| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"quibbler" |
| Date: |
02 May 2004 06:36:40 PM |
| Object: |
Is a fetus innocent life? |
One often here's from the anti-abort crowd that a fetus, embryo, etc is
"innocent" life.
Even if one were to grant that a fetus has reached a meaningful level of
sentience (which is doubtful during most of pregnancy), one wonders upon
what basis is can be determined that a fetus is "innocent". Here are a
few standards upon which one might evaluate the claim of fetal
innocence. (Other people may wish to include additional categories).
(Judeo) Christian Standard:
According to Paul in Romans 3 "all have sinned and fall short of the
glory of God". Despite numerous apologetics which try to explain that
Paul does not really mean what he says, the doctrine of original sin has
been adopted by many of the thousands of variant sects of xianity on
the basis of this and other statements in the new and old testament. By
this standard we all bear some sin, usually presumed to be inherited
through Adam's fall, which would imply that a fetus or even a zygote
carries the stain of sin (and death) with it. Furthermore, even if one
does not accept the doctrine of original sin, many Xians believe that
one must accept jesus during one's life in order to be saved from
damnation. It is quite clear that a fetus cannot accept or profess
faith in jesus due to its own cognitive inability, which suggests that
it better be guilty of something, for how could a just god punish it
otherwise? Finally, irrespective of these other standards, it could be
argued, for example, that the fetus may be guilty of offenses including
stealing food from the mother, not keeping the sabbath, not honoring or
obeying its parents, sexually violating its own mother (uncovering her
nakedness) and, in the extreme, causing serious injury or death to the
mother. BTW, I'm not suggesting that I believe any of this theological
piffle, but it should cast doubt on the idea that a fetus can be easily
judged innocent, by Judeo Xian religious standards.
Legal Standard:
By the standards of a variety of modern legal systems the fetus could be
judged guilty of one or more crimes. It could be judged guilty of
trespassing within the body of the mother as well as physically
assaulting her at numerous times through the pregnancy. it is not clear
that the fetus has the intention of committing harm to the mother, but
not all laws or legal systems require that intentional harm be shown.
Additionally, some things like stealing, as mentioned above could be
alleged, especially if the mother is unwilling to bear the fetus in the
first place. The fetus could likewise be said to violate the mother's
right to privacy, her civil rights, including the fourth amendment
"right of the people to be secure in their persons". Unwilling,
uncompensated pregnancy could even be seen as tantamount to slavery.
Ethical Standard:
According to a number of ethical standards the fetus could be seen to be
physically imposing its will upon the mother by force. The fetus
attempts to assert its own rights above and beyond those of the mother.
A fetus has no regard for the utility or the consequences of pregnancy
and the impact that it has upon the mother as well as the society. The
fetus does not appear to follow principles such as the Golden Rule or
the Categorical Imperative. It recognizes no duty, nor does it have
concern about the happiness or survival of others. If it has an opinion
at all, it appears to believe that others owe it food and other forms of
free support.
Therefore, on none of these accounts can we state unequivocally that the
fetus is an "innocent" life. However, I'd be happy to entertain (and be
entertained by) any serious arguments for why a fetus should be
considered innocent despite the above statements. This is not to say
that I think that "innocence" is a particularly relevant standard to
apply to a fetus or an embryo or a zygote. But if anyone wants to
discuss the relevance of fetal innocence then I encourage them to do so.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
| User: "david" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
15 Jun 2004 09:43:56 AM |
|
|
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote in message news:<j0ikc0t9jgi7vig6102t2o7i2rmun2d65q@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:41:10 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
david < > wrote:
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote in message news:<6i0ic0h5oh9ntp8k0dh2m90vtuhknu1bnh@4ax.com>...
On 10 Jun 2004 09:24:59 -0700, (david) wrote:
One last post to him before I tell him : FOAD.
Your original contention was that a fetus is a human being. By that I
assume you meant will all the rights of a born individual. You have
failed utterly to provide any support for your contention, but gone
flying off on tangents about the 'Law of Biogenesis', and making a
bigger fool of yourself with each post.
I will point out the absurdities in your current post, and then spell
out the above acronym in full.
Run away now Larry - you've yet to provide any evidence - every time I
ask for a source you completely dodge the request -
You are lying.
Evidence has been provided repeatedly.
- you have no
evidence from science
Why do you think that "science" has anything to say about whether
something is a human being?
Ray, I have become thouroughly convinced that he is a fundy who has
been chased off talk.origins, with all his blather about the 'Law of
Biogenesis', and his belief that century old writings are somehow the
cutting edge of knowledge.
My last post to him is the end of this thread, as long as I am
concerned. Of course, if he pops up again, I will probably point out
his ignorance to him again. Just like a game of Whack-a-Mole.
Returned to explain why you ran away. Or maybe you're back to provide
a scrap of evidence from science to prove that the unborn aren't human
beings - I've asked for it about 20 times but I've never received it.
Or just one reference showing that the Law of Biogenesis (and lets not
confuse biogeny and biogenesis again- I know how embarassing that must
have been for you) has been proven wrong. I'm not asking for much.
I find your need to try to brag to Ray and try to get his approval for
your running away is an indication that you know you lost and you're
just hoping that someone will support you and give you a self-esteem
boost. It's ok Larry - everyone knows that your profanity proved you
won.
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
15 Jun 2004 09:53:41 AM |
|
|
On 15 Jun 2004 07:43:56 -0700, (david) in
alt.abortion with message-id
<279983a8.0406150643.6fea91f8@posting.google.com> wrote:
Returned to explain why you ran away. Or maybe you're back to provide
a scrap of evidence from science to prove that the unborn aren't human
beings -
There have been any number of responses indicating the status of human
being is a social and legal status and not subject to scientific
definition. I notice you completely ignore these.
I've asked for it about 20 times but I've never received it.
Just as you would receive no answer for the biological classification
of a personal computer or a Lexus.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
15 Jun 2004 06:33:22 PM |
|
|
On 15 Jun 2004 07:43:56 -0700, (david) wrote:
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote in message news:<j0ikc0t9jgi7vig6102t2o7i2rmun2d65q@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:41:10 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
david < > wrote:
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote in message news:<6i0ic0h5oh9ntp8k0dh2m90vtuhknu1bnh@4ax.com>...
On 10 Jun 2004 09:24:59 -0700, (david) wrote:
One last post to him before I tell him : FOAD.
Your original contention was that a fetus is a human being. By that I
assume you meant will all the rights of a born individual. You have
failed utterly to provide any support for your contention, but gone
flying off on tangents about the 'Law of Biogenesis', and making a
bigger fool of yourself with each post.
I will point out the absurdities in your current post, and then spell
out the above acronym in full.
Run away now Larry - you've yet to provide any evidence - every time I
ask for a source you completely dodge the request -
You are lying.
Evidence has been provided repeatedly.
- you have no
evidence from science
Why do you think that "science" has anything to say about whether
something is a human being?
