tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post9051101357962768329..comments2024-03-19T04:19:18.871-05:00Comments on Atheism Analyzed: Discussion Zone for AbortionUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger120125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-14460505510338604272017-08-05T23:05:02.935-05:002017-08-05T23:05:02.935-05:00Stan, I do not like your comment "denial of R...Stan, I do not like your comment "denial of Right to Life (except under due process)... is criminal. ( Or pretty close. I don't know how to quote a post in italics.) Does this not imply that an abortion would be acceptable under due process, if some tribunal reviewed and sanctioned it? <br />If killing a human is wrong, then killing a human is wrong.<br />This is my kid's accounthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02708036977171160386noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-68968142181066600352017-04-20T15:06:08.921-05:002017-04-20T15:06:08.921-05:00Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. An...Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction. And how do you determine the folks that executed Saddam were a legal government? The USA launched an illegal war of aggression on false pretenses. That makes the subsequent puppet state "legal" and legitimate?<br /><br />Have you ever considered the possibility that governments make use of these sorts of justifications because a large percentage of their populations will just buy into them? Perhaps Saddam wasn't so much a tyrant to his people as he was to the US government, as soon as he wanted to sell oil in a currency other than dollars.<br /><br />Right wing American ideology doesn't usually have much sympathy for the weak. Aren't the right wingers the ones always complaining about "losers" and blaming the poor for their station in life, trying to eliminate social benefits as if they were somehow morally corrupting? Isn't it much more likely that folks like that would be invading out of self interest, when they openly declare self interest to be virtuous and a glorified motive for individuals and nations?<br /><br />Saudi Arabia doesn't get attacked, and its human rights violations are rather stark. Weekly beheadings?<br /><br />Iraq was not attacked to protect the weak from a tyrant. It isn't clear to me how bombing people "protects" them.<br /><br />Humans are not pacifistic? None of them? Ever? In any context? They are absolutely always prone to violence forever and ever?<br /><br />Regardless of our disagreement on this point (and we must have vastly different perspectives as we seem to see each other's arguments as bordering on the absurd), your points on atheism are original and excellent and something every serious atheist should consider.joogabahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12379849296384719875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-73495681831810649872017-02-25T10:22:37.212-06:002017-02-25T10:22:37.212-06:00" War is a sociopathic celebration of death a...<i>" War is a sociopathic celebration of death and sadism to terrorize people into compliance, made possible by demonizing other populations as "the enemy”, i.e., by nationalism, as if somehow only humans who are subject to the same political state are worthy of life itself."</i><br /><br />That is just not true. The First Gulf War was in response to the Iraqi attack on defenseless Kuwait, killing/raping/plundering. Kuwait asked for, and received a response, which was military and war. Unfortunately Saddam Hussein was not removed/killed in that war.<br /><br />When Sadddam refused to allow the UN inspectors to search for WMDs, it was correctly assumed that he had WMDs, in part because he had used WMDs on his own people in a genocidic episode of violence against entire towns, including women and children. The international community condemned that, and the Second Gulf War was fought to a finish, with Saddam caught and executed by a legal government.<br /><br />Your idealistic philosophy will work, right up to the time you figure out that humans are not pacifistic, and they must be defended against. <br /><br />Is it wrong to defend the weak against genocidal tyrants? Under your philosophy, yes, it is.<br /><br />I do not, cannot, agree.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-63333667665962480572017-02-25T09:07:20.737-06:002017-02-25T09:07:20.737-06:00Isn't militarism associated with nationalism, ...Isn't militarism associated with nationalism, a major tenet of the Right?<br /><br />I remember massive worldwide protests in 2003 against the invasion of Iraq. I didn't see many self-identified "right wing" participants; on the contrary. Wasn't that an aggressive war launched on false pretenses in the interests of a narrow, powerful and wealthy class in the USA? And if so, doesn't it belie any notion of a sacred commitment to human life? War is a sociopathic celebration of death and sadism to terrorize people into compliance, made possible by demonizing other populations as "the enemy”, i.e., by nationalism, as if somehow only humans who are subject to the same political state are worthy of life itself.<br /><br />A universal commitment to human life must be pacifistic, unless one buys into a total identification with and subordination to one’s government. <br />joogabahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12379849296384719875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-55853268074033395192017-01-26T14:53:35.982-06:002017-01-26T14:53:35.982-06:00"why is war not opposed absolutely in all cas...<i>"why is war not opposed absolutely in all cases except for defense by the Right?"</i><br /><br />It is. <br /><br />But that is not pacifism, which will not even defend itself. Note that it was Democrats (Kennnedy and LBJ) that caused the Viet Nam bloodbath. It was Republican Richard Nixon who said, <i>"We win, get out NOW!"</i>, and evacuated all Americans from SE Asia.<br /><br />Find REAL history, rather than the Leftist corruption of it. People who were around at the time can set you straight. Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-30940850574225603032017-01-26T11:10:33.518-06:002017-01-26T11:10:33.518-06:00I'm not trolling. I'm intrigued by your a...I'm not trolling. I'm intrigued by your analysis of atheism, which is very persuasive.<br /><br />And that led me to your other articles.