a human organism) but by its attributes: self-awareness (consciousness); free will; intellect; etc. But those don't make a human being a human being: a person in a coma has none of those capacities, but is still a human being. People sleeping aren't exercising those capacities either. And I wonder if you've ever held a newborn baby: they don't exhibit these characteristics to any degree at all, but are totally dependent upon their parents -- the only difference between a newborn and a baby in the womb is the location of the source of dependence (external versus internal).
Suffice it to say that we disagree on this topic -- as do many people in our culture. I'm still left wondering why you would opt for the
death" option. Does killing appeal to you for some reason, or are you just fanatical in your need to disassociate sex from procreation? If so, why? |
|
| Sunday, August 24, 2008 at 19:48:18 mst
Comment ID: #60
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
"I will state my position quite clearly: when the sperm fertilizes the egg, a new entity, a new human being, is formed." Well, that is certainly your claim. But where is your support for this claim? Where is the PROOF that you must provide - without which, your claim is simply hot air? In other words, where is your proof it is a human BEING as opposed to *just* human cells?
You provide NO definition of being. You therefore do NOT relate it to human (or define human). You do NOT explain how the cells at conception are MORE than *just* a few human cells but instead somehow qualify as a being. In fact, you have provided NO facts whatsoever. You have simply *repeated* your assertion.
I'm sorry, but repeating an assertion is not proof of the assertion. That would be the fallacy of circular reasoning. That is proof of nothing. As such, you have failed completely to meet your burden of proof here.
"Ah, Brian, is it really that easy to dismiss my arguments?" You would first have to actually PRESENT an argument for me to know how easy or difficult it is to dismiss. ALL you have provided is an arbitrary assertion - and, like any fantasy, those are incredibly easy to dismiss, since they are literally nothing. |
|
| Sunday, August 24, 2008 at 21:01:09 mst
Comment ID: #61
Name: Richard
E-mail: rbramwell(at)sympatico.ca
Jean confounds biological facts, with moral issues and politico-legal standards, dancing from one to the other without adhering to their rational, hierarchical distinctions.
Yes there is something of a continuum of growth. But even that growth has distinct stages, as Brian at #56 pointed out. The stages make the abortion decision of the mother increasingly difficult as she nears the end of the third trimester (why is pregnancy divided into three semesters, Jean?).
Your point, Jean, about "external vs. internal" is no small matter. That distinction marks the end of the third trimester. However, putting it in terms of "external" and "internal" evades ,and/or dismisses, the essence of what is at stake. As I made clear above, the mother's life is NOT something to be disregarded so easily.
(BTW caps are not shouting; there is no html enabled here).
Jean completely ignored my point about the value of the mother's life.
The mother has more biological value than the fetus, as the *bearer* of the fetus. Furthermore, biologically, she can have other offspring, as can most mammals. Many mammals in difficult conditions actually resorb their fetuses: it's nutrition by internal abortion. Miscarriage has been more than adequately covered, but it is worth mentioning that they represent failed 'human" DNA and/or physiological incompatibilities between the fetus and the mother. They are biologically legitimate, as are incompatibilities a mother may foresee between her life with, and without, a child!
The mother also has more significance morally and politically, because she is an ACTUAL human being. Morally, the mother must make the birth vs abortion choice rationally, knowing, perhaps with considerable angst, that her POTENTIAL human being must die. Her moral standards and life circumstances, may result in her decision to accept a late term fetus as sufficiently developed that she could not bear to stop its development.
*Politically* no other human has ANY right, moral or political, to dictate her choice. She is the ACTUAL, and she too is a valuable life. That life may not be enslaved by other actual humans, period. To allow others to dictate her choice is to allow something of a theocratic police state to the detriment of all citizens. That is, she must be protected from the likes of you, Jean, ...and that principle even benefits you!
So where along that continuum, do the politico-legal implications become manifestly real? Only one place: at birth! Prior to that, the issues are strictly biological and moral **for the mother**. Until birth, there is only one politico-legal entity, and that is the mother, NOT the fetus. At birth, the fetus *becomes* a separate and distinct human BEING, and ends its time as an internal, uterine component of the mother. Only at birth does its *BEING* place it under politico-legal jurisdiction. It can be no other way. |
|
| Sunday, August 24, 2008 at 21:09:46 mst
Comment ID: #62
Name: Jean
E-mail: DaveMatheny3000(at)comcast.net
" But where is your support for this claim? Where is the PROOF that you must provide - without which, your claim is simply hot air? In other words, where is your proof it is a human BEING as opposed to *just* human cells?"
It's called "biology", Brian. "Science." Those cells aren't just human cells, but contain the blueprint for the mature adult (hair color, size of nose, height, etc.)within them, and are developing into that adult. The embryo, infant, five-year-old, and teenager are all steps on that progression. These are not, then, merely cells (skin, blood, whatever...) that can be described as human. This is the human being, albeit in earliest form. Deny science if you will, but that is an exercise in evasion. So...I have, in fact, explained how those cells are essentially different than cells (skin, blood, whatever)that are human, though you claim that I haven't done so. *sigh* ; let me repeat what I said before: left to their own devices, skin or blood cells aren't going to cry, gurgle, and suck at their mother's breast. That's a big, essential, huge difference: evade that reality if you must.
"You provide NO definition of being."
Well, you never asked me for one. A "being" is an existing, living entity.
"You therefore do NOT relate it to human (or define human)."