Ray, I have become thouroughly convinced that he is a fundy who has
been chased off talk.origins, with all his blather about the 'Law of
Biogenesis', and his belief that century old writings are somehow the
cutting edge of knowledge.
My last post to him is the end of this thread, as long as I am
concerned. Of course, if he pops up again, I will probably point out
his ignorance to him again. Just like a game of Whack-a-Mole.
Returned to explain why you ran away. Or maybe you're back to provide
a scrap of evidence from science to prove that the unborn aren't human
beings - I've asked for it about 20 times but I've never received it.
Or just one reference showing that the Law of Biogenesis (and lets not
confuse biogeny and biogenesis again- I know how embarassing that must
have been for you) has been proven wrong. I'm not asking for much.
I find your need to try to brag to Ray and try to get his approval for
your running away is an indication that you know you lost and you're
just hoping that someone will support you and give you a self-esteem
boost. It's ok Larry - everyone knows that your profanity proved you
won.
You are a legend in your own mind, but you are really a fuckwit. Once
again, FOAD.
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Somesappywriter" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
15 Jun 2004 09:52:28 AM |
|
|
On 15 Jun 2004 07:43:56 -0700, (david) wrote:
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote in message news:<j0ikc0t9jgi7vig6102t2o7i2rmun2d65q@4ax.com>...
On Fri, 11 Jun 2004 16:41:10 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:
david < > wrote:
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote in message news:<6i0ic0h5oh9ntp8k0dh2m90vtuhknu1bnh@4ax.com>...
On 10 Jun 2004 09:24:59 -0700, (david) wrote:
One last post to him before I tell him : FOAD.
Your original contention was that a fetus is a human being. By that I
assume you meant will all the rights of a born individual. You have
failed utterly to provide any support for your contention, but gone
flying off on tangents about the 'Law of Biogenesis', and making a
bigger fool of yourself with each post.
I will point out the absurdities in your current post, and then spell
out the above acronym in full.
Run away now Larry - you've yet to provide any evidence - every time I
ask for a source you completely dodge the request -
You are lying.
Evidence has been provided repeatedly.
- you have no
evidence from science
Why do you think that "science" has anything to say about whether
something is a human being?
Ray, I have become thouroughly convinced that he is a fundy who has
been chased off talk.origins, with all his blather about the 'Law of
Biogenesis', and his belief that century old writings are somehow the
cutting edge of knowledge.
My last post to him is the end of this thread, as long as I am
concerned. Of course, if he pops up again, I will probably point out
his ignorance to him again. Just like a game of Whack-a-Mole.
Returned to explain why you ran away. Or maybe you're back to provide
a scrap of evidence from science to prove that the unborn aren't human
beings - I've asked for it about 20 times but I've never received it.
Or just one reference showing that the Law of Biogenesis (and lets not
confuse biogeny and biogenesis again- I know how embarassing that must
have been for you) has been proven wrong. I'm not asking for much.
I find your need to try to brag to Ray and try to get his approval for
your running away is an indication that you know you lost...
Why don't you just admit that what he said struck a nerve?
[...]
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
10 Jun 2004 10:28:47 PM |
|
|
david <gringo98@aol.com> wrote:
How can someone say that Entity A is undeserving of rights when one
has no clue what entity A is?
What a bizarre question. Not only do we have a clue what a fetus is,
we know with certainty whether it is a human being.
It isn't.
If entity A is a human being then I
think we both agree that the entity should have rights, correct?
Why?
While then we have to discover what the unborn is. I've provided my
evidence from science -
That is a lie. You have provided NO scientific evidence. Indeed,
your repeated attempts to treat every offhand comment by a "scientist"
as the Truth shows that you really have no understanding what what
science is.
And what you have not even tried to do is show how science is at all
relevant to the question of what is a human being.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
18 May 2004 03:13:25 PM |
|
|
On 18 May 2004 12:17:02 -0700, (david) wrote:
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote....
.... and newborns know and
prefer their own language and their mothers within the first three days.
You're wrong - Conor Liston and Jerome Kagan published a study in
Nature 419, 896 in 2002 entitled "Brain development: Memory
Enhancement in Early Childhood" where they showed that infrants don't
acquire conscious memories until nine months after birth....
Since what you *claim* Liston and Kagan published goes against what I
have witnessed in my own children I took the trouble to register at
nature and pull a synopsis of the article:
=================================================
Regions of the brain's frontal lobe that are associated with memory
retention and retrieval begin to mature during the last quarter of the
first year in humans. This implies that infants younger than 8 or 9
months should have difficulty in registering an experience and
retrieving it after a long delay. Here we show that 13-month-old
children are unable to recall a sequence of actions performed in front
of them when they were 9 months old, whereas 21- and 28-month-olds are
able to retrieve representations of the same acts when these were
witnessed at 17 and 24 months. Our findings indicate that long-term
retention increases during the second year and support the idea that
maturation of the frontal lobe at the end of the first year
contributes to memory enhancement during this period.
==================================================
There is not a word there about not acquiring conscious memories until
nine months after birth. What is say is that *LONG TERM* memory does
not fully develop until then. I have trouble remembering things
from four months ago, and I am most definitely conscious.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
19 May 2004 12:10:08 PM |
|
|
(Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<40aa6ba9.1042856@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On 18 May 2004 12:17:02 -0700, (david) wrote:
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote....
.... and newborns know and
prefer their own language and their mothers within the first three days.
You're wrong - Conor Liston and Jerome Kagan published a study in
Nature 419, 896 in 2002 entitled "Brain development: Memory
Enhancement in Early Childhood" where they showed that infrants don't
acquire conscious memories until nine months after birth....
Since what you *claim* Liston and Kagan published goes against what I
have witnessed in my own children I took the trouble to register at
nature and pull a synopsis of the article:
=================================================
Regions of the brain's frontal lobe that are associated with memory
retention and retrieval begin to mature during the last quarter of the
first year in humans. This implies that infants younger than 8 or 9
months should have difficulty in registering an experience and
retrieving it after a long delay. Here we show that 13-month-old
children are unable to recall a sequence of actions performed in front
of them when they were 9 months old, whereas 21- and 28-month-olds are
able to retrieve representations of the same acts when these were
witnessed at 17 and 24 months. Our findings indicate that long-term
retention increases during the second year and support the idea that
maturation of the frontal lobe at the end of the first year
contributes to memory enhancement during this period.
==================================================
There is not a word there about not acquiring conscious memories until
nine months after birth. What is say is that *LONG TERM* memory does
not fully develop until then. I have trouble remembering things
from four months ago, and I am most definitely conscious.
For one - you haven't read the whole article -
Secondly, it doesn't talk about long term memories - if you read the
whole article you would know this. Long delay doesn't mean long term
memories - the article if read in its entirety proves that infants
under 9 months don't have conscious memories - they don't think about
their memories - they have instinctive memories - like their mother's
voice, etc.