<br /><br />Why doesn't the sanctity of human life demand pacifism for most on the Right? If war is a necessary evil, and civilian casualties are "collateral damage" because of a need to construct whatever sort of civilization the aggressor is trying to construct (and the USA has launched aggressive wars for regime change against countries that have not attacked it), then why isn't abortion seen as "collateral damage" for producing a society of children who are wanted by their mothers?<br /><br />If denial of the right to life is criminal under natural law, then why is war not opposed absolutely in all cases except for defense by the Right?<br /><br /><br /><br />joogabahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12379849296384719875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-2458507900669146612017-01-24T17:57:59.895-06:002017-01-24T17:57:59.895-06:00Your premises don't lead to your conclusion. T...Your premises don't lead to your conclusion. The objection to killing humans is not based on whether they have acquired some form of designation as "persons". That is a Progressive/eugenic designation, specifically designed to allow the killing of classes of humans which the Left designates as "killable" by the simple process of denying them "personhood". This is part of the Class War that the Left is engaging the world in right now. But "personhood" is not an organ or feature of humans: being "human" is.<br /><br />Human laws are meant for homo sapiens sapiens. They are not intended to apply to animals or machines. This also is the case for Natural Law and Human Rights: they apply to all humans and only humans.<br /><br />Natural Law has been established through millennia of humans seizing natural human rights from kings who denied them. One of those rights is the Right To Life.<br /><br />Denial of the Right to Life (except through due process) is a violation of a human, and is criminal under Natural Law. To redefine humans into kill classes is evil, yet Progressives love and need their kill Class. So they redefine embryonic humans in order to preserve their kill class, in specific violation of natural law, and in the overthrow of the US Constitution via black-robed Progressive activism.<br /><br />If "personhood" defines a set of humans, it can be revoked so that set can be abolished at will.<br /><br />These days that killing is monetized for profit by selling the obviously human parts to complicit research organizations.<br /><br />The opposition to the Progressive/eugenic use of "personhood" (or any other excuse) for maintaining a <b>kill Class of homo sapiens sapiens</b> for the express purpose of killing them is in no manner motivated by a Class need for workers, and to declare that to be so is empirically, and logically, <b>absurd</b>. Maximally absurd, to the point of indicating that your comment is most likely trolling, rather than serious.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-58800279966273563732017-01-24T10:39:29.176-06:002017-01-24T10:39:29.176-06:00Has anyone considered the possibility that persons...Has anyone considered the possibility that persons are not animals, but linguistic constructs? We are the only species with 2 information systems (DNA and words) and through language we possess memories that extend far back beyond our births.<br /><br />Isn't this cultural and linguistic inheritance the reason we do not see the killing of an animal in the same way as the killing of a person? <br /><br />If, for instance, there existed a genius animal that could somehow incorporate the human vocabulary without human DNA, and think and reason the way we do with our cultural inheritance, then wouldn't it be murder to kill it?<br /><br />Isn't this the basis of the personhood that we value so highly?<br /><br />If not, then why isn't it murder to kill any conscious animal? Certainly they feel and suffer pain and want to live, and it is not uncommon for people to form attachments to them.<br /><br />Is it not possible that the cynical source of the right wing propagation of a pro-life agenda has more to do with maximizing the number of workers in order to lower wages (supply and demand), than a genuine commitment to human dignity and respect for human life (when many of the same people are opposed to pacifism)?joogabahhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12379849296384719875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-51382658904419187252016-10-01T11:17:24.899-05:002016-10-01T11:17:24.899-05:00"The comparison of body cells to gamete cells..."The comparison of body cells to gamete cells is a False Analogy. The gamete cells contain the unique DNA of a completely new human, programmed replication of pluripotent cells for the new human, and the combined metabolisms of both parents. Your analogy depends upon a completely superficial (mis)understanding of cellular level reproduction of life."<br />Different cells are different. An old cell or a new cell are still both just cells. The fact of a cell's newness is irrelevant to the individual humanity of that cell.<br /><br />I find it extraordinarily strange that we are even considering a single cell, one cell, to be an individual human being. A single cell, any single cell irrespective of age or uniqueness, does not have the brain function or bodily function of an individual human being. <br /><br />"It was not said to be sufficient; is part of an argument, not the whole"<br />Ok, fair enough, I will reserve judgement while you express your whole argument.<br /><br />"And the development of the gametes into a blastocyst is entirely different from mitosis which produces two copies of one original; it involves two mitosis events and one meiosis event, producing an all new individual, "<br />Ok, different cells are different, but the DNA that results is the same. In one case 2 half molecules combine to make a whole molecule. Then that cell divides by the DNA again splitting into halves and each half attracts its compliment such that 2 identical molecules form.<br /><br />That is all very interesting but does nothing to show that a single cell is somehow an individual human being. <br /><br />After the first division each cell contains the same DNA as the original, so now we have twins? Then quadruplets and on and on until the cells differentiate?<br /><br />If 1 cell is an individual human being then 2 cells with the same DNA as that 1 cell are 2 individual human beings, right?