Sectorgame

aldo wrote:

What about in-vitro fertilization? Surrogate mother transplants?

Do these take place with anything beyond a single fertilized egg (single cell)?

I dunno, truthfully. But see next point:

Or are you saying a single fertilized egg is a person? In which case, is IVF then wrong as it has less than 100% success rate, resulting in the loss of fertilized eggs?

If the embryos are simply discarded, then yes.

AFAIK no definition of consciousness - or of self awareness - defines it as not requiring an ability to react to anything, to form memories, or to recieve information.

If you honestly believe EEGs are that unreliable, presumably you wouldn't use them to determine (brain?) death then?

It depends on whether you're using "consciousness" to mean "sentience" or merely "cognitive capability". EEGs can tell you about which part of the brain is firing, and scientists have made robotic devices that the brain can control. But sentience and self-awareness is not something you can determine with an EEG.

Freedom of speech? Confused

Freedom of will would be key here; although labelling people as nazis (i.e. criminals) for proposing a pro-choice viewpoint would be infringing freedom of speech.

I understood where he was coming from regarding freedom of will, but I seriously don't think having an abortion is an example (good or bad) of freedom of speech. As for freedom of speech itself, he's perfectly free to propose a pro-choice viewpoint just as I'm perfectly free to compare the pro-choice viewpoint to (not label it as) naziism.

Yeah, but I would say that they deserve not to be aborted simply by virtue of the fact that they're human. Regardless of whether they're conscious yet.

The definition of human and human person is a key contentious issue here. Are humans defined by genetic code, by biological structure, or by the capacity to 'think human'? That's fundamental IMO.

Dude, that's what I've been saying from the beginning. It all hinges on the definition of a person.

Basically, the option of last resort is seldom the easiest, and vice versa, so I would assume abortion isn't the last resort for a lot of people.

Which I think is a reason why you are so comfortable to dismiss it; What you maybe have to address here is the seeming contradiction between citing stuff like post-abortive depression, and abortion as being the 'easy' option.

It's comparatively easy. It's not easy itself, but the other two options are significantly harder.

I would note that the Abortion Act 1967 (UK) requires 2 doctors to consent on the basis of;
...

Well the UK is a lot more sensible than the US in this regard then.

I'd note that to base difficulty on any temporal grounds is wrong, as the nature of abortion requires a more rapid process than, say, adoption.

Why? Lots of people prefer immediate results to deferred results. Waiting and being patient is hard.

I would suggest that Grugs' meaning is either that it can be objected to / protested against on fair and honest grounds.

Ok.

I'd note that you're inserting words like 'repugnant' to try and create a strawman here

No, no, no. That was based on the connotation of the word "objectional", which has a pejorative connotation. If he had used a word like "controversial" or even "dubious" I wouldn't have responded that way.

I'd also re-emphasise the whole issue here is whether a pre-24 (for example) week foetus is a conscious, self-aware person.

No, the issue is whether the fetus is a person, period. A person or a judge or a law may specify conscious and self-aware as part of its definition of a person, or he/it may not, but the central issue is what constitutes a legally protected person.

Grug wrote:"Yet." The world of "what ifs". I know what your trying to say, the loss of any partial / full human is morally conflicting. Agreed. But to give full rights to a partial / still developing human and prevent the mother's rights as an already grown up, fully developed human?

Not full rights (children don't have the right to vote, for example), nor even most rights, but only the fundamental right to life.

Again, further result of you never having been faced / witnessed that process take place. It's easy to say it's easy when you havn't experienced it yourself.

Acknowledged. There have been quite a few things I've held opinions on that I've had to revise after additional evidence. I doubt I'd completely switch sides on this, though.

Aldo pretty much nailed that one too.
The space stuff your started to lose me a bit.

My point was simply that all organisms are adapted to their particular environment. Taking them out of that environment can be harmful, but it can also be dealt with artificially (incubators for babies outside the womb, spacesuits for humans in space). Nevertheless removing an organism from its environment doesn't make it less of an organism.

Now I agree they are human. In the sense that it contains our DNA, our cells and our blood etc. Yet I hardly consider a bunch of growing cells an equal equivalent to a fully developed human no more than a bunch of dying or dead skin cells scratched off on the side of a door.

I don't consider them equivalent any more than I consider a toddler equivalent to the President of the United States. Yet I consider all of them persons with the right to live.

I think, correct me if I'm wrong, that your faith constitutes the reasoning behind this. You consider a fertilized egg or a 2 week old embryo the starting of life in the sense of it possessing a soul.

I do. But I also believe that this particular argument - a fetus is a person - is perfectly capable of standing up to scrutiny on its own, without bringing faith-based justification into it. I haven't appealed to God or quoted chapter-and-verse in order to establish that the fetus is a person in this entire thread. (I could if you felt like going down that route, though. )

Now, if we all assumed souls existed and abortion was killing a soul, a human spirit. Then even I may rally behind the no abortion banners.

Maybe I should change my tactics then.

This is just an observation mind, and not intended to be a completely off track attack or something. I'm trying to get at the heart of why you believe abortion to be so wrong. You said yourself that it was your basic moral compass instincts that tell you abortion is wrong iirc.

The point I'm trying to get to is that if you believe the above (that abortion is killing a soul), then at heart that is your prime reasoning. Your searching of science to back the point of view that abortion is wrong, is ultimately driven by this belief. The 'killing' isn't a human body as such, its the soul that is being destroyed to you, the 'life'.
Just an observation. I'm just trying to establish what your "moral compass" is rigged to. If that makes sense.

I believe you can make the case very simply using logic (a fetus is scientifically a person, therefore it is entitled to legal recognition of a person), game theory (we don't know whether a fetus is a person, therefore the safe thing to do is assume it is), or religion (a person is endowed with a soul at conception and it's morally wrong to destroy a soul).

But because your initial post criticized the guy for using religion as the basis for his decision, I haven't used religion as the basis for my argument.