A human being is, thus, an existing, living human entity. As for a defintion of "human", we're probably getting back to the area of common sense: if you can't tell the difference between a dog and a human, then no definition I can provide will help you. I could, I suppose, describe a human as the animal homo sapiens. This is not a definition that describes the "essence" of human-ness (which no definition will adequately contain), but does at least serve the strict purpose of distinguishing the creature man from, say, a rat or a dog. I hope that helps you: you seem to be confused.
"As such, you have failed completely to meet your burden of proof here."
That's merely your subjective opinion, distorted by your quasi-religious need to feel OK about killing humans. (That's OK: I understand that internal guilt and turmoil often seeks to rationalize truly grotesque behavior.) I think an objective observer of this exchange would disagree, as I have presented clear evidence (the entire history of the human race) that a human embryo is distinct human life: it develops and matures only as a unique human life and is simply incapable of being non-human. That's the truth, Brian. You have yet to support your contention that a human being comes into "being" at some specific later date: tell me, when is that, Brian? And if it's day X, what is so profoundly different in the development of that human than the day right before day X?
Enquiring minds want to know.
|
|
| Sunday, August 24, 2008 at 21:19:45 mst
Comment ID: #63
Name: Freddy Ben-Zeev
E-mail: benzeev(at)comcast(dot)net
Jean you write "Those cells aren't just human cells, but contain the blueprint for the mature adult". A blue print is not the thing itself. In this case the relation is closer than blueprint, as the cell can develop into a real human being. But until they do they are only a potential human, not an actual one.
You also write "The embryo, infant, five-year-old, and teenager are all steps on that progression". The acorn and the tree are both steps on a similar progression, it does not make the acorn a tree.
In general, throughout this discussion you fail to take into account the difference between the potential and the actual. |
|
| Sunday, August 24, 2008 at 21:49:06 mst
Comment ID: #64
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
"Those cells aren't just human cells, but contain the blueprint for the mature adult." You know that 'blueprint' is contained in the cells in your toenails, and pancreas, and eyeballs, and your heart, and your - well, pretty much every cell in your body. As such, the fact that those cells contain a 'blueprint' doesn't qualify as proof for your premise, since that fact doesn't distinguish them from other human cells.
"Well, you never asked me for one [a definition of being]." Sure did. "Such a claim requires him to identify his definition of 'being', especially as it pertains to 'human'." Apparently, in your sneering haste to come up with more personal attacks rather than rational argument, you missed it.
"A "being" is an existing, living entity." And that distinguishes it from a cell, a heart, a tumor, etc how?
""As such, you have failed completely to meet your burden of proof here.""That's merely your subjective opinion," If you believe JUST repeating your claim is PROOF of that claim, then your epistemological problems are greater than I first imagined.
As it stands, you STILL have not *proven* anything. You have claimed the cells at conception are a being. And you have defined being as an existing, living entity. But you have not explained how those cells *qualify* as an existing, living entity any more than ANY cell or stomach or brain etc qualify as a being.
Put simply, all you have done is ONCE AGAIN repeat your argument, simply using different terms - ie: 'Cells at conception are a living, existing entity.' As I pointed out to you before, CIRCULAR arguments are a fallacy. They prove NOTHING. So you still have ONLY presented an arbitrary assertion here.
Apparently logic isn't your strong point (which explains the subsequent scientific problems). Let me know when you can actually make a rational argument instead of your circular ones. |
|
| Sunday, August 24, 2008 at 22:43:09 mst
Comment ID: #65
Name: Jean
E-mail: DaveMatheny3000(at)comcast.net
" A blue print is not the thing itself. In this case the relation is closer than blueprint, as the cell can develop into a real human being. But until they do they are only a potential human, not an actual one."
Yes, the relation is closer: inseparable, as a matter of fact. The blueprint is contained within those cells: those cells are the human being on its way to maturity, the blueprint determining such things as height, hair color, and so on. But using the word "potential" suggests other possibilities: will those cells become a fish? Will the mother give birth to a herring? When, then, in your opinion, is the "potential" human being an "actual" human being? Please define what an "actual" human being is, and when, exactly, that occurs.
"The acorn and the tree are both steps on a similar progression, it does not make the acorn a tree."
Agreed. However, the tree and the acorn are both oaks, merely in different stages.
And from an earlier post: "The stages make the abortion decision of the mother increasingly difficult as she nears the end of the third trimester (why is pregnancy divided into three semesters, Jean?)."
You must not be very familiar with pregnancy. As any doctor could tell you, the trimesters are convenient, though artificial, distinctions that indicate periods of significant development. However, the baby on the last day of the second trimester is not significantly different than it is on the first day of the third trimester. The develoment is still a continuum.
" As I made clear above, the mother's life is NOT something to be disregarded so easily."
In most cases of abortion, it is not the mother's physical life that is at stake, but rather her convenience and future plans. To kill for convenience (especially as there are so many couples wanting to adopt, going to Korea and other countries to do so) is horrific.
"Jean completely ignored my point about the value of the mother's life."
Not so, and you ought not to presume knowledge of my actions. Frankly, I haven't been able to go through all of the posts here and answer each response: I have a life. So, if I didn't read your post, it was because I didn't have the time, not because I "completely ignored" it. Are you a mind reader?
"The mother has more biological value than the fetus, as the *bearer* of the fetus. Furthermore, biologically, she can have other offspring, as can most mammals. Many mammals in difficult conditions actually resorb their fetuses: it's nutrition by internal abortion."