<br /><br />"You presume for yourself the moral authority to determine the definition of evil; this makes you a being superior to all other human beings – a god,"<br />You are the one who started making judgements about evil!<br />"To deny her the natural humanity is, in fact, an evil act." I guess that makes you a god by your own reasoning.<br /><br />"For Atheism, as Nietzsche proved, there is no morality to be had,"<br />Nietzsche was kind of crabby. On atheism there is no absolute morality to be proved, only relative morality based upon axioms of good and evil derived from our personal sensibilities and found by communication to be widely agreed to.<br /><br />"The idea that denying a full life to embryonic humans is the same as euthanizing a brain dead, end of life human is not merely a False Analogy; it is an insidious claim intended to justify the Kill Culture via a blatantly false comparison."<br />You have failed to logically demonstrate my principle of brain function to be false.<br /><br />A human being requires a functioning brain. Without a functioning brain one may have a body composed of cells that are living and contain DNA but that is not sufficient to be a living individual human being.<br /><br />A body may have living cells, it may have complete DNA, it may even have functioning organs, but absent a functioning brain that body is not a living individual human being.<br /><br />You have provided no logical counter argument.<br /><br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-2949732562354682732016-10-01T06:16:21.546-05:002016-10-01T06:16:21.546-05:00"1) The fertilized egg is alive",
So is...<i>"1) The fertilized egg is alive", <br />So is every cell in my body. That does not make them individual human beings.</i><br /><br />The comparison of body cells to gamete cells is a False Analogy. The gamete cells contain the unique DNA of a completely new human, programmed replication of pluripotent cells for the new human, and the combined metabolisms of both parents. Your analogy depends upon a completely superficial (mis)understanding of cellular level reproduction of life.<br /><br /><i>"it develops along natural paths,"<br />Again, so does every cell in my body. This is not sufficient for individual humanity. </i><br /><br />It was not said to be sufficient; is part of an argument, not the whole. And the development of the gametes into a blastocyst is entirely different from mitosis which produces two copies of one original; it involves two mitosis events and one meiosis event, producing an all new individual, and not copies: pluripotency. False Analogy again.<br /><br /><i>"it contains a unique individual"<br />Ad hoc assertion. </i><br /><br />False claim: the DNA is a unique combination of two separate DNA, which makes the individual in the blastocyst unique. <br /><br /><i>"at a necessary and sufficient stage in her life path."<br />Cells in the body of a brain dead corpse are alive at a stage in a life path, that does not make them each an individual human being. </i><br /><br />Still the same False Analogy.<br /><br /><i>"To deny her the natural humanity is, in fact, an evil act."<br />The end of life is defined as the end of brain function. The rest of the body may continue to function, there can be cells living in that body with complete copies of DNA unique to that individual, but once the brain no longer functions and there is no medical possibility of restoration of brain function then that person has died, and thus allowing the rest of the living human cells to die also is not an evil act, rather, merely the disposal of living human tissue that is not a human being. <br /><br />Thus, prior to the formation of a brain the disposal of living human tissue is not an evil act since it does not end an existing brain function. </i><br /><br />You presume for yourself the moral authority to determine the definition of evil; this makes you a being superior to all other human beings – a god, walking among humans. In fact, however, your declaration is merely Atheism asserting its void of all principles, backfilled with rationalization. For Atheism, as Nietzsche proved, there is no morality to be had, despite its rationalized assertions otherwise. And the Atheist presumption of the truth of the Darwinian denial of the value of humans allows the subjective, utilitarian, situational declaration of ephemeral “moral” principles that are tailored to the desires of the Atheist.<br /><br />The idea that denying a full life to embryonic humans is the same as euthanizing a brain dead, end of life human is not merely a False Analogy; it is an insidious claim intended to justify the Kill Culture via a blatantly false comparison.<br /><br />The Atheist Kill Culture actually needs no justification other than Adam Smith/Charles Darwin, coupled with the Marxist Class War/Frankfort School of cultural revolution. The need to keep a Kill Class, once it is established is paramount.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-36832326909068200802016-09-30T18:25:23.698-05:002016-09-30T18:25:23.698-05:00"1) The fertilized egg is alive",
So is..."1) The fertilized egg is alive", <br />So is every cell in my body. That does not make them individual human beings.<br /><br /><br />"it develops along natural paths,"<br />Again, so does every cell in my body. This is not sufficient for individual humanity.<br /><br />"it contains a unique individual"<br />Ad hoc assertion.<br /><br />"at a necessary and sufficient stage in her life path."<br />Cells in the body of a brain dead corpse are alive at a stage in a life path, that does not make them each an individual human being.<br /><br />"To deny her the natural humanity is, in fact, an evil act."<br />The end of life is defined as the end of brain function. The rest of the body may continue to function, there can be cells living in that body with complete copies of DNA unique to that individual, but once the brain no longer functions and there is no medical possibility of restoration of brain function then that person has died, and thus allowing the rest of the living human cells to die also is not an evil act, rather, merely the disposal of living human tissue that is not a human being.<br /><br />Thus, prior to the formation of a brain the disposal of living human tissue is not an evil act since it does not end an existing brain function.StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-35235193003018294362016-06-05T06:09:21.791-05:002016-06-05T06:09:21.791-05:00Stan said...