I just fail to see how a group of cells that may one day grow to become a human, gains the rights of a fully developed human person, when at that point in time it is not a person in the sense of a member of society or human being that has atleast a partially developed human brain and body. It's down right mind boggling that a future possibility / human is gaining rights to prevent the mother from terminating a possibility. Hence my above observation \ exploration into your true core belief. (Again I may be wrong.)

I still think that's explainable via a number of reasons. One is the soul as we mentioned above; another is that if it's a person at any point during its life, it must therefore be a person during its entire life, from conception to death. The latter is what I would call a "common sense" approach; not something you can really prove, but not something that you can reasonably take as false. It's the reasoning by which one accepts that 1 + 1 = 2 no matter where or when in the universe you are.

Ultimately because without the soul, what is the point in protecting it?

This is a good argument; it's the same flaw I would confront athiests with. "Okay, so you've proven X is true, from a purely secular basis. You've proven that game theory dictates that Y is the optimal behavior for society in scenario Z. You follow laws because it's beneficial to society that everyone do so. But if there's no God, no objective moral standard, what's the point? Why should this behavior be any better than that behavior? Who cares about what's best for society?"

In other words, even if I prove beyond doubt that the unborn child is a person from the moment of conception to the moment of death, it still carries no teeth without a moral imperative behind it.

If the embryos are simply discarded, then yes.

Ok (I disgaree, but you know why), I presume that also applies to when the fertilised egg-cell is frozen?

It depends on whether you're using "consciousness" to mean "sentience" or merely "cognitive capability". EEGs can tell you about which part of the brain is firing, and scientists have made robotic devices that the brain can control. But sentience and self-awareness is not something you can determine with an EEG.

Firstly, define sentience and self-awareness. I'm defining it as
# endowed with feeling and unstructured consciousness; "the living knew themselves just sentient puppets on God's stage"- T.E.Lawrence
# consciously perceiving; "sentient of the intolerable load"; "a boy so sentient of his surroundings"- W.A.White

Both those require the ability (former) to 'feel' things, i.e. nerve impulses or to consciously act upon them; the latter of course being cognition (the conscious process of knowing or being aware of thoughts or perceptions, including understanding and reasoning). This can be determined via EEG, because the period prior I've been referring to is when the brain is not physically capable of these, and something which is supported by the EEG. What the EEG does, is determine the biological capacity for self-awareness, namely the ability to both receive nerve signals and respond to them.

The point here is not which part of the brain is firing, but which part actually exists to be fired. Once the synapses are wired up, their EEG pattern changes to reflect that. Before that point, the EEG also reflects it.

I understood where he was coming from regarding freedom of will, but I seriously don't think having an abortion is an example (good or bad) of freedom of speech. As for freedom of speech itself, he's perfectly free to propose a pro-choice viewpoint just as I'm perfectly free to compare the pro-choice viewpoint to (not label it as) naziism.

Actually, you were paralleling it to nazi-ism and labelling it explicitly as worse, akin to willfull ignorance of the holocaust IIRC. When you make that type of criticism, it does not seek to directly restrict the ability to speak that opinion, but it does seek to label it in a sense that makes the person far less able to feel free to express it.

Dude, that's what I've been saying from the beginning. It all hinges on the definition of a person. Smile

Exactly. And my opinion here differs, as you know.

It's comparatively easy. It's not easy itself, but the other two options are significantly harder.

In your opinion? Because you've made your mind up for them?

Well the UK is a lot more sensible than the US in this regard then. Razz

Especially in our treatment of abortion & secularity, I've noticed. Just hope it survives this government.......

No, no, no. That was based on the connotation of the word "objectional", which has a pejorative connotation. If he had used a word like "controversial" or even "dubious" I wouldn't have responded that way.

Well, I've never ever heard 'repugnant' used as connotation of objectional.

No, the issue is whether the fetus is a person, period. A person or a judge or a law may specify conscious and self-aware as part of its definition of a person, or he/it may not, but the central issue is what constitutes a legally protected person.

The issue Grug is addressing relates to that. You'll note it's (definition of a person) part of the pro-choice arguement, which is why I re-emphasised it.

My point was simply that all organisms are adapted to their particular environment. Taking them out of that environment can be harmful, but it can also be dealt with artificially (incubators for babies outside the womb, spacesuits for humans in space). Nevertheless removing an organism from its environment doesn't make it less of an organism.

But a foetus isn't adapted for it's environment, the environment is adapted for the foetus. For example, the foetus growth pattern didn't emerge to take advantage of the placenta. What I think it especially wrong is that you'd be implying some form of quasi-dual evolution; that humans evolve twice, once to adapt to the environment within the womb, and once outside.

I do. But I also believe that this particular argument - a fetus is a person - is perfectly capable of standing up to scrutiny on its own, without bringing faith-based justification into it. I haven't appealed to God or quoted chapter-and-verse in order to establish that the fetus is a person in this entire thread. (I could if you felt like going down that route, though. Razz)

Doesn't the bible say something like 'the life is in the blood'? Which would surely imply life after conception.... not that I wish to get into theological matters, because they have no bearing IMO. You know my opinion of the (pre 24 week or so) foetus of a person, in any case, and why.

This is a good argument; it's the same flaw I would confront athiests with. "Okay, so you've proven X is true, from a purely secular basis. You've proven that game theory dictates that Y is the optimal behavior for society in scenario Z. You follow laws because it's beneficial to society that everyone do so. But if there's no God, no objective moral standard, what's the point? Why should this behavior be any better than that behavior? Who cares about what's best for society?"

In other words, even if I prove beyond doubt that the unborn child is a person from the moment of conception to the moment of death, it still carries no teeth without a moral imperative behind it. Smile

That's a rather easy question, though, to answer from a scientific aetheist (or even secularist/agnostic) perspective.