True. However, many mammals (and birds) will actually sacrifice themselves in defense of their offspring: it is thus not certain that the "biological value" scales always tip toward the mother. Regardless, the human mother is not "reabsorbing" nutrition, but is actually having the baby cut up and sucked out. In countries where malnutrition is common, women typically cease menstruation (which also happens in the case of anorexic women).
"The mother also has more significance morally and politically, because she is an ACTUAL human being. Morally, the mother must make the birth vs abortion choice rationally, knowing, perhaps with considerable angst, that her POTENTIAL human being must die. Her moral standards and life circumstances, may result in her decision to accept a late term fetus as sufficiently developed that she could not bear to stop its development."
As I have said before, the fetus is a human, not a "potential" one: tell me of a case in which a mother gave birth to a non-human. The fetus may die, as in the case of a miscarriage, but in that case a human being has died, not a "potential" human. It ain't a frog, folks. And why would a mother "not bear" a late-term abortion? Is it because it's simply harder to pretend that it's just cells? Why do abortion clinics have a cow when alternative clinics provide ultrasound images that show the fetus in its earlier development? And unless you are a god of some kind, and can thus know the future contributions of any unborn child, you can't make the claim that the mother is somehow "worth more" in terms of her contribution to mankind.
"Politically* no other human has ANY right, moral or political, to dictate her choice."
Sez who? If your point is that abortion is legal, well, so was slavery. This same argument could be made for slavery: who are you to decide what I can and cannot do with another human life? If you don't like slavery, don't own one! This thinking completely ignores any objective value on human life, and instead places it at the whim of convenience. History is replete with examples of the abuses of human rights when whims replace any sound objective norms. If you cannot give me a precise time during the development of a baby when it *magically* becomes a human being (and explain the profound difference between that day and the day before), then why would you err on the side of killing? |
|
| Sunday, August 24, 2008 at 23:16:24 mst
Comment ID: #66
Name: Freddy Ben-Zeev
E-mail: benzeev(at)comcast(dot)net
Jean: "the tree and the acorn are both oaks" - but the acorn is not a tree - it can become one, and the fetus is no a human being - it too can become one. The very identification that something is a potential, says that it is NOT an actual yet. As I said, you fail to see this distinction. |
|
| Sunday, August 24, 2008 at 23:20:48 mst
Comment ID: #67
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
"But using the word "potential" suggests other possibilities: will those cells become a fish?" LOL - so, while David has YET to provide proof of his claim that a smear of CELLS at conception is somehow a BEING, he now returns to his bizarre - one could say fetishistic - attraction to the idea of human cells becoming animals. Since NO ONE here has suggested such a thing, and since the straw men and equivocations on such terminology have been REPEATEDLY made QUITE clear to him (ie that things like this refer to non-development or misdevelopment of the cells, thus preventing them from forming into a human being), one is left to wonder what exactly in David's psyche leads him to *persistently* think of animals in the context of human reproduction and sexuality. |
|
| Sunday, August 24, 2008 at 23:39:16 mst
Comment ID: #68
Name: Jean
E-mail: DaveMatheny3000(at)comcast.net
Brian, Brian, Brian...
"And that distinguishes it from a cell, a heart, a tumor, etc how?"
You mean you don't know the difference? A "heart" is what we call an "organ", Brian. It circulates blood through the body: that is its basic purpose. It appears, by the way, at a very early stage in the development of a baby. A "tumor" is an abnormal growth of cells. Neither will develop into an adult human being. An "embryo", on the other hand, is a human being in its earlier stages of development. It is caused by an activity known as "sex", Brian, and involves the participation of a person of the opposite sex. If I have to explain the birds and the bees to you, this will take forever.
"As I pointed out to you before, CIRCULAR arguments are a fallacy."
My argument is not CIRCULAR, but is, in fact, quite linear and based on biology: an adult human develops through many stages. At birth, a baby is not significantly and profoundly different than it was just before delivery. That unborn baby is not significantly and profoundly different than it was the day before, and so on. Since science does not show us a certain day when -- voila!-- the baby suddenly becomes a human being, I am confronted by the reality that the development of an adult human is a continuum, with its only non-arbitrary starting point being conception. That's not circular (or CIRCULAR, if you prefer caps). You have yet to tell me when a baby becomes a human being, nor have you indicated why, in the face of uncertainty, you would opt for death.
|
|
| Sunday, August 24, 2008 at 23:49:14 mst
Comment ID: #69
Name: Jean
E-mail: DaveMatheny3000(at)comcast.net
"Jean: "the tree and the acorn are both oaks" - but the acorn is not a tree - it can become one, and the fetus is no a human being - it too can become one. The very identification that something is a potential, says that it is NOT an actual yet. As I said, you fail to see this distinction."
I never said that the acorn was a tree. I made the point that the acorn and the mature tree are both oaks, a sprouted acorn being the first step of development. The acorn does not have the potential to grow into a maple. |
|
| Sunday, August 24, 2008 at 23:59:47 mst
Comment ID: #70
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
"If you cannot give me a precise time during the development of a baby when it *magically* becomes a human being..." David cannot conceptualize the 'borderline case', so of course ANY division necessarily IS magical to him. Any division on a spectrum - in time or space - is necessarily arbitrary to him because there is no magical PERCEPTUAL dividing line. And since the perceptual level (the level of animals) is where he is mentally STUCK, he is incapable of grasping the objectivity of any CONCEPTUAL dividing line - because, for him, concepts are completely ARBITRARY. They are mere inventions of man. THEY are FANTASIES. They are not reality. And yet of course he continues to use them, making his EVERY use of them a fallacy - ie he is engaged in grand theft concept.