Did you read the first sentence about memory retention - if their
brains haven't fully developed/matured they can't retain or retrieve
memories very well. They can't form conscious memories -
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
19 May 2004 04:40:25 PM |
|
|
On 19 May 2004 10:10:08 -0700, (david) wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<40aa6ba9.1042856@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On 18 May 2004 12:17:02 -0700, (david) wrote:
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote....
.... and newborns know and
prefer their own language and their mothers within the first three days.
You're wrong - Conor Liston and Jerome Kagan published a study in
Nature 419, 896 in 2002 entitled "Brain development: Memory
Enhancement in Early Childhood" where they showed that infrants don't
acquire conscious memories until nine months after birth....
Since what you *claim* Liston and Kagan published goes against what I
have witnessed in my own children I took the trouble to register at
nature and pull a synopsis of the article:
=================================================
Regions of the brain's frontal lobe that are associated with memory
retention and retrieval begin to mature during the last quarter of the
first year in humans. This implies that infants younger than 8 or 9
months should have difficulty in registering an experience and
retrieving it after a long delay. Here we show that 13-month-old
children are unable to recall a sequence of actions performed in front
of them when they were 9 months old, whereas 21- and 28-month-olds are
able to retrieve representations of the same acts when these were
witnessed at 17 and 24 months. Our findings indicate that long-term
retention increases during the second year and support the idea that
maturation of the frontal lobe at the end of the first year
contributes to memory enhancement during this period.
==================================================
There is not a word there about not acquiring conscious memories until
nine months after birth. What is say is that *LONG TERM* memory does
not fully develop until then. I have trouble remembering things
from four months ago, and I am most definitely conscious.
For one - you haven't read the whole article -
Secondly, it doesn't talk about long term memories - if you read the
whole article you would know this. Long delay doesn't mean long term
memories - the article if read in its entirety proves that infants
under 9 months don't have conscious memories - they don't think about
their memories - they have instinctive memories - like their mother's
voice, etc.
Did you read the first sentence about memory retention - if their
brains haven't fully developed/matured they can't retain or retrieve
memories very well. They can't form conscious memories -
If you would move your finger and your lips and read the second
sentence: "This implies that infants younger than 8 or 9
months should have difficulty in registering an experience and
retrieving it after a long delay." all the way to the end, you will
evenually get to the last three words, and only one of those is more
than one syllable, so you should be able to comprehend the meaning.
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
19 May 2004 05:20:17 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 May 2004 21:40:25 GMT, Lawrence E. McKnight
<lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote:
On 19 May 2004 10:10:08 -0700, (david) wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote ....
Since what you *claim* Liston and Kagan published goes against what I
have witnessed in my own children I took the trouble to register at
nature and pull a synopsis of the article:
=================================================
Regions of the brain's frontal lobe that are associated with memory
retention and retrieval begin to mature during the last quarter of the
first year in humans. This implies that infants younger than 8 or 9
months should have difficulty in registering an experience and
retrieving it after a long delay. Here we show that 13-month-old
children are unable to recall a sequence of actions performed in front
of them when they were 9 months old, whereas 21- and 28-month-olds are
able to retrieve representations of the same acts when these were
witnessed at 17 and 24 months. Our findings indicate that long-term
retention increases during the second year and support the idea that
maturation of the frontal lobe at the end of the first year
contributes to memory enhancement during this period.
==================================================
There is not a word there about not acquiring conscious memories until
nine months after birth. What is say is that *LONG TERM* memory does
not fully develop until then. I have trouble remembering things
from four months ago, and I am most definitely conscious.
For one - you haven't read the whole article -
Secondly, it doesn't talk about long term memories - if you read the
whole article you would know this. Long delay doesn't mean long term
memories - the article if read in its entirety proves that infants
under 9 months don't have conscious memories - they don't think about
their memories - they have instinctive memories - like their mother's
voice, etc.
Did you read the first sentence about memory retention - if their
brains haven't fully developed/matured they can't retain or retrieve
memories very well. They can't form conscious memories -
If you would move your finger and your lips and read the second
sentence: "This implies that infants younger than 8 or 9
months should have difficulty in registering an experience and
retrieving it after a long delay." all the way to the end, you will
evenually get to the last three words, and only one of those is more
than one syllable, so you should be able to comprehend the meaning.
This lack of consciousness is proven by "Here we show that
13-month-old children are unable to recall a sequence of actions
performed in front of them when they were 9 months old."
I wonder if they told the 9-month-olds that they would later be tested
on whatever "sequence of actions" were performed. Yet anyone who has
or had children can vouch that babies remember things quite well from
a very early age.
Hell, by David's requirement of being able to remember things from
four months prior before one may be considered to be conscious I have
been unconscious my whole life.
.
|
|
|
| User: "david" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
20 May 2004 12:26:29 PM |
|
|
(Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<40abdb92.39766268@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On Wed, 19 May 2004 21:40:25 GMT, Lawrence E. McKnight
<lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote:
On 19 May 2004 10:10:08 -0700, (david) wrote:
(Paul Anderson) wrote ....
Since what you *claim* Liston and Kagan published goes against what I
have witnessed in my own children I took the trouble to register at
nature and pull a synopsis of the article:
=================================================
Regions of the brain's frontal lobe that are associated with memory
retention and retrieval begin to mature during the last quarter of the
first year in humans. This implies that infants younger than 8 or 9
months should have difficulty in registering an experience and
retrieving it after a long delay. Here we show that 13-month-old
children are unable to recall a sequence of actions performed in front
of them when they were 9 months old, whereas 21- and 28-month-olds are
able to retrieve representations of the same acts when these were
witnessed at 17 and 24 months. Our findings indicate that long-term
retention increases during the second year and support the idea that
maturation of the frontal lobe at the end of the first year
contributes to memory enhancement during this period.
==================================================
There is not a word there about not acquiring conscious memories until
nine months after birth. What is say is that *LONG TERM* memory does
not fully develop until then. I have trouble remembering things
from four months ago, and I am most definitely conscious.
For one - you haven't read the whole article -
Secondly, it doesn't talk about long term memories - if you read the
whole article you would know this. Long delay doesn't mean long term
memories - the article if read in its entirety proves that infants
under 9 months don't have conscious memories - they don't think about
their memories - they have instinctive memories - like their mother's
voice, etc.
Did you read the first sentence about memory retention - if their
brains haven't fully developed/matured they can't retain or retrieve
memories very well. They can't form conscious memories -
If you would move your finger and your lips and read the second
sentence: "This implies that infants younger than 8 or 9
months should have difficulty in registering an experience and
retrieving it after a long delay." all the way to the end, you will
evenually get to the last three words, and only one of those is more
than one syllable, so you should be able to comprehend the meaning.
This lack of consciousness is proven by "Here we show that
13-month-old children are unable to recall a sequence of actions
performed in front of them when they were 9 months old."