"By your denigration of the livi...Stan said...<br />"<i>By your denigration of the living fertilized egg by calling it just DNA</i>"<br /><br />But this is exactly what it is. It's the combination of 2 living cells, which you agree cannot be subject of abortion, into 1 living cell, with unique DNA. Each of the 2 cells also had their own DNA so that new cell does not have anything special; it's a random combination of genes.<br /><br />"<i> the necessary and sufficient life and unique individual lives in the fertilized egg. It is your opinion that it should not be called a human in order that you can kill it.</i>"<br /><br />It is my opinion that we should not call it a human; correct. But it's not because I want to kill it... this is attributing a wrong source for the opinion. It is because it is not a human that I see no problem with killing it. Should I be convinced that it is a human (but that will never ever happen) then I would automatically be against its killing.<br /><br /><b>basically, it shows another kind of reversal: </b><br />- You think that there are all of these entities that are human beings, de facto. That is your opinion; your conclusion. <br />- You then see opponents of that view declare that some of these things are not human, in their opinion.<br />- Hence, you conclude that these people are purposely labeling certain humans as killable.<br /><b>In reality, it goes the other way around for those who disagree with you: </b><br />- All cells that are generated by a human body are human, by definition<br />- These cells include sexual cells, with a unique DNA, a unique set of genes<br />- Combining these cells yield yet another unique set of genes<br />- When successfully joined, multiplied via cell division, and implanted inside a human's uterus, these human cells grow to form a human fetus<br />- That human fetus can eventually become viable, at which point it is to be considered a human with universal right to life<br /><br />"<i>The fertilized egg is alive, it develops along natural paths, it contains a unique individual at a necessary and sufficient stage in her life path. To deny her the natural humanity is, in fact, an evil act.</i>"<br /><br />This is another example of stating the conclusion that the fertilized egg (at some undefined point!) is a unique INDIVIDUAL, a person, a human. You then lavel disagreement over that definition as evil, because your opinion is that killing this 1 human cell is akin to killing a human. <b>You also try a word-game again.</b> Here, it's the word 'humanity' which is used to muddle the distinction between 'human cells' and 'a human'. Every single cell coming out of a human body is a human cell, but not every one of these cells is a human. You agree with that, as the unfertilized egg is 'not' a human but only a human cell. But, you insert your own subjective conclusion, your opinion, by stating that the fertilized egg also has some 'humanity' in can be rid of: yet another way of stating that the fertilized egg is a human person, just because of the uniqueness of the DNA and the presence at one of the steps of human development.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-44526576038655721422016-06-05T06:09:05.213-05:002016-06-05T06:09:05.213-05:00Here's yet another way to make the issue more ...Here's yet another way to make the issue more obvious, using sets, which we can agree on:<br /><br /><b>Set A - Living Cells</b><br />Simplified biological definition: any arrangement of molecules which exhibit the properties of movement and metabolism.<br /><br /><b>Set B - Human Cells</b><br />Members of 'Set A' that specifically contain DNA of human origin.<br /><br /><b>Set C - Living Human Being</b><br />Entity made up of members of 'Set B' which has universal human rights, such as the right to life. Killing a member of 'Set C' is usually referred to as 'murder' or 'manslaughter' or some other form of human killing, which may or may not be legitimate under the circumstances. Individual members of 'Set C' are also known as 'human being', 'human person', 'unique individual being', 'fully formed human', 'human baby', 'human child', 'human teenager', 'human adult', and many more.<br /><br />Keeping some of the entities from the 20-steps from before:<br />1) Human spermatozoid<br />2) Human egg<br />4) Human spermatozoid and human egg sharing a fused membrane <br />5) Human egg that contains un-fused male and female DNA<br />6) Human egg that gathers genetic material from the male and female together (zygote)<br />7) Human egg undergoing a first mitosis, with now fused male and female chromosome<br />8) The pair of human daughter cells resulting from the mitosis of the fertilized human egg<br />11) Human implanted embryo inside a woman's uterus<br />12) 2-week old human embryo<br />16) 20-week old human fetus<br /><br />Here are some facts:<br />- ALL steps refer to members of 'Set A'<br />- ALL steps refer to members of 'Set B'<br />- NOT ALL steps refer to members of 'Set C'<br /><br />Here's my opinion:<br />- Steps 1 to 15 do not refer to members of 'Set C'<br />- Step 16+ refer to members of 'Set C', based on the viability of the fetus, which is not trivial to determine.<br />- Members of 'Set C' can never be removed from 'Set C'. Death is what makes them leave the set.<br /><br />Here's your opinion; feel free to correct my interpretation and/or support it with reason and logic:<br />- Step 1 and 2 do not refer to members of 'Set C', but they do have some mystique "life essence" being transferred from parents to potential child.<br />- Somewhere between Step 3 and 11, something happen that makes the combination of 2 members of 'Set B' to become a unique member of 'Set C'.<br />- But it is irrelevant to ask exactly why/when: the questions stem from a desire to kill members of 'Set C'.<br />- Pro-choice advocate want to remove members of 'Set C' from the set in order to murder them.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-75676083564476367092016-06-05T06:08:43.387-05:002016-06-05T06:08:43.387-05:00"2. “it's a critical reasoning error to s..."<i>2. “it's a critical reasoning error to state that because all human went through the human development process, each minute step of the development process is to be labeled a human.”<br /><br />you choose to go back into the process before the egg is fertilized, to a state wherein the issue of abortion does not even apply. It is absolutely true that sperm and unfertilized eggs do not create new unique humans on their own. However it should be apparent that sperm and unfertilized eggs are (obviously) necessary in order to combine together in producing a fertilized egg containing a new, unique individual human. So in combination, they do hold both life being transferred and the final DNA for a new, living and unique human. </i>"<br /><br />First, let's note the <b>mischaracterization of biology being put on display, in the very last sentence: there is no such thing as 'they do hold both life being transferred'.