This makes David an intellectual THIEF. But such is the natural state of the concrete-bound mentality.
(As an aside, that is why it is perfectly consistent to see him casually DISMISS human consciousness - ie rationality - as IMMATERIAL when defining 'human being'. He simply tosses out the 'rational' part of 'rational animal' - because he himself rejects the faculty and limits himself to percepts and their descriptions. If ever anyone wanted a good example of a nominalist and sensualist, David fits the bill to a T.) |
|
| Monday, August 25, 2008 at 0:17:41 mst
Comment ID: #71
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
"Neither will develop into an adult human being" So? You defined being as a living, existing entity. Your definition did not include having to develop into an adult human being.
So NOW you are apparently claiming that a being is a 'living, existing entity which WILL develop into something else - in the case of humans, it will develop into an adult.' So what if something goes wrong? What if it DOESN'T so develop? If developing into something else is the definition of a 'being' and it fails to do this, then it means the thing wasn't a being after all. That would mean we could never know if a thing is a being UNTIL it reaches otherhood (in the case of a fetus, adulthood)- because it might never reach that point and thus never meet the qualification of your definition of 'being.'
You better go back to the drawing board on your definition of 'being' there dude. it is still wanting.
"My argument is not CIRCULAR" This is your argument thus far:
The smear of cells is a being
The smear of cells is a living, existing entity
Therefore the smear of cells is a being
That is a TEXTBOOK example of a circular argument. And you have YET to do more than simply repeat the above. You simply don't seem to grasp the fact that you MUST do more than that to actually PROVE your claim. Repetition of a claim is not proof of claim. It is simply proof of one's ignorance of logic. |
|
| Monday, August 25, 2008 at 0:39:20 mst
Comment ID: #72
Name: Jean
E-mail: DaveMatheny3000(at)comcast.net
Brian,
You need to do more than simply REPEAT your ASSERTIONS in CAPS. It would also HELP if you ANSWERED the QUESTIONS I RAISED.
Your summary of my argument is not accurate. A more correct summary would be:
An adult human being developed from a teenaged human being.
That teenaged human being developed from an infant.
That infant developed from an unborn child.
That unborn child developed from the union of egg and sperm.
At no point, in this progression, is a "human being" lost: science does not show us this. Therefore, the statement that the unborn child is not a human being is arbitrary.
Look, Brian, at some point when you get older you will likely be attracted by some female. If you engage in sex with her, it is quite possible that she will conceive. You can then show her what a real man you are by driving her to the abortion clinic and getting rid of your offspring -- way ta go, dude! |
|
| Monday, August 25, 2008 at 6:25:11 mst
Comment ID: #73
Name: Burgess Laughlin
E-mail: burgesslaughlin(at)macforcego.com
URL: http://www.aristotleadventure.blogspot.com
I have recently been working in a study group focusing on Ch. 5, "Definitions," of Ayn Rand's _Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology_. For that reason, I find this statement intriguing:
Jean/Dave/Whoever (Comment 62): "I could, I suppose, describe a human as the animal homo sapiens. This is not a definition that describes the "essence" of human-ness (which no definition will adequately contain), but . . . ."
Why do you think that no definition can "contain" a statement of the essence--that is, the essential distinguishing characteristic--of "human" ("man" in the generic sense)?
Do you hold that nothing can be defined by its essence--or is there something "special" about man (human) that precludes identifying an "essence"? If the latter, is that "special something" not subject to understanding through sense-perception and logical inference, that is, through reason? |
|
| Monday, August 25, 2008 at 7:26:11 mst
Comment ID: #74
Name: Richard
E-mail: rbramwell(at)sympatico.ca
Brian points this out, accurately, as being Jean's position on human embryonic & fetal development: "because there is no magical PERCEPTUAL dividing line". Jean has persisted at this, in complete disregard of the comments I have made explaining why the different stages of development exist. I have linked him to examples, most specifically:
1. Embryology
**- A link to an embryonic chart that demonstrates a principle biologists refer to as "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny":
* - - Ontogeny, in biology, means, (biology) the process of an individual organism growing organically; a purely biological unfolding of events involved in an organism changing gradually from a simple to a more complex level.
* - - Recapitulates can be taken to mean, "repeats the developmental path of"
* - - Phylogeny refers to the eons-long evolutionary steps by which the adult organism evolved.
Jean, the embryo goes through primitive single-cell stages then it becomes a multicellular hollow ball, then it folds in on itself to form something resembling a fish embryo, then an amphibian embryo, then a reptilian embryo, then the embryo of a primitive mammal, then a more advanced mammal, but still not a human. Yes, the cells have a full complement of human DNA, but so does every one of the ~30,000 to ~40,000 skin cells you shed every minute of every day. There is nothing special about them, there is no inherent human BEING in them. Do not argue that the skin cells are not geared to producing another human... that is just a difference of DNA code interpreting controllers. Millions of umbilical cord cells, destroyed at birth and called "stem cells", are even more similar to the cells of an embryo. Like the fetus, they are not human BEINGS.
2. Human Rationality
**- Links to demonstrate the difference between a homo sapiens with an improperly developed mind vs one that is properly developing: namely that of Helen Keller.