Humans have adapted to co-operative society through evolution, developing culture through sexual competition, and defining morals through the effects of societal benefits. Over thousands upon thousands of years of evolution, we have been selected (through survival and sexual attraction) to co-operate for survival in a hostile world (remembering that genetic changes will spread quickest in a polygamous small group, so evolution will occur quickest with the smaller homo xxx populations during our evolution rather than the increasingly large civilisation groups). And those homo xxx who didn't function within familiar/clan/tribe groups would be cast out, both reducing their chances of survival and of reproduction.

In other words, the 'love thy neighbour' principle applies as much when originating from societal evolution as it does as some instruction by/a God. So human nature cares what's best for society.

It's safe to say, IMO, hyenas don't believe in God, yet they manage to have a rigid pack structure for mutual benefit.

Goober5000 wrote: This is a good argument; it's the same flaw I would confront athiests with. "Okay, so you've proven X is true, from a purely secular basis. You've proven that game theory dictates that Y is the optimal behavior for society in scenario Z. You follow laws because it's beneficial to society that everyone do so. But if there's no God, no objective moral standard, what's the point? Why should this behavior be any better than that behavior? Who cares about what's best for society?"

I disagree with this. Why does someone need to believe in a god to care about the well being of others and society? I live my life how I do, and treat people how I want them to treat me, not because I think that's what god wants. I do it because that's how I would like to be treated and people learn by example. Good behaviour on a large scale is inherantly better than bad behaviour from a secular viewpoint, because everyone suffers under bad behaviour.

Perhaps we should start a spirituality thread.

For the record I'm not purely an atheist, I define myself as agnostic. But that's probably best left for another thread / discussion.

@Top Gun: Yes take responsibility, and in most cases, they do. The baby is born sometimes they drop out of school to try and support it with the grandparents or family stepping to help out. I know a few friends who've done this as well. Yet for the woman who have a higher chance of medical endangerment if they have the child, for rape and incest cases, for the woman who don't have the support or means to be able to have the child and be able to find a way of supporting herself and the child afterwards, abortion should be there for that choice, if it needs to be.

@Goober

Acknowledged. There have been quite a few things I've held opinions on that I've had to revise after additional evidence. I doubt I'd completely switch sides on this, though.

I was quite distraught to see two of my mates get caught up in this situation, and see the emotional impact and stress it placed on the them. Even the impact it had on me. Easy by comparison? Maybe. Easy? Definitly not.

But because your initial post criticized the guy for using religion as the basis for his decision, I haven't used religion as the basis for my argument.

The decision was whether the drug should be allowed into the country on a medical basis of if it meets our safety standards. He was trying to disallow it into the country because he was against abortion, which was not the issue at hand. His job was to deem it safe or unsafe for patients to use. Considering its already beeing widely used all over the world, it was poor form of him to try and stop it on the basis of a belief. Hence my original vigour in defending a secular government.

I still think that's explainable via a number of reasons. One is the soul as we mentioned above; another is that if it's a person at any point during its life, it must therefore be a person during its entire life, from conception to death. The latter is what I would call a "common sense" approach; not something you can really prove, but not something that you can reasonably take as false. It's the reasoning by which one accepts that 1 + 1 = 2 no matter where or when in the universe you are.

That is all a concept of fate though, something that is widely debatable. Should people not have a right to their own belief's and be able to make their own choices based from them?

Something occurs to me - why would the easiest option necessarily be the worst one?

aldo wrote:Something occurs to me - why would the easiest option necessarily be the worst one?

I'm guessing that because somewhat old fashioned moral and social pressures depict that a woman should stick it out for the 6 months and have the child. Then live with a (most likely) mistake for the rest of their lives.

From that sense, it seems kind of snobbish.

Grug wrote:

aldo wrote:Something occurs to me - why would the easiest option necessarily be the worst one?

I'm guessing that because somewhat old fashioned moral and social pressures depict that a woman should stick it out for the 6 months and have the child. Then live with a (most likely) mistake for the rest of their lives.

From that sense, it seems kind of snobbish.

To me it seems that the decision of which is the 'easiest' option has come after deciding what option is 'best', and thus easy is used to denigrate the person taking that option, by implying they are lazy, etc.

aldo wrote:

Grug wrote:

aldo wrote:Something occurs to me - why would the easiest option necessarily be the worst one?

I'm guessing that because somewhat old fashioned moral and social pressures depict that a woman should stick it out for the 6 months and have the child. Then live with a (most likely) mistake for the rest of their lives.

From that sense, it seems kind of snobbish.

To me it seems that the decision of which is the 'easiest' option has come after deciding what option is 'best', and thus easy is used to denigrate the person taking that option, by implying they are lazy, etc.

Kind of what I was saying. It's how upper class citizens would imply the lower class of being inferior because of their status, whereas in reality neither can survive without the other in most cases.

Though in regard to Goober using easy to describe the option of abortion, I guess it could be considered in the terms you described. I place it at the basis that he has not had any direct connection with the process and also possibly from his own social environment. Though without having any idea of what type of environment pressures he lives under I cannot say for certain.

Environmental pressures are often key factors in any individuals decision making process. A good example is how children will often agree with their parents when it comes to political issues. Until later in life when they begin to see and have their own experiences that they can draw from in the decision making process.

But yes, what was my point again?
Erh yeah.

That opinions are influence from one's own experience and environmental pressures. This is why over paid higher class politicians or citizens will find it hard to believe anyone could ever have an abortion, because they have no idea of the life style that generates that situation. It's why I see pro choice over everything. You will never know the exact experiences another person has lived through, and you can never know the exact right and wrong for their situation, as it is exactly that, their situation.

Using the term "baby killing" is a clear ignorance of all the other variables that contribute to the scenario for the sole purpose of defending the so called child which they normally wouldn't give two fucks about. Sometimes it seems as if people just oppose stuff like this for a self moral booster or to promote some belief of their's.

I say fine. But keep it to yourself and those who share your views.