Lack of consciousness? Did I ever say that? I said conscious
memories. Nice attempt at a strawman, though. I find it funny that
you are jumping into my debate with Malapert when you've yet to reply
to a number of my other posts -
In one post I asked for evidence that the unborn aren't organisms or
human beings- you said Williams Obstetrics - I asked for a quote, page
number, year, edition, etc. You told me to look it up myself - I
replied that it wasn't my job to prove your case for you - you never
responded.
In other post you claimed "Pro-Lifers display pictures of dead fetuses
and carry them around in pickle jars to wave at people -- not what one
does with the remains of a dead human organism."
I talked about Emmet Till and how the pictures of his dead, mutilated
body helped start the civil rights movement. I also pointed out the
enormous fallacy in this statement by asking how does how one is
disposed of determine what one is? You chopped my post and then ran
when I responded. You've yet to respond.
I wonder if they told the 9-month-olds that they would later be tested
on whatever "sequence of actions" were performed. Yet anyone who has
or had children can vouch that babies remember things quite well from
a very early age.
Hell, by David's requirement of being able to remember things from
four months prior before one may be considered to be conscious I have
been unconscious my whole life.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "david" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
18 May 2004 03:59:16 PM |
|
|
How does having a "personal self" makes us a human being?
Are you seriously arguing with that? I thought it had been figured out
a
LONG time ago that human beings differ from other animals precisely
because
we, alone, have a personal self (meaning that we are aware of our
individual, separate, and finite existence).
Many scientists would disagree with your last sentence.
Please name and quote a few of them.
Type self awareness and animals into google or yahoo and you will see
that there isn't a consensus among scientists about the awareness of
animals. There has even been a book written with a variety of essay
with differing opinions.
Many debate
over whether other primates and/or dolphins are self-aware - aware of
there individual, separate, and finite existence.
There's no evidence that this is so as far as I have read. Do quote it if
you have it.
Again, google self awareness and animals -
What about the
human beings that aren't self aware - are they not human beings
because they don't have the mental capacity to be self-aware?
All human beings are self-aware, even newborns. (Google for my posts on
newborns demonstrating self-awareness.) Sure, chimpanzees are self-aware,
but they don't seem to be aware of having an individual, separate, finite
existence. Perhaps they do, and if we find out that they do they should be
awarded the same legal standing we are.
There is not an agreement on that at all - google infants and self
awareness - time and testing for self awareness differs. They are
self aware but don't seem to be aware of having an .. .. .. - wasn't
that your definition for self-awareness?
But they might right? You're not positive (funny I thought you knew
everything)? If we don't know - shouldn't we err on the safe side and
give chimps the same legal standing - or at least free them from
captivity - zoos and what not.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
17 May 2004 10:53:26 PM |
|
|
On 17 May 2004 17:11:00 -0700, (david) wrote:
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote ....
The fact of the matter is that studies have shown that infants don't
form conscious memories until about 9 months.....
Which is why infants under 9 months are not able to remember who their
parents are. (Idiot!)
.....
Why shouldn't the beginning of life be defined the same way we define the
end of life? What is your definition of "a human life"? Don't give me
examples but a specific definition that we can use to test various examples
and determine whether they meet it or not.
A human life? Do you mean human being? ...
here goes - a human being is an organism that
is alive and is human (has the DNA of a human being)
An organism is (m-w.com) "an individual constituted to carry on the
activities of life by means of organs separate in function but
mutually dependent." A fetus carries on the activitives of life by
means of the woman's lungs, digestive system, etc. and thus is a part
of the maternal organism. And not, by your definition, a human being.
On the other hand, a human sperm cell does meet this definition of an
organism, and thus a human sperm cell is, by your definition, a human
being. As does HeLa.
Your definition not only fails to influde the fetus, it includes
things that are not generally considered to be human beings.
Maybe you should try a different definition.
....
And what should that inherent function be? Whatever it is, an embryo
doesn't have it. (The vast majority of abortions involve embryos, not
fetuses.)
An embryo doesn't have the inherent capacity to have a
fully-functioning brain?
Do you know what the word inherent means??
(www.m-w.com) inherent: : involved in the constitution or essential
character of something : belonging by nature or habit.
While an embryo has the inherent capacity to develop a fully
functioning brain, an embryo does not have the inherent capacity to
have a fully functioning brain.
.....
Your post never said anything about needing a functioning brain to be
a human being.
...
You forget that your body (besides
your brain) also plays a part in who you are. Those are "your" arms
and legs- they are a part of you - not just mere masses of protoplasm.
Which is why, if you have an arm or a leg amputated, you are no longer
a living human being -- exactly the same as if your brain dies.
....
.
|
|
|
| User: "david" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
18 May 2004 02:24:36 PM |
|
|
(Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<40a96cac.2496604@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On 17 May 2004 17:11:00 -0700, (david) wrote:
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote ....
The fact of the matter is that studies have shown that infants don't
form conscious memories until about 9 months.....
Which is why infants under 9 months are not able to remember who their
parents are. (Idiot!)
....
You should read the post - conscious memories - read "Brain
development: Memory enhancement in early childhood" by Conor Liston
and Jerome Kagan in Nature 419, 896, 2002.
After you read it - ask yourself is David an idiot to bring factual
evidence to the table or am I an idiot for calling him an idiot?
Why shouldn't the beginning of life be defined the same way we define the
end of life? What is your definition of "a human life"? Don't give me
examples but a specific definition that we can use to test various examples
and determine whether they meet it or not.
A human life? Do you mean human being? ...
here goes - a human being is an organism that
is alive and is human (has the DNA of a human being)
An organism is (m-w.com) "an individual constituted to carry on the
activities of life by means of organs separate in function but
mutually dependent." A fetus carries on the activitives of life by
means of the woman's lungs, digestive system, etc. and thus is a part
of the maternal organism. And not, by your definition, a human being.
On the other hand, a human sperm cell does meet this definition of an
organism, and thus a human sperm cell is, by your definition, a human
being. As does HeLa.
Why did you snip my post with .....? Your behavior is downright
childish at times. You most cut out large portions of my post to try
to prove me wrong. You probably wouldn't have to do this if I was
outright wrong
Which is why that definition from MW doesn't work - I've been telling
you this for the last week - catch on. Plus your wrong a sperm cell
doesn't have organs - nor does a HeLa.
Your definition not only fails to influde the fetus, it includes
things that are not generally considered to be human beings.
Maybe you should try a different definition.
...
And what should that inherent function be? Whatever it is, an embryo
doesn't have it. (The vast majority of abortions involve embryos, not
fetuses.)
An embryo doesn't have the inherent capacity to have a
fully-functioning brain?
Do you know what the word inherent means??
(www.m-w.com) inherent: : involved in the constitution or essential
character of something : belonging by nature or habit.
While an embryo has the inherent capacity to develop a fully
functioning brain, an embryo does not have the inherent capacity to
have a fully functioning brain.
....
What? Are you on crack? To have vs. develop - I meant in the same
way - your words games are boring.
Your post never said anything about needing a functioning brain to be
a human being.
...
You forget that your body (besides
your brain) also plays a part in who you are. Those are "your" arms
and legs- they are a part of you - not just mere masses of protoplasm.