</b> This reveals your ignorance Stan, where you portrait your understanding of reproduction to be the "transfer" of some sort of mysterious "life essence". This has nothing to do with biology. <br />- What actually gets transferred is a random set of genes from each parent.<br />- Each cell involve in the process is alive, at every single moment of the process.<br />- The sperm is alive, contains unique DNA, and is necessary to the process.<br />- The egg is alive, contains unique DNA, and necessary to the process.<br />- The fertilized egg is alive, contains unique DNA, and necessary to the process.<br />- The fertilized egg is not 'a human' by any objective definition.<br />But, a line is drawn by your position Stan: the fertilized egg IS 'a human', a unique individual human, even if it's only 1 human cell, which is the result of randomly created sexual cells that were randomly put together. It has a <b>unique set of DNA,</b> just like the egg and the sperm did, but it is not independent from the woman's body.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-86839487485168750262016-06-05T06:08:22.827-05:002016-06-05T06:08:22.827-05:00The arguments on your side are using this opinion,...The arguments on your side are using this opinion, which you wrongly label as fact. Yet, objectively, the beginning of a human life is the moment when a human is first recognized as 'a human', not just 'human cell'. There are differences of opinion as to the precise time of such recognition. You reject that notion and declare that your opinion is indeed a scientific fact. We disagree not only on the conclusion, but also on what we disagree on.<br /><br />Stan said...<br />"<i>The following fully illuminates the desperation which you feel:</i>"<br /><br />This is stated as fact; it's a form of argumentation. It can be easily proven wrong: no, I feel no desperation. You actually showed that you don't understand the chemical processes that makes a living thing alive, you thus don't understand the biological definition of "life", and this thus explain why you also cannot possible understand evolution. <br /><br />Here's another fact: Someone who has such an inaccurate view of what biology is cannot possible understand more complicated topics related to biology. This is factual information that can be seen by reading this thread and comparing your statements to the scientific knowledge that humankind as acquired through the scientific method over the centuries.<br /><br />"<i>The reasons I have given are valid and true. You hardly even dispute that. What you do instead is to judge them to be “bad” reasons. Upon what logic do you base your judgment of “bad reasons”?</i>"<br /><br />The explanations as to why your reasons are bad reasons, based on faulty critical reasoning, are shown in the next lines right after:<br /><br />"<i>1. “nothing special” – it can be done in the lab. <br /><br />This is best called Pettifoggery. That DNA can be manipulated has no bearing on the natural reproductive process which is in operation in the creation of the new, unique individual. </i>"<br /><br />Your position states that there is something 'special' about a new set of DNA. The fact that there are relatively simple manipulations that allow humans to create new sets of DNA serves to disprove your point. It's a specific example about a specific claim. It is not futile: it directly address one of your premises.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-77278861897260558672016-06-05T06:08:05.749-05:002016-06-05T06:08:05.749-05:00So, in short, I think the answer is:
1-to-15) '...So, in short, I think the answer is:<br />1-to-15) 'No', not a human; killing the entity is like killing a single human cell<br />16) Not sure, would say 'Yes' to be on the safe side and avoid killing a human<br />17+) Yes, definitely a human, killing the entity is akin to killing a born human<br /><br />On your side Stan, <b>where does it become clear that a human is being killed, should we get rid of the living human cells involved?</b> None of the description you have given so far truly works here. Every single of these steps refers to something that is living. Except for the first 2 steps, they all include groups of human cells that contain the genetic material necessary for a fully form human being. Any of these steps can be seen as growing, and potentially never growing again. Even when the fertilization is complete and the first mitosis has happened, we still don't know if 1 or more babies will result; identical twins could happen from the formation of 2 embryos, and again, maybe only 1 of them will be normal and adsorb back the other.<br /><br />Therefore, there is an arbitrary line drawn, somewhere, by your position Stan. <b>Where is that line and why should we consider it to be where a human is now deemed to have rights?</b> Where do we see a difference between that full human and the individual human eggs and human spermatozoids, which you clearly stated have no right to life? <b>In other words, forget the word 'personhood' if you prefer, and explain exactly when a human is being killed, should a woman decide to induce her period, or get an abortion. </b> Feel free to add more details to these steps, should you need more biological FACTS for your argument to be supported.<br />(End quote)<br /><br />Stan said...<br />"<i> Surely human gestation is understood well enough to be able to show the time, the place, and the physical module itself as it is being installed. I personally have not seen such a module, not for humans, not for cattle, not for dogs, nor cats nor any creature.</i>"<br /><br />Actually, you do make that claim. You claim that the sperm is not a human, the egg is not a human, but together they are a human: the fertilized egg is a human with universal rights. That is your claim; this is where you place the human physical module, with a very strict definition of what it means to be a human. According to that position, being a human means having 1 cell or more, with a full human DNA. That's it. Killing such thing is akin to murder. This conclusion, this opinion, is then used to construct arguments.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-29917192816061088502016-06-05T06:07:46.202-05:002016-06-05T06:07:46.202-05:00Your position is on the extreme end of the pro-lif...Your position is on the <b>extreme end of the pro-life side: a fertilized egg, whatever YOU define it to be, is a human with universal right.