Jean has been shown the difference between being an internal extension of the mother and becoming an external BEING, and the moral and legal distinctions involved.
Yet, Jean ignores all of it. I am not sure there *anything* can be said that will sway him, because rationalizations protect his faith in something unreal, as all rationalizations do. Honesty is the recognition that the unreal IS unreal. Jean evades, at all costs, the fact that a fetus is not a human BEING, does not have rights, and is a part of its independently *living* mother. Jean evades the fact that the mother is a true entity (a BEING), with all the attributes that implies, both morally and legally.
Jean is holding the metabolism of a bunch of cells, & their DNA, as something of greater importance than AN *OBSERVABLE* truly independent BEING. This is nothing short of wicked. The anti-abortionists' position is, at root, ANTI-life, yet, in true Orwellian fashion, they claim to be "pro-life".
|
|
| Monday, August 25, 2008 at 8:07:51 mst
Comment ID: #75
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
I think it's clear that we're not arguing with someone who is open to reason here. All Jean is doing is repeating questions and evasions that have already been addressed many times, and projecting condescension as a substitute for rational argument. I suggest that we put a stop to his flamebaiting, and simply ignore the man from here on unless he decides to address those points. In an attempt to clear the air for other readers, I'll state for the record what I think the points are that Jean needs to address.
Jean:
1. You keep claiming that no one has answered your question about the "dividing line." That is an evasion. I've answered your question repeatedly that the "dividing line" that you're looking for is *BIRTH*. Either address that response or shut up and stop wasting our time.
2. Stop pretending that you're the only one here who knows anything about science. You're not. In particular, stop ignoring Richard Bramwell's excellent post (#28) that clearly shows that the fetus in it's early stages of development does not yet have a human form.
3. Drop the nonsense about a "potential" implying other possibilities. It doesn't. If you're confused on the distinction between potentiality and actuality, then read up on your Aristotle. Try here for a start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aristotle#Substance.2C_potentiality_an ...
"Referring to potentiality, this is what a thing is capable of doing, or being acted upon, if it is not prevented by something else. For example, the seed of a plant in the soil is potentially (dynamei) plant, and if is not prevented by something, it will become a plant."
If and when the fetus becomes an *actual* human being, *then* it will be reasonable to talk about it's rights. Before then, it is not. None of your evasive posturing about the fact that it has human DNA, a genetic blueprint to become a human being, or will normally develop into one if not interfered with, are even remotely relevant to this issue. The fact remains that it isn't one yet. It's *different* from a baby. Deal with it.
As I and others here have said repeatedly, a fetus is a potential human being. A human being is not merely something that has human DNA (so does your fingernail), and not merely something that is developing into a human form (that is a potential, not an actual). In order to be a human *being*, it must *have developed* (not *be developing*) into a human form, *and* have become a separate and biologically individuated entity. That latter change happens at birth. Until then, no matter how close to human form it may come in the later stages of pregnancy, it is still physically contained within and biologically connected to and dependent on -- and thus, a part of -- the mother's body. That is why the dividing line between being a pre-human with no rights and a human being *with* rights is at birth.
There is one more point that I think may help clear the air on this. Jean is invoking a reversed version of the "borderline case problem" in order to give plausibility to his argument. The "borderline case problem" states that conceptual divisions are arbitrary because there is no natural place to put the "dividing line" on the continuum between two possibilities. Using the same gimmick, Jean tries to claim that it is invalid to make conceptual distinctions at all betwen two such possibilities. He's wrong on two counts, though, and the first is the most obvious: that there *is* a natural, non-continuous dividing line between fetus and baby. That dividing line is birth, where a fundamental and abrupt change in the fetus' status and condition takes place. It goes from being physically contained within and biologically connected to and dependent on the mother's body, to being a physically separate and biologically individuated organism.
More broadly, though, the entire premise that a continuum of intermediate stages erases the distinction between two possibilities is absurd on its face -- and if applied consistently, it would eviscerate the capacity for conceptual thought as such. On that premise, a blastula is a person, a foundation is a house, a mountain is a molehill, red is green is blue, and so on. After all, where's the "dividing line" in any of these cases, either? Jean's entire objection on these grounds is philosophically invalid, and nothing more than a "gimmick" to be used only in convenient cases where there is a need to rationalize a desired conclusion. |
|
| Monday, August 25, 2008 at 8:16:28 mst
Comment ID: #76
Name: Jean
E-mail: DaveMatheny3000(at)comcast.net
"Do you hold that nothing can be defined by its essence--or is there something "special" about man (human) that precludes identifying an "essence"? If the latter, is that "special something" not subject to understanding through sense-perception and logical inference, that is, through reason?"
No, I do not hold that nothing can be defined as its essence. I was making the point that listing the attributes and characteristics of man in an attempt to capture his essence makes for a cumbersome definition. And, it would be, in fact, inadequate: man does not fully know himself. His understanding of the working of his mind and will is only partial. |
|
| Monday, August 25, 2008 at 8:28:58 mst
Comment ID: #77
Name: Jean
E-mail: DaveMatheny3000(at)comcast.net
"Jean, the embryo goes through primitive single-cell stages then it becomes a multicellular hollow ball, then it folds in on itself to form something resembling a fish embryo, then an amphibian embryo, then a reptilian embryo, then the embryo of a primitive mammal, then a more advanced mammal, but still not a human."