To the few who apply a similar moral high ground across the board in all areas of their life (very rare) I hold some respect for. But at the same time pity them for trying to live in a non perfect world with idealistic views at best.

aldo wrote:

If the embryos are simply discarded, then yes.

Ok (I disgaree, but you know why), I presume that also applies to when the fertilised egg-cell is frozen?

That's a bit weird. If it was thawed later on, I wouldn't have a problem with it. If it was discarded, I would. If it was kept frozen indefinitely, I dunno.

Firstly, define sentience and self-awareness.
...
Both those require the ability (former) to 'feel' things, i.e. nerve impulses or to consciously act upon them; the latter of course being cognition (the conscious process of knowing or being aware of thoughts or perceptions, including understanding and reasoning). This can be determined via EEG, because the period prior I've been referring to is when the brain is not physically capable of these, and something which is supported by the EEG. What the EEG does, is determine the biological capacity for self-awareness, namely the ability to both receive nerve signals and respond to them.

The point here is not which part of the brain is firing, but which part actually exists to be fired. Once the synapses are wired up, their EEG pattern changes to reflect that. Before that point, the EEG also reflects it.

So if the brain can't process anything yet, it can't be sentient. Makes sense.

Actually, you were paralleling it to nazi-ism and labelling it explicitly as worse, akin to willfull ignorance of the holocaust IIRC.

Uh, no. First of all, I'm not ignorant of the holocaust, or I wouldn't have known about the six million figure.

Second of all, there's a significant difference between a label and a comparison. "Abortion advocates are Nazis" is a label. "Abortions have killed more people than Naziism" is a comparison.

When you make that type of criticism, it does not seek to directly restrict the ability to speak that opinion, but it does seek to label it in a sense that makes the person far less able to feel free to express it.

"Feel" doesn't count one way or the other - your freedom to do something is independent of how you feel about it. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me." If a forum troll came on here flinging insults left and right, I can choose to respond in kind or not, whether I feel insulted or threatened or not. How I feel has nothing to do with it.

It's comparatively easy. It's not easy itself, but the other two options are significantly harder.

In your opinion? Because you've made your mind up for them?

Yes, this is my opinion. It's based mainly on something like "the effort to do something is proportional to the time it takes to do it".

My point was simply that all organisms are adapted to their particular environment. Taking them out of that environment can be harmful, but it can also be dealt with artificially (incubators for babies outside the womb, spacesuits for humans in space). Nevertheless removing an organism from its environment doesn't make it less of an organism.

But a foetus isn't adapted for it's environment, the environment is adapted for the foetus. For example, the foetus growth pattern didn't emerge to take advantage of the placenta. What I think it especially wrong is that you'd be implying some form of quasi-dual evolution; that humans evolve twice, once to adapt to the environment within the womb, and once outside.

Ugh... adapted was the wrong word to use there. Replace it with "suited" and I think it communicates what I intended.

Doesn't the bible say something like 'the life is in the blood'?

It does, and that's an interesting point. I'm not sure if that's meant metaphorically (blood keeps an animal alive) or literally (blood literally contains life - i.e. liquid soul ).

Which would surely imply life after conception.... not that I wish to get into theological matters, because they have no bearing IMO. You know my opinion of the (pre 24 week or so) foetus of a person, in any case, and why.

Yeah, but in my opinion the following verse (warning: first Bible verse alert ) is pretty clear-cut here:

"Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." -- Psalm 51:5

Being sinful from conception implies that a soul is present upon conception, IMHO.

That's a rather easy question, though, to answer from a scientific aetheist (or even secularist/agnostic) perspective.
...
In other words, the 'love thy neighbour' principle applies as much when originating from societal evolution as it does as some instruction by/a God. So human nature cares what's best for society.

Yeah, but that still doesn't answer the question why. So humans are naturally geared toward supporting society. So caring about society helps the human race survive. But what's wrong with a person refusing to conform to that? What does he care about his fellow man? What's intrinsically wrong with driving the human race to exinction?

IMHO, without a moral framework, there's no reason to care one way or the other. The what is self-evident; the why isn't.

Taristin wrote:I disagree with this. Why does someone need to believe in a god to care about the well being of others and society? I live my life how I do, and treat people how I want them to treat me, not because I think that's what god wants. I do it because that's how I would like to be treated and people learn by example. Good behaviour on a large scale is inherantly better than bad behaviour from a secular viewpoint, because everyone suffers under bad behaviour.

Not necessarily. Lots of people in history have claimed double standards: "I should be allowed to do whatever I want, and you shouldn't." But what makes this a double standard? There needs to be a higher standard to judge a person's double standard.

Grug wrote:That is all a concept of fate though, something that is widely debatable. Should people not have a right to their own belief's and be able to make their own choices based from them?

I don't think so. I think one would be justified in saying something like "If a human is a person at a single point on the temporal continuum, then by induction, he is a person at all points on the temporal continuum."

aldo wrote:Something occurs to me - why would the easiest option necessarily be the worst one?

It doesn't have to be, but it usually is. See my "time ~ effort" comparison above.

You can generalize this to most situations IMHO. Suppose you see someone changing a tire at the side of the road. Easiest option is to do nothing. It takes a bit more effort to stand by and hold things (such as the hubcap and screws) for him. It takes the most effort to do the whole thing for him. Yet most people would agree that (regardless of the rightness or wrongness of getting involved at all) the latter options are more morally commendable.

Grug wrote:That opinions are influence from one's own experience and environmental pressures. This is why over paid higher class politicians or citizens will find it hard to believe anyone could ever have an abortion, because they have no idea of the life style that generates that situation. It's why I see pro choice over everything. You will never know the exact experiences another person has lived through, and you can never know the exact right and wrong for their situation, as it is exactly that, their situation.

But the rightness or wrongness of something is independent of mitigating factors. Mitigating factors might affect the reward or punishment for an action, but it doesn't change the status of the action itself.

I say fine. But keep it to yourself and those who share your views.