Which is why, if you have an arm or a leg amputated, you are no longer
a living human being -- exactly the same as if your brain dies.
...
Was that an argument?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
18 May 2004 07:04:40 PM |
|
|
On 18 May 2004 12:24:36 -0700, (david) wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<40a96cac.2496604@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On 17 May 2004 17:11:00 -0700, (david) wrote:
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote ....
The fact of the matter is that studies have shown that infants don't
form conscious memories until about 9 months.....
Which is why infants under 9 months are not able to remember who their
parents are. (Idiot!)
....
You should read the post - conscious memories - read "Brain
development: Memory enhancement in early childhood" by Conor Liston
and Jerome Kagan in Nature 419, 896, 2002.
After you read it - ask yourself is David an idiot to bring factual
evidence to the table or am I an idiot for calling him an idiot?
Why shouldn't the beginning of life be defined the same way we define the
end of life? What is your definition of "a human life"? Don't give me
examples but a specific definition that we can use to test various examples
and determine whether they meet it or not.
A human life? Do you mean human being? ...
here goes - a human being is an organism that
is alive and is human (has the DNA of a human being)
An organism is (m-w.com) "an individual constituted to carry on the
activities of life by means of organs separate in function but
mutually dependent." A fetus carries on the activitives of life by
means of the woman's lungs, digestive system, etc. and thus is a part
of the maternal organism. And not, by your definition, a human being.
On the other hand, a human sperm cell does meet this definition of an
organism, and thus a human sperm cell is, by your definition, a human
being. As does HeLa.
Why did you snip my post with .....? Your behavior is downright
childish at times. You most cut out large portions of my post to try
to prove me wrong. You probably wouldn't have to do this if I was
outright wrong
Which is why that definition from MW doesn't work - I've been telling
you this for the last week - catch on. Plus your wrong a sperm cell
doesn't have organs - nor does a HeLa.
Let me see here. Why doesn' it work? Because it renders your
position untenable?
Your definition not only fails to influde the fetus, it includes
things that are not generally considered to be human beings.
Maybe you should try a different definition.
...
And what should that inherent function be? Whatever it is, an embryo
doesn't have it. (The vast majority of abortions involve embryos, not
fetuses.)
An embryo doesn't have the inherent capacity to have a
fully-functioning brain?
Do you know what the word inherent means??
(www.m-w.com) inherent: : involved in the constitution or essential
character of something : belonging by nature or habit.
While an embryo has the inherent capacity to develop a fully
functioning brain, an embryo does not have the inherent capacity to
have a fully functioning brain.
....
What? Are you on crack? To have vs. develop - I meant in the same
way - your words games are boring.
Your post never said anything about needing a functioning brain to be
a human being.
...
You forget that your body (besides
your brain) also plays a part in who you are. Those are "your" arms
and legs- they are a part of you - not just mere masses of protoplasm.
Which is why, if you have an arm or a leg amputated, you are no longer
a living human being -- exactly the same as if your brain dies.
...
Was that an argument?
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
18 May 2004 03:31:05 PM |
|
|
On 18 May 2004 12:24:36 -0700, (david) wrote:
elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) wrote in message news:<40a96cac.2496604@news.la.sbcglobal.net>...
On 17 May 2004 17:11:00 -0700, (david) wrote:
"M is for Malapert" <minxs@sonic.net> wrote ....
The fact of the matter is that studies have shown that infants don't
form conscious memories until about 9 months.....
Which is why infants under 9 months are not able to remember who their
parents are. (Idiot!)
....
You should read the post - conscious memories - read "Brain
development: Memory enhancement in early childhood" by Conor Liston
and Jerome Kagan in Nature 419, 896, 2002.
After you read it - ask yourself is David an idiot to bring factual
evidence to the table or am I an idiot for calling him an idiot?
===================
Regions of the brain's frontal lobe that are associated with memory
retention and retrieval begin to mature during the last quarter of the
first year in humans. This implies that infants younger than 8 or 9
months should have difficulty in registering an experience and
retrieving it after a long delay. Here we show that 13-month-old
children are unable to recall a sequence of actions performed in front
of them when they were 9 months old, whereas 21- and 28-month-olds are
able to retrieve representations of the same acts when these were
witnessed at 17 and 24 months. Our findings indicate that long-term
retention increases during the second year and support the idea that
maturation of the frontal lobe at the end of the first year
contributes to memory enhancement during this period.
==================
You are an idiot. Liston nad Kagan did not write what you claim they
did. (free clue -- long term memory is not the same as conscious
memory.)
Why shouldn't the beginning of life be defined the same way we define the
end of life? What is your definition of "a human life"? Don't give me
examples but a specific definition that we can use to test various examples
and determine whether they meet it or not.
A human life? Do you mean human being? ...
here goes - a human being is an organism that
is alive and is human (has the DNA of a human being)
An organism is (m-w.com) "an individual constituted to carry on the
activities of life by means of organs separate in function but
mutually dependent." A fetus carries on the activitives of life by
means of the woman's lungs, digestive system, etc. and thus is a part
of the maternal organism. And not, by your definition, a human being.
On the other hand, a human sperm cell does meet this definition of an
organism, and thus a human sperm cell is, by your definition, a human
being. As does HeLa.
Why did you snip my post with ....
Because you are a verbose windbag .
Your behavior is downright
childish at times. You most cut out large portions of my post to try
to prove me wrong. You probably wouldn't have to do this if I was
outright wrong
Which you are, along with being an idiot.
Which is why that definition from MW doesn't work - I've been telling
you this for the last week - catch on. Plus your wrong a sperm cell
doesn't have organs - nor does a HeLa.
Nor does any single cell organism -- but they have organelles that
serve the same purpose.
Your definition not only fails to influde the fetus, it includes
things that are not generally considered to be human beings.
Maybe you should try a different definition.
Still waiting.
...
And what should that inherent function be? Whatever it is, an embryo
doesn't have it. (The vast majority of abortions involve embryos, not
fetuses.)
An embryo doesn't have the inherent capacity to have a
fully-functioning brain?
Do you know what the word inherent means??
(www.m-w.com) inherent: : involved in the constitution or essential
character of something : belonging by nature or habit.
While an embryo has the inherent capacity to develop a fully
functioning brain, an embryo does not have the inherent capacity to
have a fully functioning brain.
....
What? Are you on crack? To have vs. develop - I meant in the same
way - your words games are boring.
Word games? I am not the one who is misusing words and lying about
what other people write.
Your post never said anything about needing a functioning brain to be
a human being.
...
You forget that your body (besides
your brain) also plays a part in who you are. Those are "your" arms
and legs- they are a part of you - not just mere masses of protoplasm.
Which is why, if you have an arm or a leg amputated, you are no longer
a living human being -- exactly the same as if your brain dies.
...
Was that an argument?
