| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/16/2013 03:39:51 PM · #126 |
Jason, thank you for noticing. I was just trying to point out that childbearing and abortion, whether or not they are chosen, have consequences that are uniquely borne(!) by the individual female. It is always a decision made not knowing...
Give her room, give her respect.
Where and when life begins belongs with the angels on the head of a pin/in the head of a pinhead. |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 03:43:20 PM · #127 |
Originally posted by tnun:
Jason, thank you for noticing. I was just trying to point out that childbearing and abortion, whether or not they are chosen, have consequences that are uniquely borne(!) by the individual female. It is always a decision made not knowing...
|
I don't want to disrespect this. You are right. It IS unique. A unique blessing and a unique responsibility. |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 04:20:53 PM · #128 |
Perhaps if life actually "began before birth" and it was truly felt by anyone that this was "murder" in the legal sense or moral sense, then people would try to prevent it more strongly? but because there is an intellectually uncertainty to when "life begins"- not many go out on a limb to stop, prevent, punish and prosecute all involved before a certain point.
All this being said, perhaps its not all or nothing, perhaps it is defined by stages, not just potential. This may be so at the end of life as well... |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 06:03:32 PM · #129 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... think many abortion rights people are scared of this idea (the "personhood movement" has been called "highly dangerous") because they know down deep that the right to live is likely to hold trump as more fundamental than the right to personal autonomy. |
...and should the rights of personal autonomy be trumped, then what I fear would be a return to "back alley" procedures that existed in the past, where in many instances, the ensuing results were devastating for all parties involved.
Ray |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 06:18:06 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... think many abortion rights people are scared of this idea (the "personhood movement" has been called "highly dangerous") because they know down deep that the right to live is likely to hold trump as more fundamental than the right to personal autonomy. |
...and should the rights of personal autonomy be trumped, then what I fear would be a return to "back alley" procedures that existed in the past, where in many instances, the ensuing results were devastating for all parties involved.
Ray |
And that brings us full circle. Exactly what the OP's article was really all about. |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 06:23:55 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Maybe, actually, it would be helpful to copy wiki's list for the characteristics of "life" and you can see for yourself:
Originally posted by wiki:
Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following:
1.Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
2.Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells ΓΆ€” the basic units of life.
3.Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4.Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
5.Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
6.Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
7.Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms. |
We will note that even a zygote will pass this test fairly easily. Certainly a 10-day embryo. |
A 10-day old embryo can reproduce?! We better start those birth control classes earlier.
Defining life is "pretty" easy, as you point out, but fits a wide variety of organisms. How about you come up with a scientific definition of what it is to "be human" instead?
Message edited by author 2013-05-16 18:24:12. |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 06:46:18 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Defining life is "pretty" easy, as you point out, but fits a wide variety of organisms. How about you come up with a scientific definition of what it is to "be human" instead? |
It would be technical, but it would involve having 23 pairs of chromosomes with some exceptions noted. That's easy. We have no trouble distinguishing what is human from what is not human. |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 07:02:38 PM · #133 |
| Sometimes I just love Jason. |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 07:04:05 PM · #134 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
... think many abortion rights people are scared of this idea (the "personhood movement" has been called "highly dangerous") because they know down deep that the right to live is likely to hold trump as more fundamental than the right to personal autonomy. |
...and should the rights of personal autonomy be trumped, then what I fear would be a return to "back alley" procedures that existed in the past, where in many instances, the ensuing results were devastating for all parties involved.
Ray |
I hear you, but I think this is going about it backwards. It is more important to decide on the rights of the unborn (and to adjudicate them against the rights of the mother) and THEN deal with the people who are willing to act against these rights. IF the unborn have a right to life which trumps the mother's right to bodily autonomy, we can't neglect this just because a doctor or a mother might come into harm in their attempt to violate these rights. That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 07:04:44 PM · #135 |
Originally posted by tnun:
Sometimes I just love Jason. |
Uh, you are making me nervous. Like I'm missing a joke at my expense... ;) |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 07:39:31 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Defining life is "pretty" easy, as you point out, but fits a wide variety of organisms. How about you come up with a scientific definition of what it is to "be human" instead? |
It would be technical, but it would involve having 23 pairs of chromosomes with some exceptions noted. That's easy. We have no trouble distinguishing what is human from what is not human. |
I'm talking biology, not histology; you've just described the characteristics of dandruff.
OK, give me a scientific definition of what it means to "be a (living) human being" ... |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 07:57:09 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Defining life is "pretty" easy, as you point out, but fits a wide variety of organisms. How about you come up with a scientific definition of what it is to "be human" instead? |
It would be technical, but it would involve having 23 pairs of chromosomes with some exceptions noted. That's easy. We have no trouble distinguishing what is human from what is not human. |
I'm talking biology, not histology; you've just described the characteristics of dandruff.