</b> Hence, stem cell research involves murder, morning-after pills are murders, sometimes, and even some form of birth control devices are to be seen as causing murders of human beings. An IUD, for instance, releases chemicals that prevent fertilization. However, the fertilization may work anyway and the IUD then acts as a second-barrier by also preventing the implantation of the embryo. <b> Are women with IUD to be accused of murdering humans?</b><br /><br />I stated in my last comment block: It is arguable (exactly which entity should be seen as 'a human'), this is what we are talking about, but you refuse to argue for your position. You just state it. Your listed your conclusion again here: a human is a 'fertilized egg through natural death'. Stan replied:<br /><br />"<i>But since you assert science, and claim biology for your side, then use biology to point to the place where “human” is installed as a module which did not previously exist under your personal definitions. Surely human gestation is understood well enough to be able to show the time, the place, and the physical module itself as it is being installed.</i>"<br /><br />After two threads and over 120 comments, it is clear that my position is based on the <b>viability of the fetus</b>. I consider it immoral to kill a fetus that would otherwise survive outside of the womb; this is generally around the 20-week mark. The clearest comment I made on that specific question was the answer to question 'which one represents a human?' when looking at the 20 steps I listed:<br /><br />(Quoting myself) FWIW, I already had written the following; my answer is that from 1 to 15, the answer is easy: no, this is not a human. The spermatozoid, the egg, the fertilized egg, the zygote, the embryo are all human things, but they don't represent a human. The cells/fetus cannot live on its own, has no felling of anything, and only subjective sentimental value to some people. Killing any of these living things is thus not akin to killing a human person; it is not murder. And that's when ~99% of abortions are performed. <br /><br />At #16, things are getting more complicated, as the fetus may have a chance of survival, outside the womb, and that chance keeps increasing. By the 30-week mark, at #17, it's pretty clear to me that we are now definitely talking about an independent human being who can survive outside the womb. Killing that fetus is now akin to killing a human, a person. It might still be acceptable, in some rare cases, to be analyzed one-by-one, and thus no blanket statement can be made. I personally never had to make such decision, hope to never have to make it, and let it to be up to the people involved and their close ones to figure it out, with the aid of medical professionals.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-9640397346953328562016-06-05T06:07:25.105-05:002016-06-05T06:07:25.105-05:00Stan said...
"The question of why are these c...Stan said...<br />"<i>The question of why are these characteristics, which are observable molecular actions, active in living things, and deactivated at death. Which of the four forces are applied to them that causes them to be many mutually coordinated systems via signaling feedback systems which result in the mutual balancing of necessarily interconnected internal systems, all of which must function optimally. At death, the molecules still exist; what forces disappear? Why? If they are not the four forces, what are they?</i>"<br /><br /><b>You are putting it in reverse!</b> There is no mystery as to 'why' livings things have observable characteristics; it's <b>because of the observable molecular actions that something is label as living</b>. The physical forces are the same regardless of the living state of organisms. These questions confirm that <b>you do not understand biology nor the chemical processes involved in living things.</b><br /><br />"<i> rationalized excuse to assert your designation for a Class [Killable Humans]</i>"<br /><br />This is a repetition of your conclusion, surrounded by attacks on the character of anybody who disagrees with you. Your conclusion is that the moment of fertilization (<b>but you have still not explain exactly when/why based on the 20-steps</b>) is the moment when a human is created and thus bearer of universal rights. This declaration is without merit, and was re-visited a bit later in your series of comment.<br /><br />Side argument:<br />"<i>Greta Christina calls it her inviolable Right, and she went berserk on Pigliucci for suggesting that there might be ethical issues in the third trimester</i>"<br /><br />Then I disagree with her. My position is based on biological facts related to the viability of the fetus, first, and the woman's right, second. Her arguments are based on the woman's right, first, and the viability of the fetus, second. We agree on at least 99% of abortion cases, and probably more, but would not always agree. This is the nature of rational debate; people don't always agree.<br /><br /> The pro-life life side also has different position such as wanting to prevent abortion after the earth starts beating. Others are against any abortion procedure that removes an implanted embryo, but are fine with chemicals, such as the morning-after pill, which prevents the implantation, regardless of the egg being fertilized or not.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-84110391242290575762016-06-04T18:56:36.758-05:002016-06-04T18:56:36.758-05:00Your denialism continues:
” " It seems to be ...Your denialism continues:<br /><i>” " It seems to be more about the designator of class than about the designated target. "<br />Yes, it is. This is exactly what you do, because your argumentation fails. This sentence is accurate. It is all about the designator of class, in 2 different ways. First, you are the one who actually create these classes only to label the other side as killers. Second, you pretend that the pro-choice side are the 'designator' and talk about how evil they are, instead of discussing the topic of abortion. This is why the latest comments are so long, yet so thin on arguments.”</i><br /><br />This is so obviously false that it places its irrationality into a higher category. You insist on define non-persons; non-humans, meaningless cells, insignificant DNA, ad nauseum. The case against you is two-fold: <br />1) The fertilized egg is alive, it develops along natural paths, it contains a unique individual at a necessary and sufficient stage in her life path. To deny her the natural humanity is, in fact, an evil act.