*SIGH* No. A refutation of your argument by evidence.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
18 May 2004 06:58:21 PM |
|
|
On 17 May 2004 17:11:00 -0700, (david) wrote:
Why shouldn't the beginning of life be defined the same way we define the
end of life? What is your definition of "a human life"? Don't give me
examples but a specific definition that we can use to test various examples
and determine whether they meet it or not.
A human life? Do you mean human being? I don't need to make up my
own definition about what a human life is - science has proven the
unborn are human beings - so I don't need to come up with a bunch of
baloney definitions to prove my case - science has already proven it
for me. I probably wouldn't be able to come up with a definition that
would be perfect - but here goes - a human being is an organism that
is alive and is human (has the DNA of a human being) - I would also
like to say has two human parents but you'd probably bring up cloning
and then we'd get off the subject.
Tell us, please, where 'science' (whatever you mean by that word
here) has 'proven' that fetuses are human beings. Don't be shy, just
provide a reference from a peer-reviewed journal. If, on the other
hand, you really meant that you interpret your understanding of
'scientific facts' to lead YOU to the conclusion that fetuses are
'human beings', just admit that you are expressing your personal
belief and be done with it.
As for your definition, it sucks. Big time.
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
| User: "david" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
19 May 2004 12:16:54 PM |
|
|
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote in message news:<uh8la05cju4grjtlk4e4k1oktgl7brp6mb@4ax.com>...
On 17 May 2004 17:11:00 -0700, (david) wrote:
Why shouldn't the beginning of life be defined the same way we define the
end of life? What is your definition of "a human life"? Don't give me
examples but a specific definition that we can use to test various examples
and determine whether they meet it or not.
A human life? Do you mean human being? I don't need to make up my
own definition about what a human life is - science has proven the
unborn are human beings - so I don't need to come up with a bunch of
baloney definitions to prove my case - science has already proven it
for me. I probably wouldn't be able to come up with a definition that
would be perfect - but here goes - a human being is an organism that
is alive and is human (has the DNA of a human being) - I would also
like to say has two human parents but you'd probably bring up cloning
and then we'd get off the subject.
Tell us, please, where 'science' (whatever you mean by that word
here) has 'proven' that fetuses are human beings. Don't be shy, just
provide a reference from a peer-reviewed journal. If, on the other
hand, you really meant that you interpret your understanding of
'scientific facts' to lead YOU to the conclusion that fetuses are
'human beings', just admit that you are expressing your personal
belief and be done with it.
From Langman's Embryology, - T.W. Sadler 7th edition, ch. 1- "The
development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which
the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to
give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
I have many more quotes from embryology textbooks or from experts in
the field if you would like those as well.
Also, the scientific law of biogenesis states that life comes from
life and that being reproduce after their own kind. This means that
rats reproduce rats, cats reproduce cats, and human being reproduce
human beings. How can two human beings come together to produce an
entity that is not a human being but then later becomes a human being
when the law of biogenesis says this is impossible?
Do you have any evidence that the unborn aren't human beings from
scientific literature? If so, I'd like to see it. I have yet to run
across a single PC
who has a scrap of actual evidence - and by evidence I don't mean
single sentence assertions or dictionary definitions - I mean actual
evidence that can be referenced and checked out.
As for your definition, it sucks. Big time.
THanks for the opinion.
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
| User: "LP" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
19 May 2004 04:29:05 PM |
|
|
On 19 May 2004 10:16:54 -0700, (david) wrote:
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote in message news:<uh8la05cju4grjtlk4e4k1oktgl7brp6mb@4ax.com>...
On 17 May 2004 17:11:00 -0700, (david) wrote:
Why shouldn't the beginning of life be defined the same way we define the
end of life? What is your definition of "a human life"? Don't give me
examples but a specific definition that we can use to test various examples
and determine whether they meet it or not.
A human life? Do you mean human being? I don't need to make up my
own definition about what a human life is - science has proven the
unborn are human beings - so I don't need to come up with a bunch of
baloney definitions to prove my case - science has already proven it
for me. I probably wouldn't be able to come up with a definition that
would be perfect - but here goes - a human being is an organism that
is alive and is human (has the DNA of a human being) - I would also
like to say has two human parents but you'd probably bring up cloning
and then we'd get off the subject.
Tell us, please, where 'science' (whatever you mean by that word
here) has 'proven' that fetuses are human beings. Don't be shy, just
provide a reference from a peer-reviewed journal. If, on the other
hand, you really meant that you interpret your understanding of
'scientific facts' to lead YOU to the conclusion that fetuses are
'human beings', just admit that you are expressing your personal
belief and be done with it.
From Langman's Embryology, - T.W. Sadler 7th edition, ch. 1- "The
development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which
the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to
give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
It is bewildering to me how anyone could think otherwise. Those who
try to argue such nonsense are as bad as the creationist, they will go
through all kinds of dishonest mental gymnastics just to try to make
it seem that they have a valid point. The basic facts of biology don't
seem to phase them.
I have many more quotes from embryology textbooks or from experts in
the field if you would like those as well.
Also, the scientific law of biogenesis states that life comes from
life and that being reproduce after their own kind. This means that
rats reproduce rats, cats reproduce cats, and human being reproduce
human beings. How can two human beings come together to produce an
entity that is not a human being but then later becomes a human being
when the law of biogenesis says this is impossible?
Do you have any evidence that the unborn aren't human beings from
scientific literature? If so, I'd like to see it. I have yet to run
across a single PC
who has a scrap of actual evidence - and by evidence I don't mean
single sentence assertions or dictionary definitions - I mean actual
evidence that can be referenced and checked out.
As for your definition, it sucks. Big time.
THanks for the opinion.
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
19 May 2004 04:45:38 PM |
|
|
On 19 May 2004 10:16:54 -0700, (david) wrote:
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote in message news:<uh8la05cju4grjtlk4e4k1oktgl7brp6mb@4ax.com>...
On 17 May 2004 17:11:00 -0700, (david) wrote:
Why shouldn't the beginning of life be defined the same way we define the
end of life? What is your definition of "a human life"? Don't give me
examples but a specific definition that we can use to test various examples
and determine whether they meet it or not.
A human life? Do you mean human being? I don't need to make up my
own definition about what a human life is - science has proven the
unborn are human beings - so I don't need to come up with a bunch of
baloney definitions to prove my case - science has already proven it
for me. I probably wouldn't be able to come up with a definition that
would be perfect - but here goes - a human being is an organism that
is alive and is human (has the DNA of a human being) - I would also
like to say has two human parents but you'd probably bring up cloning
and then we'd get off the subject.
Tell us, please, where 'science' (whatever you mean by that word
here) has 'proven' that fetuses are human beings. Don't be shy, just
provide a reference from a peer-reviewed journal. If, on the other
hand, you really meant that you interpret your understanding of
'scientific facts' to lead YOU to the conclusion that fetuses are
'human beings', just admit that you are expressing your personal
belief and be done with it.
From Langman's Embryology, - T.W. Sadler 7th edition, ch. 1- "The
development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which
the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to
give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
Gee, you must be a Clinton fan. I guess you have a dictionary in
which 'is' means 'development begins'.
