Jim Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 "Defining the beginning of life, the end of life, and the difference between life and nonlife are questions for lawyers, not scientists." - Freeman Dyson One reason why we don't think of abortion as a moral question is that the US Supreme Court has taken the subject away from the democratic process.
ParanoiA Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 How is the statement "they don't feel and don't understand so I don't see any morality issue" different than "dreaming up a philosophy to make it ok?" Further, what's wrong with that? I guess, if you want to split hairs, you could conclude that's a philosophy in itself. I'm just saying it is murder but I'm not against it. I don't think it's productive to mislead yourself with shady philosophy so you don't have to face the fact you're in favor of murdering undeveloped humans.
ParanoiA Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 This is obvious to me. It's not a moral distinction as much as a legal one. If you claim that a just-conceived cell is human and has all the rights of one, legislation will then evolve to the point where every miscarriage must be investigated to make certain the mother did nothing criminal. Who will judge whether something a woman did or did not do caused the miscarriage? This may be a slippery slope argument but some people view this as murder so a radical legal response is almost inevitable. Well, I'm not going to base my beliefs on what might happen as a result - but rather what logically makes sense. I can't help that legislation will evolve the way you say, but it doesn't make the just-conceived human conclusion wrong because of that. Furthermore, legally speaking, I believe a woman should have a right to kill her unborn child. If it's in her body, it shouldn't have any rights other than the rights she grants. I don't care if it's 9 months, she can kill it if she wants as far as I'm concerned. That is, if she can live with her decision.
Sisyphus Posted August 25, 2006 Posted August 25, 2006 Incidentally' date=' do you think that Colmes and Chris Mathews are lowbrow demagogues?[/quote'] Colmes is lowbrow, yes, but he's probably too spineless to be a "demagogue." I kind of like Chris Matthews. Certainly smarter, more honest and less pandering than any of the people I mentioned. It's not really a liberal thing, though. I like people like Pat Buchanan as well (though I wouldn't vote for him). And Matthews isn't particularly liberal, anyway.
-Demosthenes- Posted August 26, 2006 Posted August 26, 2006 But, I don't really understand what all the debate is really about anyway. Human life begins at conception, we know that. Do we? One reason why we don't think of abortion as a moral question is that the US Supreme Court has taken the subject away from the democratic process. Protecting privacy? It should obviously be decided in Congress (whatever they decide), the Constitution is not involved. Furthermore, legally speaking, I believe a woman should have a right to kill her unborn child. If it's in her body, it shouldn't have any rights other than the rights she grants. I don't care if it's 9 months, she can kill it if she wants as far as I'm concerned. That is, if she can live with her decision. Can the government force your to give up a kidney to save someone else's life? These arguments are some of the more morbid, but there are those who use them seriously. I'd want to say more, but the whole subject has just been done to death.
ParanoiA Posted August 27, 2006 Posted August 27, 2006 But' date=' I don't really understand what all the debate is really about anyway. Human life begins at conception, we know that. [/quote'] Do we? Yeah. Fertilization is when it the actual human potential begins. Everything that happens before that will not make a baby. This is the moment of truth. Furthermore' date=' legally speaking, I believe a woman should have a right to kill her unborn child. If it's in her body, it shouldn't have any rights other than the rights she grants. I don't care if it's 9 months, she can kill it if she wants as far as I'm concerned. That is, if she can live with her decision. [/quote'] Can the government force your to give up a kidney to save someone else's life? These arguments are some of the more morbid, but there are those who use them seriously. I'd want to say more, but the whole subject has just been done to death. Not really sure what your point is here. Yeah, I'm all for the government not forcing me to give up my kidney for anybody. I prefer the government stay out of all matters to do with my body - inside or out. Legally and socially and any other-lly...
Sisyphus Posted August 27, 2006 Posted August 27, 2006 Yeah. Fertilization is when it the actual human potential begins. Everything that happens before that will not make a baby. This is the moment of truth. Except that "human" is essentially part of another organism, even so far as sharing a bloodstream, etc. Don't be so quick to dismiss everything as rationalizations.
ParanoiA Posted August 27, 2006 Posted August 27, 2006 Except that "human" is essentially part of another organism, even so far as sharing a bloodstream, etc. Don't be so quick to dismiss everything as rationalizations. I don't get your point. What does that have to do with anything? This is simply when human life begins.
Sisyphus Posted August 27, 2006 Posted August 27, 2006 I don't get your point. What does that have to do with anything? This is simply when human life begins. Ok. How do you figure?
ParanoiA Posted August 27, 2006 Posted August 27, 2006 Ok. How do you figure? Scroll up to see how I figure...
Jim Posted August 27, 2006 Posted August 27, 2006 Colmes is lowbrow, yes, but he's probably too spineless to be a "demagogue." I kind of like Chris Matthews. Certainly smarter, more honest and less pandering than any of the people I mentioned. It's not really a liberal thing, though. I like people like Pat Buchanan as well (though I wouldn't vote for him). And Matthews isn't particularly liberal, anyway. Heh, yeah, Colmes just doesn't have the horsepower to compete. Mathews continually stacks the deck on his shows. IMO, he's less obvious than Hanity but no less of an advocate. I wouldn't vote for Buchanan either but I think his latest efforts on illegal immigration are a great service to the country.