But if we believe babies are being murdered and we do nothing, we're moral hypocrites. We are morally obligated to act according to what we believe.

To the few who apply a similar moral high ground across the board in all areas of their life (very rare) I hold some respect for. But at the same time pity them for trying to live in a non perfect world with idealistic views at best.

Well I have two things to say in response to that. One, what you say is a very good point, and Christians agree with it:

"If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men." -- 1 Corinthians 15:19

However:

"For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all." -- 2 Corinthians 4:17

Not necessarily. Lots of people in history have claimed double standards: "I should be allowed to do whatever I want, and you shouldn't." But what makes this a double standard? There needs to be a higher standard to judge a person's double standard.

Oh, so is that how the church gets away with it?

I disagree again. I don't need the threat of a superior force, fictional or not, to scare me into being good to others. Nor do many of my friends. You use religion as a crutch. And it's an arrogant belief that we need a god to keep us in line.

If that were the case, and faith was all that was needed to keep people civil there'd be no need for prisons. Unless you wish to tell me that prisons are full of atheists alone.

LoL, warning we're mutating into a spirtual discussion.

I don't think so. I think one would be justified in saying something like "If a human is a person at a single point on the temporal continuum, then by induction, he is a person at all points on the temporal continuum."

I dont thinkso ( ). That also is subjective, and to me also another way of looking at fate.

Using that same thesis, one could say that we are all star dust (which we are ), but does that mean we are all balls of hyrdrogen burning reactions?
No.
We are what we are, at that point in time. To act as if otherwise is a ridiculously over abstract way of defining things.

But if we believe babies are being murdered and we do nothing, we're moral hypocrites. We are morally obligated to act according to what we believe.

Sadly that is the same cause behind alot of problems in the world. People thinking or using it as a reasoning to do something else. Aka the invasion of Iraq. First it was about WMD's, then it morphed into "we're helping the oppressed people". It can also be abused by extremists, just look at the way some of warped the Koran into their own means. The Koran is no more violent then the bible yet some have interpreted it as suicide bombings etc.

Things like that, further solidify my agnostic position.


Oh and I'm sorry, but quotes from the bible do nothing for me. I'll take them for your own meaning or way of thinking, but they are in no way evidence to any point except perhaps your own thought process.

Eternal glory is subjective. If that is your own way of thinking then fine. But to use it as a basis to interfere with other peoples lives?
What happened to your rights stop where my rights begin. Where's my right to not have to hear that stuff?
Its the same reason near everyone dislikes religeous door knockers. Tolerance in public, with friends etc sure. When they disturb your private zone?
No. *chases them down the street with a broom*

Edit: 100th post! ^.^

Grug wrote:Using that same thesis, one could say that we are all star dust (which we are ), but does that mean we are all balls of hyrdrogen burning reactions?
No.
We are what we are, at that point in time. To act as if otherwise is a ridiculously over abstract way of defining things.

Technically, while we are made of "star stuff," we're in a completely different chemical form than what first comprised a star. (Indeed, all of the heavier elements we're made of only arose out of nuclear reactions at the end of the lifespans of particularly massive stars.) While the elements may be the same, the chemistry is completely different. If you stretch that to the embryo argument, the developing embryo is made up of the exact same biological molecules as you or me, so it doesn't really hold too well. I know this doesn't even really compare well with the exact statement that Goober made, and at any rate, astronomy and chemistry are topics for another day, so I don't think there's much to say.

Sadly that is the same cause behind alot of problems in the world. People thinking or using it as a reasoning to do something else. Aka the invasion of Iraq. First it was about WMD's, then it morphed into "we're helping the oppressed people". It can also be abused by extremists, just look at the way some of warped the Koran into their own means. The Koran is no more violent then the bible yet some have interpreted it as suicide bombings etc.

Things like that, further solidify my agnostic position.

I won't deny that some problems in the world are caused by people thinking that they are correct. (The relevance to the Iraq situation, as well as WMDs being the "first" reason for the invasion, I'll leave to another topic. We don't need politics on top of everything else. ) However, you can't deny that there are a hell of a lot of problems in the world caused by people knowing that they are in the wrong but going ahead anyway, or by people that look the other way when something wrong is being committed. What I mean is that, just because a certain way of thinking has turned out to be wrong in a certain set of circumstances, doesn't mean that it should be summarily dismissed and never applied. If a small group of people believes that something is right and acts on it, even though many speak against them, there's a chance (and it varies with the situation) that they're doing what is truly right. After all, the number of people who hold that something is correct has no real bearing on its actual truth. (Just look at Snopes for many, many examples. ) As for your agnostic position, I won't deny that a lot of evil has been committed over the years in the false name of belief in God, but you can't deny by the same token that a lot of good has come out of it as well. Anything at all in this world can be abused by someone in some way; that doesn't necessarily mean that the original thing/concept is inherently wrong or bad. Just something to think about.

Eternal glory is subjective. If that is your own way of thinking then fine. But to use it as a basis to interfere with other peoples lives?
What happened to your rights stop where my rights begin. Where's my right to not have to hear that stuff?
Its the same reason near everyone dislikes religeous door knockers. Tolerance in public, with friends etc sure. When they disturb your private zone?
No. *chases them down the street with a broom*

You have the right not to hear anything in this world: walk away, cover your ears, or change the channel. If you're bothered by religious door-knockers, do what I'd do and pretend you're in the bathroom. By the same token, though, people have as much right to say what they want as others have the right not to hear it. Otherwise, the whole concept of free speech is pretty much meaningless. As far as the question of rights themselves goes, that's really what this whole debate has been about from the beginning, the question of whether or not a fetus has any rights at all. Many people state that any woman should have the right to have control over their own body, and we've gone back and forth on that for the past four pages. However, if the fetus truly does (or should have) any sort of rights, no matter how limited, they absolutely must be held up against the rights claimed by the mother. To simply state that the mother's right is paramount without any sort of discussion on the matter ignores the fact that there's another side of the argument.