I have many more quotes from embryology textbooks or from experts in
the field if you would like those as well.
Well, if any of them contain the sentence 'A fetus is a human being'
(which was your claim), go ahead and post them.
Also, the scientific law of biogenesis states that life comes from
life and that being reproduce after their own kind. This means that
rats reproduce rats, cats reproduce cats, and human being reproduce
human beings. How can two human beings come together to produce an
entity that is not a human being but then later becomes a human being
when the law of biogenesis says this is impossible?
I think you have been 'learning' your biology from a creationist
web-site. You might want to provide references for this 'law of
biogenesis.
Do you have any evidence that the unborn aren't human beings from
scientific literature? If so, I'd like to see it. I have yet to run
across a single PC
who has a scrap of actual evidence - and by evidence I don't mean
single sentence assertions or dictionary definitions - I mean actual
evidence that can be referenced and checked out.
You are the one who made the claim that they are 'human beings'. If I
make the claim that you are an idiot, is it assumed true unless you
can provide 'scientific evidence' that it is not?
As for your definition, it sucks. Big time.
THanks for the opinion.
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
| User: "david" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
20 May 2004 12:14:27 PM |
|
|
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote in message news:<j3lna01qqj9cu20quokahi0e7csm9kbka0@4ax.com>...
On 19 May 2004 10:16:54 -0700, (david) wrote:
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote in message news:<uh8la05cju4grjtlk4e4k1oktgl7brp6mb@4ax.com>...
On 17 May 2004 17:11:00 -0700, (david) wrote:
Why shouldn't the beginning of life be defined the same way we define the
end of life? What is your definition of "a human life"? Don't give me
examples but a specific definition that we can use to test various examples
and determine whether they meet it or not.
A human life? Do you mean human being? I don't need to make up my
own definition about what a human life is - science has proven the
unborn are human beings - so I don't need to come up with a bunch of
baloney definitions to prove my case - science has already proven it
for me. I probably wouldn't be able to come up with a definition that
would be perfect - but here goes - a human being is an organism that
is alive and is human (has the DNA of a human being) - I would also
like to say has two human parents but you'd probably bring up cloning
and then we'd get off the subject.
Tell us, please, where 'science' (whatever you mean by that word
here) has 'proven' that fetuses are human beings. Don't be shy, just
provide a reference from a peer-reviewed journal. If, on the other
hand, you really meant that you interpret your understanding of
'scientific facts' to lead YOU to the conclusion that fetuses are
'human beings', just admit that you are expressing your personal
belief and be done with it.
From Langman's Embryology, - T.W. Sadler 7th edition, ch. 1- "The
development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which
the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to
give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
Gee, you must be a Clinton fan. I guess you have a dictionary in
which 'is' means 'development begins'.
Is that your response to evidence from an embryology textbook? That's
so convincing - note the sarcasm.
I have many more quotes from embryology textbooks or from experts in
the field if you would like those as well.
Well, if any of them contain the sentence 'A fetus is a human being'
(which was your claim), go ahead and post them.
In 1981 - the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearing about the
question of when does life begin -
Here are some quotes from various experts in the field -
"Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the lawmakers:
"To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new
human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion
.... it is plain experimental evidence."
Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine,
concluded, "I am no more prepared to say that these early stages
represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the
child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty ... is not a human
being."
Dr. Richard V. Jaynes: "To say that the beginning of human life cannot
be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous."
In response to the testimony of these experts - the committee found
"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception
marks the beginning of life of a human being - a being that is alvie
and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement
on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific
writings."
Please provide any evidence to contradict these statements if you have
any - I doubt you will - I've yet to come across a PCer that has a
shred of actual evidence.
Also, the scientific law of biogenesis states that life comes from
life and that being reproduce after their own kind. This means that
rats reproduce rats, cats reproduce cats, and human being reproduce
human beings. How can two human beings come together to produce an
entity that is not a human being but then later becomes a human being
when the law of biogenesis says this is impossible?
I think you have been 'learning' your biology from a creationist
web-site. You might want to provide references for this 'law of
biogenesis.
Yawn. This law was developed from the work of people like Pasteur -
it's a scientific law -
Do you have any evidence that the unborn aren't human beings from
scientific literature? If so, I'd like to see it. I have yet to run
across a single PC
who has a scrap of actual evidence - and by evidence I don't mean
single sentence assertions or dictionary definitions - I mean actual
evidence that can be referenced and checked out.
You are the one who made the claim that they are 'human beings'. If I
make the claim that you are an idiot, is it assumed true unless you
can provide 'scientific evidence' that it is not?
Oh, so the answer would be "No" - you have no evidence - not a shred
to prove your point of view - interesting - you would think that if
the unborn aren't human beings - you could prove it - PCers can't -
hmmm......
As for your definition, it sucks. Big time.
THanks for the opinion.
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lawrence E. McKnight" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
20 May 2004 06:53:43 PM |
|
|
On 20 May 2004 10:14:27 -0700, (david) wrote:
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote in message news:<j3lna01qqj9cu20quokahi0e7csm9kbka0@4ax.com>...
On 19 May 2004 10:16:54 -0700, (david) wrote:
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote in message news:<uh8la05cju4grjtlk4e4k1oktgl7brp6mb@4ax.com>...
On 17 May 2004 17:11:00 -0700, (david) wrote:
Why shouldn't the beginning of life be defined the same way we define the
end of life? What is your definition of "a human life"? Don't give me
examples but a specific definition that we can use to test various examples
and determine whether they meet it or not.
A human life? Do you mean human being? I don't need to make up my
own definition about what a human life is - science has proven the
unborn are human beings - so I don't need to come up with a bunch of
baloney definitions to prove my case - science has already proven it
for me. I probably wouldn't be able to come up with a definition that
would be perfect - but here goes - a human being is an organism that
is alive and is human (has the DNA of a human being) - I would also
like to say has two human parents but you'd probably bring up cloning
and then we'd get off the subject.
Tell us, please, where 'science' (whatever you mean by that word
here) has 'proven' that fetuses are human beings. Don't be shy, just
provide a reference from a peer-reviewed journal. If, on the other
hand, you really meant that you interpret your understanding of
'scientific facts' to lead YOU to the conclusion that fetuses are
'human beings', just admit that you are expressing your personal
belief and be done with it.
From Langman's Embryology, - T.W. Sadler 7th edition, ch. 1- "The
development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which
the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to
give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
Gee, you must be a Clinton fan. I guess you have a dictionary in
which 'is' means 'development begins'.
Is that your response to evidence from an embryology textbook? That's
so convincing - note the sarcasm.
Well, you have convinced me of one thing... you ARE a fuckwit.
I have many more quotes from embryology textbooks or from experts in
the field if you would like those as well.
Well, if any of them contain the sentence 'A fetus is a human being'
(which was your claim), go ahead and post them.
Hmm. No snappy comeback here? Wasn't I sarcastic enough for you?