Jim Posted August 27, 2006 Posted August 27, 2006 Protecting privacy? It should obviously be decided in Congress (whatever they decide)' date=' the Constitution is not involved.[/quote'] According to Roe v. Wade, the Constitution is involved.
swansont Posted August 27, 2006 Posted August 27, 2006 Yeah. Fertilization is when it the actual human potential begins. Everything that happens before that will not make a baby. This is the moment of truth. It's still an arbitrarily chosen point. Phi has already brought up the topic of a miscarriage. What of the fertilized egg doesn't implant? Everything that happens before that will not make a baby. The baby has to have a heartbeat. Everything that happens before that will not make a baby. It has to breathe when it's born. Everything that happens before that will not make a baby. etc. Why isn't the moment of truth when the woman accepts the first drink?
ParanoiA Posted August 28, 2006 Posted August 28, 2006 It's still an arbitrarily chosen point. Phi has already brought up the topic of a miscarriage. What of the fertilized egg doesn't implant? Everything that happens before that will not make a baby. The baby has to have a heartbeat. Everything that happens before that will not make a baby. It has to breathe when it's born. Everything that happens before that will not make a baby. etc. Why isn't the moment of truth when the woman accepts the first drink? A miscarriage or similar is a problem - not the intent of the design. By design, fertilization is the starting point of all humans. There's nothing arbitrary about that. Seems like common sense to me. Examining a gob of cells and arguing about when it becomes important enough to feel sorry about killing it is arbitrary, highly subjective and with no end in sight.
-Demosthenes- Posted August 28, 2006 Posted August 28, 2006 Not really sure what your point is here. Yeah, I'm all for the government not forcing me to give up my kidney for anybody. I prefer the government stay out of all matters to do with my body - inside or out. Legally and socially and any other-lly... I don't really have a point, just commenting on your argument. I don't get your point. What does that have to do with anything? This is simply when human life begins. Technically the sperm and the egg are alive aren't they? That's why this whole mess is so sticky (little or no pun intended). According to Roe v. Wade, the Constitution is involved. Yes, according the that ruling laws against abortion infringe on our right against unlawful search and seizure. Come on, why do we have branch distinction in government if we don't use them? A miscarriage or similar is a problem - not the intent of the design. By design, fertilization is the starting point of all humans. There's nothing arbitrary about that. Seems like common sense to me. Examining a gob of cells and arguing about when it becomes important enough to feel sorry about killing it is arbitrary, highly subjective and with no end in sight. If only it were that simple.
swansont Posted August 28, 2006 Posted August 28, 2006 A miscarriage or similar is a problem[/i'] - not the intent of the design. By design, fertilization is the starting point of all humans. There's nothing arbitrary about that. Seems like common sense to me. Examining a gob of cells and arguing about when it becomes important enough to feel sorry about killing it is arbitrary, highly subjective and with no end in sight. Design? Sorry, not accepted without proof. It's part of the process, but so is the mating ritual. You want to define something because it makes sense (to you), but that does not mean that it's not arbitrary. How about we define not getting laid as a problem? It's just as arbitrary.
ParanoiA Posted August 28, 2006 Posted August 28, 2006 Design? Sorry' date=' not accepted without proof. It's part of the process, but so is the mating ritual. You want to define something because it makes sense (to you), but that does not mean that it's not arbitrary. How about we define not getting laid as a [i']problem[/i]? It's just as arbitrary. Well, you're right it does make sense to me. But it still isn't arbitrary. It's, chronologically, the earliest point of human production. There's nothing arbitrary about that. And, not getting laid is a problem. Not fertilizing the egg is a problem. A miscarriage is a problem. Or you can call it a set back. Or you can call it interference. Or whatever you want, but it's fairly obvious it's not the intent of the design. Proof? How about that fact that the major majority of the time an egg is fertilized a baby is a result. The major majority of the time an egg is formed a baby is not a result. The major majority of the time sperm will not create a baby. It takes both.
Sisyphus Posted August 28, 2006 Posted August 28, 2006 How about post-ejaculation, pre-fertilization? Unless you intervene, most of the time that's going to be a kid. That was your criterium before, wasn't it? And I think his "proof" comment was more regarding your use of the word "design."
swansont Posted August 28, 2006 Posted August 28, 2006 Proof? How about that fact that the major majority of the time an egg is fertilized a baby is a result. The major majority of the time an egg is formed a baby is not a result. The major majority of the time sperm will not[/i'] create a baby. It takes both. I'm not exactly sure what a major majority is, but if it means "vast" then it's wrong. A perusal of reports indicate that 15-20% of all known pregnancies end in miscarriages, and it's estimated that at least that fraction of fertilizations are lost before the woman misses her period, so she doesn't even know that she was pregnant. (some estimates are even higher) So it does not appear to be true that a vast majority (or possibly even a simple majority) of fertilizations result in a baby.
swansont Posted August 28, 2006 Posted August 28, 2006 And I think his "proof" comment was more regarding your use of the word "design." Yes, it was. It hints at a religious/teleological basis for the definition rather than a scientific or legal one.