OK, give me a scientific definition of what it means to "be a (living) human being" ... |
You need to choose your words carefully Paul. Definitions trip up these conversations all the time. Dandruff is human (if it came from one). However it isn't a "human life" (or a "human person").
So, if by "human being" you mean both "human" and a "life" then we just mesh our two above definitions. Does it meet the qualifications of "life" and does it meet the requisite definition (via genetics) for "human"? If so, it is a "human life".
If by "human being" you mean "human person" (ie. endowed with human rights), then you are barking up the wrong tree. Science has no capacity to define this for us. It is a philosophical idea and not a biological one.
(I answered both ways because I wasn't sure which you were intending.)
Message edited by author 2013-05-16 19:58:35. |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 08:05:58 PM · #138 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
A third fact could help. Scientifically, we know what "human life" is, and the answer is either it starts at conception or very, very soon after. |
Please expand on that point. How do we define "human life" in this context? Not from a religious point of view, but purely scientifically, when does potential shift to individual?
Lets look at it from the other end. Is a person who has no brain activity alive? When heroic life saving fails, that is often the point at which we determine the spark of life has exited the corpus. We can pump their heart for them, but once the brain goes offline, they are dead meat. Can an embryo before the 25th week when brain activity begins, be said to be any more alive that the body in the ICU? More potential, certainly, but equally alive. |
Well, although there is a small amount of fraying at the edges of the definition, we have a pretty clear idea, scientifically, of what is "life" and what is not. Cat...alive. Rock...not alive. Lists of criteria have been created and most will generally agree (I'm sure we could look them up on wiki). There is, like I said, a small amount of fuzziness. Are viruses alive? (most would argue no.)
By herself, a person with no brain activity may be "alive" (having the characteristics of being a life), but she would also be in the active process of dying. Brain activity, however, is not generally considered as part of a scientific term for "life" because many organisms have no brain. Bacteria, single celled organisms, etc.
Maybe, actually, it would be helpful to copy wiki's list for the characteristics of "life" and you can see for yourself:
Originally posted by wiki:
Since there is no unequivocal definition of life, the current understanding is descriptive. Life is considered a characteristic of organisms that exhibit all or most of the following:
1.Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
2.Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells ΓΆ€” the basic units of life.
3.Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
4.Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
5.Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
6.Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
7.Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms. |
We will note that even a zygote will pass this test fairly easily. Certainly a 10-day embryo. |
And yet, an ant would not, since they are asexual and not able to reproduce unless they are a queen. |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 08:09:12 PM · #139 |
So, you ( DrAchoo) believe a fertilized egg (even prior to implantation), the product of the union of an ovum and a sperm, and its developmental sequelae, constitutes the definition of a "human being" or "person" in both the legal and philosophical senses?
Message edited by author 2013-05-16 20:10:10. |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 08:12:25 PM · #140 |
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by tnun:
Ah, so many men discussing childbearing... |
Ah, the joy of being discounted. Don't hate me because I don't have a uterus. I do still have a brain. |
Who's discounting who here? Every time we discuss any hot button issue, you display a complete lack of understanding and empathy for the culture and lives of people who are different than you. Not everyone is wealthy, straight, white, male, and evangelical. Everyone does, however, carry around a set of values and beliefs, and knowledge of right and wrong, based on their own culture and background and religion. Not surprisingly, a small number of those values and beliefs are different than yours.
You're putting a lot of effort into arguing about abortion without giving the appearance of bringing your religion into it, but the arguments don't work unless everyone agrees on the assumption that the beliefs that your religion has taught you are more valid than everyone else's. For one thing, given the polling data that exists, I suspect that at least 50% of the people in this country disagree with you on when a fertilized egg becomes a baby. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Offensive stuff, Ann. At the least it's ignorant. |
? I'm puzzled. How is it offensive or ignorant?
Are you, or are you not a wealthy, well educated, white male who is evangelical in nature? Do you or do you not think that the world should conform to Christian law and values?
I'm just lost as to how this was either offensive or ignorant - seems to me she hit the nail on the head. |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 08:15:27 PM · #141 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...
We have no trouble distinguishing what is human from what is not human. |
ah, but then where is the mystery? where does that leave the druids? and how the heck are we going to make rules for the aliens when they take over?