In 1981 - the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearing about the
question of when does life begin -
Here are some quotes from various experts in the field -
Selected by the anti-abortion zealots on the committee.
"Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the lawmakers:
"To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new
human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion
... it is plain experimental evidence."
This is close to the desired statement, but it is Lejeune making a
statement in a political forum, not in a peer reviewed journal.
Before you huff and puff, look up a few dozen lines where I asked you
from references from peer reviewed journals.
Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine,
concluded, "I am no more prepared to say that these early stages
represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the
child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty ... is not a human
being."
I am not quite sure what to make of that circumlocution.
Dr. Richard V. Jaynes: "To say that the beginning of human life cannot
be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous."
Hmm. Doesn't come close to saying 'the fetus is a human being'.
In response to the testimony of these experts - the committee found
"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception
marks the beginning of life of a human being - a being that is alvie
and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement
on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific
writings."
Please provide any evidence to contradict these statements if you have
any - I doubt you will - I've yet to come across a PCer that has a
shred of actual evidence.
You really don't get the point, do you?
Also, the scientific law of biogenesis states that life comes from
life and that being reproduce after their own kind. This means that
rats reproduce rats, cats reproduce cats, and human being reproduce
human beings. How can two human beings come together to produce an
entity that is not a human being but then later becomes a human being
when the law of biogenesis says this is impossible?
I think you have been 'learning' your biology from a creationist
web-site. You might want to provide references for this 'law of
biogenesis.
Yawn. This law was developed from the work of people like Pasteur -
it's a scientific law -
And your references are....?
Do you have any evidence that the unborn aren't human beings from
scientific literature? If so, I'd like to see it. I have yet to run
across a single PC
who has a scrap of actual evidence - and by evidence I don't mean
single sentence assertions or dictionary definitions - I mean actual
evidence that can be referenced and checked out.
You are the one who made the claim that they are 'human beings'. If I
make the claim that you are an idiot, is it assumed true unless you
can provide 'scientific evidence' that it is not?
Oh, so the answer would be "No" - you have no evidence - not a shred
to prove your point of view - interesting - you would think that if
the unborn aren't human beings - you could prove it - PCers can't -
hmmm......
You are a candidate for Fuckwit of the Month.
As for your definition, it sucks. Big time.
THanks for the opinion.
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email
.
|
|
|
| User: "david" |
|
| Title: Re: Is a fetus innocent life? |
21 May 2004 08:07:10 AM |
|
|
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote in message news:<brgqa0tt57g59hothc5jfuo5cioe2vldov@4ax.com>...
On 20 May 2004 10:14:27 -0700, (david) wrote:
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote in message news:<j3lna01qqj9cu20quokahi0e7csm9kbka0@4ax.com>...
On 19 May 2004 10:16:54 -0700, (david) wrote:
Lawrence E. McKnight <lawrence.delete.mcknight@sbcglobal.delete.net> wrote in message news:<uh8la05cju4grjtlk4e4k1oktgl7brp6mb@4ax.com>...
On 17 May 2004 17:11:00 -0700, (david) wrote:
Why shouldn't the beginning of life be defined the same way we define the
end of life? What is your definition of "a human life"? Don't give me
examples but a specific definition that we can use to test various examples
and determine whether they meet it or not.
A human life? Do you mean human being? I don't need to make up my
own definition about what a human life is - science has proven the
unborn are human beings - so I don't need to come up with a bunch of
baloney definitions to prove my case - science has already proven it
for me. I probably wouldn't be able to come up with a definition that
would be perfect - but here goes - a human being is an organism that
is alive and is human (has the DNA of a human being) - I would also
like to say has two human parents but you'd probably bring up cloning
and then we'd get off the subject.
Tell us, please, where 'science' (whatever you mean by that word
here) has 'proven' that fetuses are human beings. Don't be shy, just
provide a reference from a peer-reviewed journal. If, on the other
hand, you really meant that you interpret your understanding of
'scientific facts' to lead YOU to the conclusion that fetuses are
'human beings', just admit that you are expressing your personal
belief and be done with it.
From Langman's Embryology, - T.W. Sadler 7th edition, ch. 1- "The
development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which
the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to
give rise to a new organism, the zygote."
Gee, you must be a Clinton fan. I guess you have a dictionary in
which 'is' means 'development begins'.
Is that your response to evidence from an embryology textbook? That's
so convincing - note the sarcasm.
Well, you have convinced me of one thing... you ARE a fuckwit.
So you have no evidence? Not a shred to back up your beliefs. No
quotes from embryology textbook or quotes from leading scientists in
the field.
Profanity is the effort of a weak mind to express itself forcibly.
Attacking me personally doesn't refute my case or evidence.
I have many more quotes from embryology textbooks or from experts in
the field if you would like those as well.
Well, if any of them contain the sentence 'A fetus is a human being'
(which was your claim), go ahead and post them.
Hmm. No snappy comeback here? Wasn't I sarcastic enough for you?
In 1981 - the Senate Judiciary Committee held hearing about the
question of when does life begin -
Here are some quotes from various experts in the field -
Selected by the anti-abortion zealots on the committee.
Why can't you find the expert testimony from all the experts that the
Pro-choicers on the committee selected?
"Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the lawmakers:
"To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new
human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion
... it is plain experimental evidence."
This is close to the desired statement, but it is Lejeune making a
statement in a political forum, not in a peer reviewed journal.
Before you huff and puff, look up a few dozen lines where I asked you
from references from peer reviewed journals.
All these statements were taken under oath - they are experts in their
fields -
If they lied under oath - you should start a campaign to put these
individuals in jail for perjury.
Peer reviewed journals don't have experiments trying to prove that the
unborn are human beings because every scientist worth two cents
already knows it - it has already been proven - thats like asking for
peer reviewed journal evidence that African Americans are humans - and
saying that if you can't provide any evidence from peer-reviewed
journals then you can't prove that African-Americans are human.
Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine,
concluded, "I am no more prepared to say that these early stages
represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the
child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty ... is not a human
being."
I am not quite sure what to make of that circumlocution.
Dr. Richard V. Jaynes: "To say that the beginning of human life cannot
be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous."
Hmm. Doesn't come close to saying 'the fetus is a human being'.
Another one for you from Dr. Harold W. Manner, Chairman of the
Department of Biology at Loyola University (Chicago): "When a human
sperm fertilizes a human egg, the result is a human being -- from the
moment of conception. The killing of this human being must be
considered homicide."
In response to the testimony of these experts - the committee found
"Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception
marks the beginning of life of a human being - a being that is alvie
and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement
on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific
writings."
Please provide any evidence to contradict these statements if you have
any - I doubt you will - I've yet to come across a PCer that has a
shred of actual evidence.
You really don't get the point, do you?
So, again you have no evidence, correct? Why do you continue to dodge
the question? Why can't you provide any evidence?
Also, the scientific law of biogenesis states that life comes from
< | | | | | | |