Do you think this constitutes serious scientific thought?! That since a human embryo "resembles" a fish or amphibian embryo at some stage, it is not human? That is a pathetic conclusion based on appearances.
"Do not argue that the skin cells are not geared to producing another human... that is just a difference of DNA code interpreting controllers."
But I will argue just that: it's the fundamental difference between them. And I see that you have placed DNA into the role of almost non-human, neutral sort of god, which stands back controlling things: that's quite odd. You are putting the cart in front of the horse: the DNA in the developing fetus is human, and it's not the mother's DNA.
"Jean has been shown the difference between being an internal extension of the mother and becoming an external BEING, and the moral and legal distinctions involved."
No, I haven't been "shown" anything. I've been given your opinion. |
|
| Monday, August 25, 2008 at 8:35:38 mst
Comment ID: #78
Name: Jean
E-mail: DaveMatheny3000(at)comcast.net
" In order to be a human *being*, it must *have developed* (not *be developing*) into a human form, *and* have become a separate and biologically individuated entity. That latter change happens at birth. Until then, no matter how close to human form it may come in the later stages of pregnancy, it is still physically contained within and biologically connected to and dependent on -- and thus, a part of -- the mother's body. That is why the dividing line between being a pre-human with no rights and a human being *with* rights is at birth."
On what basis do you say it "must" have developed in order to be a human being? Who has decreed this "must"? This is not reflected in law: when a pregnant woman is murdered, the criminal can be charged with two murders.
What are premature babies, then? They are outside the body, but entirely dependent upon medical machinery. Do you consider them a part of the machinery, then, if you consider a baby in the womb to be part of its mother's body?
So -- is the basis of the right to life determined by one's location?? |
|
| Monday, August 25, 2008 at 8:44:35 mst
Comment ID: #79
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
Sorry, everyone, but I couldn't resist this one:
Jean: "Do you think this constitutes serious scientific thought?! That since a human embryo "resembles" a fish or amphibian embryo at some stage, it is not human? That is a pathetic conclusion based on appearances."
OK, Jean, then tell us: in everyday life, how do you tell the difference between a fish and a person, if not by "appearances?" Do you do a genetic analysis of every animal and person that you encounter, in order to determine what it "really" is? And if you mistrust "appearances," then how would you know how to interpret the results of your analysis anyway?
Science is fundamentally *observational*, and it *starts* with and is grounded in experiment and observation -- in other words, what you so cavalierly dismiss as "appearances." Rather than being scientific, your remark exhibits a profound contempt for the foundational principle of science. I'm not surprised. |
|
| Monday, August 25, 2008 at 8:45:48 mst
Comment ID: #80
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
"Your summary of my argument is not accurate."
When asked to provide your premise and its proof, you provided exactly and ONLY what I identified. If you want to CHANGE what you provided, please do. But do not LIE and claim that it is not what you presented.
"A more correct summary would be:
An adult human being developed from a teenaged human being.
That teenaged human being developed from an infant.
That infant developed from an unborn child.
That unborn child developed from the union of egg and sperm."
The above in no way proof that a smear of CELLS at conception is a BEING. It is - AGAIN - simply a REPEAT of your original assertion - but now without even the identification of the union of egg and sperm as a being (but I will add that back in for you). So now your argument is:
The smear of cells at conception is a being
The smear of cells at conception (eventually) develops into a particular type of being (adult human)
Therefore the smear of cells at conception is a being
In case you missed it - STILL CIRCULAR. You really are stuck there, aren't you?
Given that you simply keep repeating your premise like a mind-numbed dark ages monk, and given that you have UTTERLY failed to provide ANY proof for your claim that a smear of cells at conception is a being, one must now dismiss your claim as BLATANTLY arbitrary.
At this point, it is painfully obvious you do not have even a *rudimentary* grasp of concepts or logic. Thus faith and the appeal to authority ('Its 'science' I tell you! 'Biology!' Even though I have provided NO evidence for it, you MUST accept my conclusion because I have invoked the magic words!') are all you have - because you deny the validity of your conceptual consciousness.
Return of the primitive indeed. |
|
| Monday, August 25, 2008 at 9:03:06 mst
Comment ID: #81
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
Jean wrote: "On what basis do you say it "must" have developed in order to be a human being? Who has decreed this "must"?"
For starters, I could ask you the same question. On what basis do you say otherwise -- that we "must" treat something that hasn't yet developed into a human form as though it were an actual human being? On your say-so? Majority vote? Divine revelation? What?
Do you insist on treating all potentials as though they were actualized? Is a foundation a house? Is an acorn a tree? Is a freshman a graduate? Obviously not. Why, then, do you think that is justified in the case of a fetus? Because you find the conclusion convenient?
In any event, my answer is that as a *scientist*, I go by observation. I classify things according to observed similarities and differences in the real world. I don't live in a fantasy world in which there's no difference between an acorn and a tree, the obvious evidence of my senses notwithstanding. |
|
| Monday, August 25, 2008 at 9:17:26 mst
Comment ID: #82
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
Jean wrote: "What are premature babies, then? They are outside the body, but entirely dependent upon medical machinery. Do you consider them a part of the machinery, then, if you consider a baby in the womb to be part of its mother's body?"
A premature baby has been born, Jean. It's biologically individuated -- no longer contained within and biologically connected to another *actual* human being with rights to control her own body.
Jean: "So -- is the basis of the right to life determined by one's location??"