Jason makes me feel so safe unsafe. |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 08:22:26 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
So, you ( DrAchoo) believe a fertilized egg (even prior to implantation), the product of the union of an ovum and a sperm, and its developmental sequelae, constitutes the definition of a "human being" or "person" in both the legal and philosophical senses? |
If you are reading carefully you'll note I've never actually said that. What I have said is the answer is likely to be much closer to that end than the other (birth). I've noted many times there is a gray area where multiple answers could be valid. |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 08:30:40 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by Cory:
? I'm puzzled. How is it offensive or ignorant?
Are you, or are you not a wealthy, well educated, white male who is evangelical in nature? Do you or do you not think that the world should conform to Christian law and values?
I'm just lost as to how this was either offensive or ignorant - seems to me she hit the nail on the head. |
Would it be offensive to join a conversation with, "we'll, that's just your answer because you are black."? I think it would.
I know your offense meter usually has the gain turned pretty low, but I don't appreciate being rejected based on irrelevant characteristics of my gender and race. Further, I don't appreciate the sentiment that says, "I know you haven't mentioned your Christianity, but I know your statements mean little without it anyway." My statements, without mentioning my faith, should stand or fall on their own merit. It would be better just to show how they are incorrect rather than to infer an insidious reasoning that somehow makes them false. That's ignorant. |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 08:31:24 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by tnun:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...
We have no trouble distinguishing what is human from what is not human. |
ah, but then where is the mystery? where does that leave the druids? and how the heck are we going to make rules for the aliens when they take over?
Jason makes me feel so safe unsafe. |
Well if the aliens take over wont they be the ones making the rules? :) |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 08:36:29 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I've noted many times there is a gray area where multiple answers could be valid. |
OK -- so we agree there's no bright line of demarcation, and there is room for reasonable people to have differing but equally valid opinions ...
If a fertilized ovum isn't a "human being" then I think it would follow that use of those new stem cells derived from embryos which were never fertilized (rather stimulated into growth with a chemical/electrical process) would be OK, particularly if used in life-saving treatments for actual living breathing thinking humans ...
I'm not sure what it says about us guys, but the "missing ingredient" in the chemical cocktail used in this previously-unsuccessful process was ... caffeine. |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 08:40:50 PM · #146 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Would it be offensive to join a conversation with, "we'll, that's just your answer because you are black."? I think it would.
|
Depends. I have almost certainly done almost exactly this. Of course, their answer probably WAS almost entirely shaped by their being black.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I know your offense meter usually has the gain turned pretty low, but I don't appreciate being rejected based on irrelevant characteristics of my gender and race. Further, I don't appreciate the sentiment that says, "I know you haven't mentioned your Christianity, but I know your statements mean little without it anyway." My statements, without mentioning my faith, should stand or fall on their own merit. It would be better just to show how they are incorrect rather than to infer an insidious reasoning that somehow makes them false. That's ignorant. |
Again, I have to say, I have to disagree with you, your faith does shape a huge portion of your worldview - to discount your faith, or ignore it, is effectively to deny a huge part of your very nature. You may think your ideas should stand or fall on their own, but as we've went over in the past, I think they would fall quite flat without the guy wires that are provided by your faith, which seemingly secures them against all tempests.
For what it's worth, I do think you're an excellent Christian, and I honestly say that with respect. I disagree with you, often, but I respect that you are at least dedicated to your beliefs and values, but I think that this is so strongly true that I can't really ever mentally separate your ideas from your faith. |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 08:45:34 PM · #147 |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 08:48:33 PM · #148 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Cory:
? I'm puzzled. How is it offensive or ignorant?
Are you, or are you not a wealthy, well educated, white male who is evangelical in nature? Do you or do you not think that the world should conform to Christian law and values?
I'm just lost as to how this was either offensive or ignorant - seems to me she hit the nail on the head. |
Would it be offensive to join a conversation with, "we'll, that's just your answer because you are black."? I think it would.
I know your offense meter usually has the gain turned pretty low, but I don't appreciate being rejected based on irrelevant characteristics of my gender and race. Further, I don't appreciate the sentiment that says, "I know you haven't mentioned your Christianity, but I know your statements mean little without it anyway." My statements, without mentioning my faith, should stand or fall on their own merit. It would be better just to show how they are incorrect rather than to infer an insidious reasoning that somehow makes them false. That's ignorant. |
Talking down to people, telling them they are smarter than their position, acting like you are a professor, that can be interpreted as rude and/or offensive. And all for religious reasons? Believing you are right or have the moral high ground because of your sect of Christianity, that could be perceived as ignorant.
Perhaps if you stepped back and stopped defending everything from indefensible religious positions, from logic, science, medicine even, that could stop half the bickering and leave substance. |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 09:01:53 PM · #149 |
| You just think that because you are a lawyer. :P |
|
|
|
05/16/2013 09:11:26 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
 |
Shouldn't that read "all debates"? |
|