When Goober said that anyone who believed abortion was wrong would be a "hypocrite" for not acting against it, he was entirely in the right. The "your rights stop where mine begin" is perfectly applicable when we're really talking about you and me, without any outside influences. However, as I've stated above, this isn't the whole case; there's a third set of rights that come into play here, no matter what their magnitude is. Since those rights cannot be defended or argued by the entity that they concern, that argument must be taken up by an outside party. As I think I may have said in the past, it isn't enough to say to someone who's against abortion, "Then just don't have one." That position isn't about personal preference; it's about the concern for those rights and the belief that they hold at least some standing. The position would be akin to a thief saying to someone who is against stealing, "Just don't steal." It isn't about personal beliefs; it's about the violation of the rights of those who are stolen from and to what extent those rights exist. (Note that I'm not trying to cast any judgment or connotations with that example; I just think it fits nicely with this viewpoint.)

One final comment (well, it's more than just a comment ):

Taristin wrote:Oh, so is that how the church gets away with it?

I disagree again. I don't need the threat of a superior force, fictional or not, to scare me into being good to others. Nor do many of my friends. You use religion as a crutch. And it's an arrogant belief that we need a god to keep us in line.

If that were the case, and faith was all that was needed to keep people civil there'd be no need for prisons. Unless you wish to tell me that prisons are full of atheists alone.

Faith isn't about a "threat" or "keeping someone in line" at all; that's missing the entire point. No one's "getting away" with anything; I've certainly had the concept of a "threat" foisted upon me in my own faith experience.

What Goober was saying is that there are ways in which one can create a defense for almost any action if that action exists in a void. You choose to live your life by a certain code, one that treats those around you with respect, simply because that's the way you'd like to be treated in return. Interestingly enough, nearly the same words were used by Christ in the "Golden Rule." Putting that aside, though, I feel that that's a perfectly reasonable, even laudable, way to live one's life; through one's own desire for personal good, one aids others in achieving their own personal goods. However, in the hypothetical void, that's one of an almost infinite number of choices about how to live one's life, and none of them can really claim any sort of "better" standing over another. In that case, who's to say that achieving your own personal good, so long as it doesn't harm other people that much, is any worse? Or indeed, achieving your own personal good with no regard for how much it harms others? It's true that most people would frown upon the former, and almost all at the latter, but why, exactly? They're just as much of a choice as yours, aren't they? Who really has the authority to say which one is the "right" one to live by?

That's where the concept of relativism vs. absolutism really comes into play. While you yourself believe that your choice is the right one, there's really nothing that automatically supports your belief. Like I said, one can have the same belief about a lot of other choices, with no real comparative way of saying which is "better." However, what if there really was a single lifestyle choice that was the "right" one? If your own choice happened to coincide with that choice, wouldn't that lead to the fact that you, too, were in the right? Not because you think it's right, not because the majority thinks it's right, but because it is right. By extension, wouldn't it also lead to a way of being able to see just how "right" everyone else was living? With that backing, with an overlying framework, the words "right" and "wrong" actually take on some concrete meaning, instead of being nebulous, tenuous concepts subject to any individual's interpretation. To me, having that backdrop makes simple logical sense; it provides meaning for one's actions beyond the limited "because I want to," and it prevents that "void" where anyone's opinion could be argued as the correct one, regardless of how someone else felt about it. This has nothing to do with religious precepts; it has to do with the boundaries of human actions, and where those boundaries are drawn.

Just ask yourself this: why do the vast majority of people, across all cultures and throughout most of history, consider a crime like cold-blooded murder to be inherently and horribly "wrong"? Is it simply majority will, a coincidental mass union of choices? Or is there something more? Is there something inherent in taking another life that cuts across all boundaries and stands by itself? A murderer can justify their actions, but without that standing truth, who's to say that their justification isn't valid? Majority opinion doesn't mean much when it's based on nothing at all.

Finally, about the prison comment, since when were human beings ever considered perfect? Is a person with faith somehow incapable of making a mistake? Humans are by nature imperfect; that's just how we are. Everyone makes mistakes, regardless of whether or not they happen to believe in God. Faith by itself doesn't make people civil or keep them out of jail; it's acting on that faith, living it day-by-day, that does that. Atheist or theist, we're all just as capable of making the same mistakes, and we're all able to not make mistakes, as well. The difference lies in how we view those mistakes, and how we feel they relate to the rest of our lives.

Top Gun wrote: Technically, while we are made of "star stuff," we're in a completely different chemical form than what first comprised a star. (Indeed, all of the heavier elements we're made of only arose out of nuclear reactions at the end of the lifespans of particularly massive stars.) While the elements may be the same, the chemistry is completely different. If you stretch that to the embryo argument, the developing embryo is made up of the exact same biological molecules as you or me, so it doesn't really hold too well. I know this doesn't even really compare well with the exact statement that Goober made, and at any rate, astronomy and chemistry are topics for another day, so I don't think there's much to say.

The same biological molecules? As are every other life form on this planet. Each all originated from the same place eventually, each is just an advanced or changed level of energy form. Atoms all consist of the same basic parts, nuclei, protons and electrons etc.
To say that a 1 week old clump of cells is as much a human and deserving of human rights as I am is extremely presumptuous and prophetic. It is something that relys on future development. It's something that rely's on something that has not occured yet. All this to prevent someone who already has developed enough to make their own decisions, and defend those decisions.