ParanoiA Posted August 28, 2006 Posted August 28, 2006 How about post-ejaculation' date=' pre-fertilization? Unless you intervene, most of the time that's going to be a kid. That was your criterium before, wasn't it? And I think his "proof" comment was more regarding your use of the word "design."[/quote'] Next are we going to challenge the physics of time and dimension just to make this illogical? I could make just about anything false using this kind of approach. Once the egg gets fertilized a human potential begins. You can jump around that a hundred different ways, but it has to happen. A uteris isn't required. I can grow a baby in a dish - but it still has to be fertilized. I can change every phase of the pregnancy process, mating, conception - everything - but I'll always have to fertilize to get humans started. And I don't care what label you want to give that phase, fertilization is what happens. Now, design implies intent by some higher order. I don't know if any higher order or theological entity exists, but I think since at least 90% of the time reproduction is identical and successful and has been for millions of years then that's proof enough. Anyone in here challenging that reproduction isn't intentional? Are you saying reproduction is an accident that keeps repeating itself? Edit: I guess 90% was way too high according to swansont. However, I still believe reproduction is intended...by nature or some white bearded dude in the sky or whatever you like...
ParanoiA Posted August 28, 2006 Posted August 28, 2006 I'm not exactly sure what a major majority is' date=' but if it means "vast" then it's wrong. A perusal of reports indicate that 15-20% of all known pregnancies end in miscarriages, and it's estimated that at least that fraction of fertilizations are lost before the woman misses her period, so she doesn't even know that she was pregnant. (some estimates are even higher) So it does not appear to be true that a vast majority (or possibly even a simple majority) of fertilizations result in a baby. And yet not a single baby has ever been created without fertilization.
ParanoiA Posted August 28, 2006 Posted August 28, 2006 Yes, it was. It hints at a religious/teleological basis for the definition rather than a scientific or legal one. No, I don't believe in fairy tales and I don't make up theology to make myself feel important. I also don't claim to know how we got here so I really just don't know. I'm cool with that. I used the words intent and design, because reproduction is not an accident and seems to be a process that is repeated by all animals in one shape or form. Maybe not the best word, but I didn't realize we were going to reinvent the wheel in this debate...
swansont Posted August 28, 2006 Posted August 28, 2006 Note: Each quoted section represents a different post by ParanoiA Once the egg gets fertilized a human potential begins. You can jump around that a hundred different ways' date=' but it has to happen. A uteris isn't required. I can grow a baby in a dish - but it still has to be fertilized. I can change every phase of the pregnancy process, mating, conception - everything - but I'll always have to fertilize to get humans started. And I don't care what label you want to give that phase, fertilization is what happens. Now, design implies intent by some higher order. I don't know if any higher order or theological entity exists, but I think since at least 90% of the time reproduction is identical and successful and has been for millions of years then that's proof enough. Anyone in here challenging that reproduction isn't intentional? Are you saying reproduction is an accident that keeps repeating itself? Edit: I guess 90% was way too high according to swansont. However, I still believe reproduction is intended...by nature or some white bearded dude in the sky or whatever you like...[/quote'] The two are not mutually exclusive (false dilemma), and it proves nothing, unless there would be a way to disprove the claim. But have a hard time coming to grips with the idea that all animals have the intent to reproduce, since it implies understanding of the outcome. Animals have a sex drive, which is instinctual. That it has an outcome that helps propagate the species means the behavior would be selected for. Humans have likely been having babies far longer than they have understood the cause and effect aspect. And yet not a single baby has ever been created without fertilization. Here you have moved the goalposts. No' date=' I don't believe in fairy tales and I don't make up theology to make myself feel important. I also don't claim to know how we got here so I really just don't know. I'm cool with that. I used the words intent and design, because reproduction is not an accident and seems to be a process that is repeated by all animals in one shape or form. Maybe not the best word, but I didn't realize we were going to reinvent the wheel in this debate...[/quote'] It's necessary, perhaps, because when you assume what "we all know" you find that there is disagreement, especially (but by no means exclusively) when you leave the scientific realm and enter the religious one. Have any babies been born without implantation? Fertilization may be a necessary condition, but it is still insufficient; you still need all the other steps. Which is why choosing any one, absent any other information, is arbitrary.
ParanoiA Posted August 28, 2006 Posted August 28, 2006 Have any babies been born without implantation? Fertilization may be a necessary condition' date=' but it is still insufficient; you still need all the other steps. Which is why choosing any one, absent any other information, is arbitrary.[/quote'] Yes, but fertilization is the first of those steps. All things before it will not make a human. And all things after it will not make a human without it. It's a unique step. And dependency of multiple processes to sustain life is certanly nothing new. Fertilization is the absolute starting point of human potential. Which is why choosing it is not arbitrary. If not fertilization, when does the instruction of building the human take place? And with what? Do you have a better idea of what causes a human to start being created?
Recommended Posts