<br />2) Universal human Rights apply to all humans; that is why you are desperate to remove humanity from the fertilized egg: you know that universal human rights apply, and will be violated when that living fertilized egg is killed. So you attempt to throw out numerous redefinitions which might stick, and will remove her rights as a human.<br /><br />You are not fooling anyone by reversing the charge against me: desperate Tu Quoque.<br /><br />You have no actual case, logically or scientifically, for killing the human at your defined Kill Zones. And you are smarting, obviously, by the knowledge that what you defend is evil, even by secular standards of civility.<br /><br />And the final faux thrust:<br /><br /><i>” No, they don't exist in death; that's what the definition of LIVING is. You do not understand biology. This explains why you do not understand evolution. You might also not fully understand chemistry, which is essential to understand biology.”</i><br /><br />Translation:<i> “I am the possessor of <b>ultimate knowledge</b>; the elite who defines reality for the benighted masses. Dissent, no matter how tight the case, means ignorance of the<b> ultimate knowledge</b>, which again, I alone possess, even though I can’t argue it sufficiently to convince anyone.”</i> <br /><br />Are you done?<br />No. You make these astounding two parting shots:<br />First the<b> generalization</b> shot:<br /><i>” It's not surprising though; as someone who retired from a profession related to... (electronics I think?)<br />Why Most People (Even People with Advanced Science Degrees) Are Scientifically Illiterate<br />Humility is the key; we can always learn more. But you refuse to, at least when it comes to biology.<br />https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px42_kHWnVw”</i><br /><br />Followed by this reversal:<br /><i>” Not everything is all black-or-white; <b>generalizations are a failure of critical reasoning.</b>”</i><br /><br />Just: wow.<br /><br />You keep trying to teach me that extrapolations (opinions) from valid data are valid to the point of declaring them Truth. They are not; and that is irrational. So your whine is false.<br /><br />And you never, ever, ever answer this question, do you? <br />Do you allow non-falsifiable, non-testable opinion regarding your products to be the Truth which allows them to ship?<br /><br />Why is it that you never answer that? Is it because that defining feature of evolution cannot be allowed in the rational, real world? Yep. That’s my guess.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-28657754704067297842016-06-04T18:54:49.757-05:002016-06-04T18:54:49.757-05:00” This is actually why the religious Right in the ...<i>” This is actually why the religious Right in the USA is against stem cell research: it requires the fertilization of eggs in exactly that same way, only to kill the fertilized egg right after. They see this as the killing of a human person. It's an emotion attachment to a unique strand of DNA; some sort of DNA worship for absolutely no rational reason. To be consistent, I look forward to you being clear on that position.”</i><br /><br />False attribution: Not just the religious Right. Also unemotional reasoners who are not attached the need to kill. By your denigration of the living fertilized egg by calling it just DNA, and then calling those who agree that the egg is both necessary and sufficient AND alive: DNA worshippers, you demonstrate full well your increasing desperation by using rhetorical denigration of both the living fertilized egg containing the necessary stage for the living new human, and the humans who defend it. That rhetoric bounces right off. It does signify the rapid descent of your argument into the gutter.<br /><br />But perhaps it’s merely a reaction to the knowledge that you are, in fact, groping desperately for a handle whereby you can salvage your need for justification of your designation of a class of humans which are killable. But the escalating irrationality is disturbing, because it demonstrates the lengths to which you are willing to go.<br /><br />The following is pure denialism thrown out in the face of the obvious: the necessary and sufficient life and unique individual lives in the fertilized egg. It is your opinion that it should not be called a human in order that you can kill it. You can apply that denialist logic to any stage of human development, which continues as the human morphs continuously until natural death. And that, THAT is the issue. You have no moral authority to deny humanness to any human at ANY stage of their life path.<br /><br />Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-54679528568876552812016-06-04T18:52:21.804-05:002016-06-04T18:52:21.804-05:00The following fully illuminates the desperation wh...The following fully illuminates the desperation which you feel:<br /><br /><i>” This is what you define as a human, for no 'good' reason at all. You did give reasons: (1) it is a unique combination of DNA and (2) it is part of the human development process. These are two bad reasons as (1) there is nothing special about the formation of a unique DNA strands, we can do it in the lab all day long, and (2) it's a critical reasoning error to state that because all human went through the human development process, each minute step of the development process is to be labeled a human. You don't even do it yourself, as you don't think the egg alone, or the spermatozoid alone, is to be seen as a human. There is thus nothing special about any step of the fertilization process, it's just the combination of 2 human cells. You subjectively place a label on the fertilized egg and label it to be 'a human', without rational argumentation.”</i><br /><br />The reasons I have given are valid and true. You hardly even dispute that. What you do instead is to judge them to be “bad” reasons. Upon what logic do you base your judgment of “bad reasons”?<br /><br />1. <i>“nothing special”</i> – it can be done in the lab. <br /><br />This is best called Pettifoggery. That DNA can be manipulated has no bearing on the natural reproductive process which is in operation in the creation of the new, unique individual. <br /><br />And this:<br /><br />2.<i> “it's a critical reasoning error to state that because all human went through the human development process, each minute step of the development process is to be labeled a human.”