Top Gun wrote: I won't deny that some problems in the world are caused by people thinking that they are correct. (The relevance to the Iraq situation, as well as WMDs being the "first" reason for the invasion, I'll leave to another topic. We don't need politics on top of everything else. ) However, you can't deny that there are a hell of a lot of problems in the world caused by people knowing that they are in the wrong but going ahead anyway, or by people that look the other way when something wrong is being committed. What I mean is that, just because a certain way of thinking has turned out to be wrong in a certain set of circumstances, doesn't mean that it should be summarily dismissed and never applied. If a small group of people believes that something is right and acts on it, even though many speak against them, there's a chance (and it varies with the situation) that they're doing what is truly right. After all, the number of people who hold that something is correct has no real bearing on its actual truth. (Just look at Snopes for many, many examples. ) As for your agnostic position, I won't deny that a lot of evil has been committed over the years in the false name of belief in God, but you can't deny by the same token that a lot of good has come out of it as well. Anything at all in this world can be abused by someone in some way; that doesn't necessarily mean that the original thing/concept is inherently wrong or bad. Just something to think about.

People make decisions all the time. Difficult ones pop up from time to time. Life changing ones occuring only a few times in one's life. Sometimes there is no right or wrong decision to make. Decisions for the greater good for example, are not always completely right.
I'm not dismissing any right or wrong. I'm leaving the choice there to be made by the mothers. Rather than charge full front screaming no abortion at all, people should work towards eliminating it by offering safer choices. Offer better options to women, make it more safe to take another option than abortion.
To cut it off completely now would generate far more problems than it would ever solve.

I never said I don't believe in God outright, I just have my own views on spirituality. I've been exposed to Catholic, Christian, and atheist ways all through my life, and have made my choice based on my own observations. The main reason I don't believe in any mainstream religeon is because I entirely dismiss the bible, koran, or whatever texts there are for the simple fact they have been without a doubt been corrupted by humans along the way from a supposeded encounter with 'god'. For all we know they were bedtime storys of some ancient race.

I don't believe in a giant bearded fellow in the clouds, nor a Satan laughing his ass off down below. These are human interpretations of the phyilosophical world. I follow a bit of Einstien's work that he spent the last years of his life working on. Trying to explain god with maths. As well as observations of Quantum physics vs fate. I see the unexplained energies of low level science, the seemingly randomness of quantum physics. These are what I see as something eluding us, something we may never understand. Something possibly spiritual.

You have the right not to hear anything in this world: walk away, cover your ears, or change the channel. If you're bothered by religious door-knockers, do what I'd do and pretend you're in the bathroom. By the same token, though, people have as much right to say what they want as others have the right not to hear it. Otherwise, the whole concept of free speech is pretty much meaningless.

That was intended as a bit of a joke.

As far as the question of rights themselves goes, that's really what this whole debate has been about from the beginning, the question of whether or not a fetus has any rights at all. Many people state that any woman should have the right to have control over their own body, and we've gone back and forth on that for the past four pages. However, if the fetus truly does (or should have) any sort of rights, no matter how limited, they absolutely must be held up against the rights claimed by the mother. To simply state that the mother's right is paramount without any sort of discussion on the matter ignores the fact that there's another side of the argument.

On the contrare. The mother does consider both sides of the argument and decides what is best for herself and her potential baby. This is an often overlooked fact by your side of the fence.

When Goober said that anyone who believed abortion was wrong would be a "hypocrite" for not acting against it, he was entirely in the right. The "your rights stop where mine begin" is perfectly applicable when we're really talking about you and me, without any outside influences. However, as I've stated above, this isn't the whole case; there's a third set of rights that come into play here, no matter what their magnitude is. Since those rights cannot be defended or argued by the entity that they concern, that argument must be taken up by an outside party. As I think I may have said in the past, it isn't enough to say to someone who's against abortion, "Then just don't have one." That position isn't about personal preference; it's about the concern for those rights and the belief that they hold at least some standing. The position would be akin to a thief saying to someone who is against stealing, "Just don't steal." It isn't about personal beliefs; it's about the violation of the rights of those who are stolen from and to what extent those rights exist. (Note that I'm not trying to cast any judgment or connotations with that example; I just think it fits nicely with this viewpoint.)

Again, a bit of a dig.
I was trying to say that stopping someone from doing something just so you can sleep easier at night is arrogant, ignorant of the situations of each individual, and imperialistic. Again, you cannot compare a pair of fully developed humans to that of the situation of a mother and her growing baby. There is no comparison, because there is no other situation akin to it. Defending something that practically doesn't exist yet is completely dismissible by any unbiased 3rd party. How does what someone is doing with their own life interfere or affect your life in anyway. Defending a child that doesn't exist isn't a valid excuse IMO.

Just ask yourself this: why do the vast majority of people, across all cultures and throughout most of history, consider a crime like cold-blooded murder to be inherently and horribly "wrong"? Is it simply majority will, a coincidental mass union of choices? Or is there something more? Is there something inherent in taking another life that cuts across all boundaries and stands by itself? A murderer can justify their actions, but without that standing truth, who's to say that their justification isn't valid? Majority opinion doesn't mean much when it's based on nothing at all.

It's important to note that not all cultures consider killing wrong in every circumstance. Canabals eating people, stoning people to death, capital punishment, self defense. etc.

Murder is considered wrong because it is not mutually beneficial for a community. If murder was considered "ok", the community as a whole would suffer. As aldo said somewhere above, its about people coming together and adapting together to form a mutually beneficial environment.

To say it was God's will when someone does something heroic, steals the recognition from the human. The same when blaming it on satan or 'evil', it is the human to blame. To me its an attempt to self promote religeon and provide some form of evidence to back their preachings. At times this disgusts me, but I learn to tolerate it and accept that its their choice. (even by my reckoning that they could be considered fools)

@Top Gun: Just because Jesus said it doesn't make it any more or less true. It's common sense. You don't need religion to see that murder is inherantly wrong. Just because every civilization the world over has laws prohibitting it isn't reason to claim that it's because God willed it so. Surely anyone with any sense and capacity to think beyond themselves could see that life is most sacred to anyone. That you only have this time on earth as it is, that it takes as long as it does to become self-reliant, and that living is an experience that AFAWK you only get to do once.
I don't see where faith enters into it at all. You believe so because you want to believe so.