Partly, yes. While a fetus is physically contained within and biologically connected to the mother's body, it's still a part of that body. As I said, biological *individuation* is a requirement for having *individual* rights. |
|
| Monday, August 25, 2008 at 11:42:36 mst
Comment ID: #83
Name: Jean
E-mail: DaveMatheny3000(at)comcast.net
"OK, Jean, then tell us: in everyday life, how do you tell the difference between a fish and a person, if not by "appearances?" Do you do a genetic analysis of every animal and person that you encounter, in order to determine what it "really" is? And if you mistrust "appearances," then how would you know how to interpret the results of your analysis anyway?"
Mere observation does tell us that a person is not a fish. However, scientific inquiry does not stop at mere appearances but seeks more information. Thus, the mere similarity in appearance of a fish embryos at a certain stage to a human embryo does not, in and of itself, tell us that the human embryo isn't human. |
|
| Monday, August 25, 2008 at 11:46:15 mst
Comment ID: #84
Name: Jean
E-mail: DaveMatheny3000(at)comcast.net
"Given that you simply keep repeating your premise like a mind-numbed dark ages monk, and given that you have UTTERLY failed to provide ANY proof for your claim that a smear of cells at conception is a being, one must now dismiss your claim as BLATANTLY arbitrary.
At this point, it is painfully obvious you do not have even a *rudimentary* grasp of concepts or logic. Thus faith and the appeal to authority ('Its 'science' I tell you! 'Biology!' Even though I have provided NO evidence for it, you MUST accept my conclusion because I have invoked the magic words!') are all you have - because you deny the validity of your conceptual consciousness."
Since you are apparently unable to rise above childish personal attacks, I cannot entertain your arguments seriously. Maybe when you grow up, you'll learn how to usefully engage those with whom you disagree.
Does your Mom know you write such things online? |
|
| Monday, August 25, 2008 at 11:51:45 mst
Comment ID: #85
Name: Jean
E-mail: DaveMatheny3000(at)comcast.net
"It's biologically individuated -- no longer contained within and biologically connected to another *actual* human being with rights to control her own body."
It's not her body being she's controlling -- it's the killing of the other body that concerns me.
"Partly, yes. While a fetus is physically contained within and biologically connected to the mother's body, it's still a part of that body. As I said, biological *individuation* is a requirement for having *individual* rights."
Then why can a criminal be charged with two muders if he muders a pregnant woman? It's the right to life of the baby that has been violated, and the law recognizes that in those cases at least.
It's fair to say that there is not universal agreement on this issue. And so I will ask (for the umpteenth time) why would any person err on the side of death? |
|
| Monday, August 25, 2008 at 14:26:44 mst
Comment ID: #86
Name: Tony Donadio
E-mail: tdonadio(at)optonline.net
"Then why can a criminal be charged with two muders if he muders a pregnant woman?"
Fetal homicide laws are extremely controversial and do not apply in all states. See here:
http://www.ncsl.org/programs/health/fethom.htm
I'm not in favor of them. And I suggest that you address yourself to the issue at hand, since we're discussing what *should* be the law, not necessarily what *is* the law. |
|
| Monday, August 25, 2008 at 15:38:39 mst
Comment ID: #87
Name: Jean
E-mail: DaveMatheny3000(at)comcast.net
And I suggest that you address yourself to the issue at hand, since we're discussing what *should* be the law, not necessarily what *is* the law."
You're entirely correct: there is not agreement on these matters and they remain controversial. Which brings me back to my earlier question: when in doubt, why opt for death? If there is uncertainty (as there clearly is) as to when a human obtains the right to life, why would the desire be to err on the side of killing? |
|
| Monday, August 25, 2008 at 16:51:21 mst
Comment ID: #88
Name: Bob Sanders
E-mail: Sanders101(at)clc.net
Regarding fetal homicide, would it be rational justice to punish the criminal more if he killed an unborn fetus? I'm tempted to say yes but I wouldn't base it on the theory that the fetus is a person, that would grant the religious anti-abortion premise. I'm confused what to base it on. |
|
| Monday, August 25, 2008 at 20:34:32 mst
Comment ID: #89
Name: Adam Reed
E-mail: adamreedatalumdotmitdotedu
URL: http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/areed2
Bob Sanders:
A desired fetus is an important project and value not only for the pregnant woman, but also (in most cases) for the person who plans to become the potential future child's other parent. If there were a valid rationale for an enhanced penalty (in the event of what otherwise would have been a non-capital homicide) it would have to be based on the fact that the woman's partner's right to pursue his or her values by work or trade (the right to the pursuit of happiness) was forcibly abrogated by the criminal. |
|
| Monday, August 25, 2008 at 22:00:36 mst
Comment ID: #90
Name: BrianS
E-mail: blspro (at) gmail
"Since you are apparently unable to rise above childish personal attacks"
The identification of the fact that David CONTINUOUSLY repeat the same claim WITHOUT support - ie a CIRCULAR argument - in a mantra-like fashion can only be considered a personal attack if he does NOT grasp the principles of logic. So with this claim he simply proves my point.
"I cannot entertain your arguments seriously"
What a surprise. David doesn't even grasp the fact that I presented NO argument for him to consider. He has failed to grasp it he - and he alone - who must provide a RATIONAL argument for HIS claim that a smear of cells is a being. I have simply identified the FACT that he has provided absolutely NO proof for that claim. His persistent EVASION of this fact serves as proof of his intellectual DISHONESTY here.