</i><br /><br />Ha! You wish! Now you choose to go back into the process before the egg is fertilized, to a state wherein the issue of abortion does not even apply. It is absolutely true that sperm and unfertilized eggs do not create new unique humans on their own. However it should be apparent that sperm and unfertilized eggs are (obviously) necessary in order to combine together in producing a fertilized egg containing a new, unique individual human. So in combination, they do hold both life being transferred and the final DNA for a new, living and unique human. <br /><br />That is the well-known actual process of the start of a pregnancy, including inconvenient pregnancies which you want to stop by killing the human in its initial and/or subsequent states. But as far as the abortion issue goes, that is a completely insignificant point. <br /><br />And the sub-argument you previously used is a non-starter: it does not matter in the least that some eggs never get fertilized and many sperm never find an egg. Not in the least. Humans necessarily and sufficiently come from eggs that do get spermatazoic fertilization.<br /><br />Arguing that the sperm and egg are not humans by themselves does not help your case in the slightest, and it reveals the desperate lengths you will go to in order to preserve your Right to declare a class of humans to be killable.<br /><br />Now, really??<br /><i>” This reveals an inconsistency in your position. And it's the implicit reason why you refuse to go through the 20 steps I listed above. Yes, the egg was alive. Yes, the spermatozoid was alive. Yes, the fertilized egg was alive. But, by your definition, when the lab technician fertilizes the egg, she just created a human. Not just human cell; the lab technician literally took 2 living things, not 2 humans but 2 human cells, and the result is 1 human, a human being, a person.”</i><br /><br />Yes. By artificially reproducing the necessary and sufficient conditions, using living sperm and living egg she creates a living, unique human. This in no manner is an abortion issue. It is a really sorry excuse for creating a Straw Man form of Red Herring. No reasonable reader would bite.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-56736728509143648622016-06-04T18:51:08.591-05:002016-06-04T18:51:08.591-05:00Here you restate the Materialist intellectual immo...Here you restate the Materialist intellectual immovable barrier to thought:<br /><i>” However, this does not mean that there is some sort of life 'essence', whatever that means. The definition of what it means to be alive, biologically, is very clear, though there are cases that are complicated, such as viruses. This is what I explained before in the previous comments. In its simplest form, what is demonstrable is that living things share characteristics of motion and metabolism. From the simplest bacteria to full grown conscious human being; we all share these basic characteristics.”</i> <br /><br />Again, this is fatuous and false. What is demonstrable even from a Materialistic vantage is that there are forces which do not map to the four forces of physics (a fifth unrelated one might be on the horizon). This is denied heatedly over and over because it represents non-deterministic activity which is visible to the human eye. <br /><br /><i>” It is arguable, this is what we are talking about, but you refuse to argue for your position. You just state it. Your listed your conclusion again here: a human is a 'fertilized egg through natural death'.”</i><br /><br />Since it is your deeply pathological need to prove otherwise, then do it. But since you assert science, and claim biology for your side, then use biology to point to the place where “human” is installed as a module which did not previously exist under your personal definitions. Surely human gestation is understood well enough to be able to show the time, the place, and the physical module itself as it is being installed. I personally have not seen such a module, not for humans, not for cattle, not for dogs, nor cats nor any creature. The concept must certainly apply to prokaryotes as well, that there is a module installed which provides them with their prokaryoteness, without which they are not actually prokaryotes.<br /><br />Go for it.Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-13387814330907584402016-06-04T18:50:13.240-05:002016-06-04T18:50:13.240-05:00” I gave details as to what the differences betwee...<i>” I gave details as to what the differences between the two are.”</i><br /><br />No, you gave characteristics which are superficial. The question of why are these characteristics, which are observable molecular actions, active in living things, and deactivated at death. Which of the four forces are applied to them that causes them to be many mutually coordinated systems via signaling feedback systems which result in the mutual balancing of necessarily interconnected internal systems, all of which must function optimally. At death, the molecules still exist; what forces disappear? Why? If they are not the four forces, what are they?<br /><br />Well, they are not the four forces because they are directed and coordinated. And they disappear without a trace at death, leaving the molecules to their inactivity and entropic fates. This is not a deterministic characteristic of molecules nor of the four forces.<br /><br />But as I said before, this is all trivial, because it is merely you, groping for a rationalized excuse to assert your designation for a <b>Class [Killable Humans]</b>, after the failure of other rationalizations you came up with. That you insist on all these attempts to create a window based on word chopping as in “meaningless”, definition chopping as in “insignificant” and “personhood”, semantic chopping as in “adjective” as the only “correct” application of the term “human”, and now science-chopping as in the definition of life is its “characteristics” (as if the definition of a Porsche is its color and steering wheel cover).<br /><br />The desperation of your multivariate siege on the pre-born reveals that you do not have actual logical approval of the <b>Class [Killable Humans]</b>. What you need, desperately, is a veneer of logic in the form of word play which assigns humans to that class. Because that Class exists and is inviolable (Greta Christina calls it her inviolable Right, and she went berserk on Pigliucci for suggesting that there might be ethical issues in the third trimester).<br /><br />Stanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15754447145433452423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-9673916590728163242016-06-04T15:23:58.352-05:002016-06-04T15:23:58.352-05:00Fixed:
Why Most People (Even People with Advanced...Fixed:<br /><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Px42_kHWnVw" rel="nofollow"> Why Most People (Even People with Advanced Science Degrees) Are Scientifically Illiterate</a>World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6274381712003139086.post-51539521594389727662016-06-04T15:23:06.001-05:002016-06-04T15:23:06.001-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.com