Uh, no. First of all, I'm not ignorant of the holocaust, or I wouldn't have known about the six million figure. Razz

I never said you were ignorant of it, I said you were comparing people with my viewpoint to being willfully and complictly ignorant.

Second of all, there's a significant difference between a label and a comparison. "Abortion advocates are Nazis" is a label. "Abortions have killed more people than Naziism" is a comparison.

Not it's not, because the very basis of it is lacking in precise fact; the whole essence of this arguement is about the definition of person and, as plural, 'people'. Something like 'by my definition of people, abortions have killed....' etc is a comparison. A comparison requires the 2 objects to have properties that are comparable; you can't state 'abortions have killed' as a fact when the basis of that (both 'people' and 'killed') is opinion (and if it wasn't opinion, there wouldn't be any debate). At best you need a 'may', or 'my opinion is' there, you can't state it as blind fact.

I'll apologise, though, if I'm getting you and TopGun mixed up in terms of calling people Nazis.

"Feel" doesn't count one way or the other - your freedom to do something is independent of how you feel about it. "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me." If a forum troll came on here flinging insults left and right, I can choose to respond in kind or not, whether I feel insulted or threatened or not. How I feel has nothing to do with it.

You can't compare the freedom of anonymity on the internet with public speaking in a hostile environment. If expressing your opinion runs the risk of societal hostility and all that results (bias, or even violence against you), then it reduces your freedom to do so. Societies which lack freedom of speech don't stop people speaking out by zipping their mouths shut, they do it by persecuting and punishing those who speak. It's not just governments that can create a climate of fear - if you walked into a room full of KKK members, would you feel happy and willing to argue with them about how stupid they were?

Yes, this is my opinion. It's based mainly on something like "the effort to do something is proportional to the time it takes to do it".

And how much personal experience (I'm not talking about various 'xx is better' type propaganda - none of use IMO can claim to truly judge a situation if we don't have some personal experience) do you have of all 3 options to make this decision for other people?

Ugh... adapted was the wrong word to use there. Replace it with "suited" and I think it communicates what I intended.

Except those organisms can survive transferance to another host location and function independently of that location - if you move a frog from pond A to pond B, it doesn't die. We can't move a foetus, though, from womb A to womb B.

Even parasites are independent animals, they just require another as food source; they don't, for example, need another animal to perform their processes of nutrition extraction and waste removal for them. They have, as another example, functioning lungs. Yes, those lungs may be dependent on an environment, but they still work to provide oxygen. An astronaut in a spacesuit, still has functioning lungs, heart, etc; and they're still in their environment in any case.

A foetus, though, relies on the mother - environment if you will - to perform those core bodily functions for it. That's the difference - it does not survive in the environment, but the environment acts and is designed to protect it. So it's not an independent organism.

Yeah, but that still doesn't answer the question why. So humans are naturally geared toward supporting society. So caring about society helps the human race survive. But what's wrong with a person refusing to conform to that? What does he care about his fellow man? What's intrinsically wrong with driving the human race to exinction?

IMHO, without a moral framework, there's no reason to care one way or the other. The what is self-evident; the why isn't.

The why is self evident, and I thought it'd be rather obvious. Kind of thought I'd said it, actually.....

Firstly, humans reinforce 'positive' traits through the evolution of societal positives; it's a combination of defense and attraction mechanism. We defend against actions harmful to the group - 'bad' actions. We cast them as wrong in order to simplify this defense, to proactively prevent negative behaviour. We also have evolved from the 'positive' behaving ancestors, and inherited our parents' (particularly mothers') prefences for those behaviours (sexual selection - i.e. attraction). For example, things like being caring, thoughtful, etc are generally considered positive attributes by the fairer sex.

Secondly, there is no societal reward for 'bad' behaviour; the opposite, in fact. We cast out those who are hurtful, be it from social circles or into prison. Again, a group defense mechanism - someone who is selfish, backstabbing, dishonest etc would be as dangerous in primeval tribes as in your football team. Again, simple mutual benefits here.

Thirdly, it should be pretty evident what is 'wrong with driving the human race to exinction'. Throught human society and evolution, no one person has had the power to drive humanity extinct. A person with this type of negative trait, is bad for the aforementioned mutual defense. They are likely megalomaniacs, selfish, doing stuff like stealing or hoarding in needy times, etc. This is bad for the group, and drives down both that 'bad' individuals' social acceptance (and hence mutual protection) and their sexual attraction (and hence capacity to reproduce). So those traits are likely to be bred out when genetic, and killed off when environmental, during early human development.

That is, the traits least likely to assist group survival would be amongst the first to be bred out of early humanity, particularly in a species that is physically weak and reliant upon co-operation. Even though such traits can re-arise, they would not become dominant due to the pre-existing dominance and advantages of 'good' or moral traits. This applies both in genetic terms, and societal terms; human brains, after all, don't come with so much instinctual behaviour.

But what child is more likely to survive and pass on their morals? The one born in a selfish group who don't co-operate, share resources, and who frequently betray, or the one born in a co-operative group that works together in defense and food gathering? Let's not forget, too, that human newborns and children are incredibly vulnerable and necessitate some form of parental/communal defense and protection (NB: for instinctual 'morals', also look at how herds of waterbuffalo or similar guard the young by forming circles round them).

Essentially, anything bad for the species is intrinsically wrong, because we needed to have that intrinsically wrong concept for group survival when we first began evolving, it quickly became a survival and reproduction advantage for the 'base' humans that are our earliest ancestors, and either genetically or societally it has been reinforced over time. And, as it goes, over the years we formed ways to formally codify it as societies met, grouped and attempted to homogenise. Either to assert control over the populace (cynical view) or to enforce the common good (not cynical view), religions and rites eventually formed, presenting rules on morality.

The only distinction you need to make, to consider it from an aetheistic versus (a) God source of morals, is that the aethestic viewpoint is simply that man invented morals for common defense and mutual benefit, and then proposed God as a source of these morals in order to make them well-known, well-followed, and mass-accepted.