"you'll learn how to usefully engage those with whom you disagree."
Irrationality such as David have presented (from his opening and continued personal attacks, to his equivocations, to his straw men, to his failure to grasp the principles of proof and the burden of proof, to his circular arguments, to his failure to understand anything at the conceptual level) does not qualify as 'useful' - at least to a rational mind.
What is 'useful' is preventing IRRATIONAL minds from getting their ARBITRARY assertions accepted as if they have ANY cognitive content. Dave has tried to use every illogical trick in the book but has failed to get his claim accepted without proof. As such, one can understand his continued viperous attitude. Since he refuses to appeal to reason, spitting is all he has left.
At this point, I suggest Tony's advice be followed. Jean has proved himself to be nothing more than a spiteful griefer. |
|
| Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 6:11:12 mst
Comment ID: #91
Name: Richard
E-mail: rbramwell(at)sympatico.ca
"It's not her body being she's controlling -- it's the killing of the other body that concerns me."
First, it is NOT an "other body" for Pete's sake. It is an extension of her body, in every way except for the presence of the male's DNA contribution. Second, and further to the first point, the mother counts. You choose only to focus on the fetus AS IF it were an independent BEING, but it is not.
"Then why can a criminal be charged with two muders if he muders a pregnant woman? It's the right to life of the baby that has been violated, and the law recognizes that in those cases at least."
You know perfectly well that the legal status of a fetus is highly muddled, or these kinds of debates would not arise. Using the law as an argument is pointing to a derivative as proof of a fundamental, which makes no sense. If the mother (& father) wanted the baby, then it could be viewed as a double murderm but not so if it she does not want the baby.
"And so I will ask (for the umpteenth time) why would any person err on the side of death?"
Because the issue is sufficiently clear that there is no question of 'err'ing one way or the other. Abortion is a rational choice a mother can make,and no one else's. Furthermore, politico-legal intervention is *absolutely* wrong, and immoral. Your question presumes uncertainty, but that is because you have not grasped the arguments provided in the above comments. Many of the arguments are not mere matters-of-opinion, and the debate is not for the sake of bantering ideas, the arguments lead to a *definite* conclusion. |
|
| Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 6:44:20 mst
Comment ID: #92
Name: z
E-mail: shekfu(at)hotmail.com
I'd like to point out that Diana's and Ari Armstrong's paper "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life,"
http://www.SecularGovernment.us/docs/a48.pdf
is a good source for the side favoring a woman's right to abortion. It covers when and why a new human being has rights. |
|
| Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 8:09:25 mst
Comment ID: #93
Name: Jean
E-mail: DaveMatheny3000(at)comcast.net
Oh, my dear Brian boy:
I like debate, but not with children. You get all...you know....messy. Those little gooey fingers that haven't experienced anything more distressfull in their little lives than not getting the present they REALLY wanted from ol'Dad. The little boy seething with resentment because the other boys pick on himbecause he's such a nerd: he'll show them; he'll be the one in charge someday, and he'll decide who's human and who's not! |
|
| Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 8:18:51 mst
Comment ID: #94
Name: Jean
E-mail: DaveMatheny3000(at)comcast.net
"It is an extension of her body, in every way except for the presence of the male's DNA contribution. Second, and further to the first point, the mother counts. You choose only to focus on the fetus AS IF it were an independent BEING, but it is not."
An unborn baby is not an "extension" of a mother's body: it isn't an organ, fer Pete's sake. Ah, but I like this: "in every way except for the presence of the male's DNA contribution". Yes, the father did contribute genetic material, and the result of that contribution (the baby) has its own DNA. That's a really big exception, if you ask me.
"Because the issue is sufficiently clear that there is no question of 'err'ing one way or the other." "You know perfectly well that the legal status of a fetus is highly muddled, or these kinds of debates would not arise."
These two statements would appear to contradict one another. It is not "sufficiently clear" -- if it was, we wouldn't be having this discussion, nor would the country be divided on this issue. |
|
| Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 10:08:14 mst
Comment ID: #95
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Okay Jean, I've had enough of you. Go play snide somewhere else. Do not post further on this topic in these comments. |
|
| Tuesday, August 26, 2008 at 10:42:13 mst
Comment ID: #96
Name: Per-Olof Samuelsson
E-mail: per-olof.samuelsson(at)swipnet.se
URL: http://www.nattvakt.com
Richard: "Even if God is real, isn't everyone who believes in Him and his morality, a spiritual and moral whore anyway?"
Yes, I think you're right about that.
(I find it hard to take God seriously. So please forgive me if my comments about Him are not too serious, either.) |
|
| Thursday, August 28, 2008 at 9:37:34 mst
Comment ID: #97
Name: Richard
E-mail: rbramwell(at)sympatico.ca
"Because the issue is sufficiently clear that there is no question of 'err'ing one way or the other."
This statement describes the epistemological status of, i.e. the reason and logic behind, the issue.
"You know perfectly well that the legal status of a fetus is highly muddled, or these kinds of debates would not arise."
This statement refers to the failure of the legal system (et al.) to understand the aforementioned "reason and logic behind the issue".
There is no contradiction. Rather than dealing with the issues presented in response to his questions, Jean is seeking straws to attack. It appears to be a last resort to win when all his arguments have failed. Overall, I suggest that tactic reveals a deliberate evasion, common to the 'faithfully' dishonest.
|
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Gina Liggett
Comments
